All of Lake City Way Should Have Frequent Bus Service

208 Replies to “All of Lake City Way Should Have Frequent Bus Service”

1. Would you consider an Option 4 that connects the route to Aurora or further west than that (Fremont or Ballard)? Crosstown transit travel is not particularly easy.

   1. There’s already the frequent 62, 44, and 31/32. In the north end Metro has other proposals for connecting Lake City to Aurora. I think we need to keep this simple and urge Metro to provide some kind of Lake City – Roosevelt service, and offer our favorite alternative as an example, but not try to make it do a lot more than that. The most important thing is the minimum segment (Option 1). If Metro creates that now, maybe it can extend it later. The 8 started as an Uptown-Capitol Hill route, and became so popular it was expanded several times (more frequent, weekends, Madison Valley, Mt Baker, and for a while Rainier Beach). The opposite happened with routes like the 17 local, where Metro replaced it with a shuttle to 15th & Leary NW, to prove that segment had low ridership, and later killed it. So either way, a short route proves what the ridership in that corridor is. And if the 76 runs every 15 minutes, it will be more frequent than the 522 (what the 522 was going to be before the driver shortage hindered it), and that would also attract riders. But even a half-hourly route is better than nothing, and will hopefully demonstrate it should be expanded.

      I like all three alternatives and would be satisfied with any of them. But the most important thing to tell Metro is to fill the minimum segment at least.

      1. Yeah LCW should have frequent bus service from Roosevelt to 145th at a minimum.

   2. I could see it, but I think it would make the most sense as part of a bigger restructure. The bus could take over the western tail of the 62 (go through Tangletown/Wallingford/Fremont to downtown). Then the 45 could take over the eastern part of the 45 (and to go Sand Point instead of the UW). There is some merit to that, but we would need more buses going along the main corridor to the UW (at a minimum we would have to shift the 67 over). I could see it being better, but I’m not so sure.

      To Mike’s point, the east-west situation has been improving for a while, and will get better with this restructure. The 145th and 130th corridors will have east-west service, and the proposed 61 looks great. Going from Lake City to Greenwood (on one bus) will make a big difference. Ideally the bus would keep going, but that means doubling service in an area (like Sunset Hill) that probably doesn’t need that much service. There are other options, but those cost money too. I’m trying to keep these ideas relatively low budget, which seems to be the theme with this restructure. I’m OK with that idea as well.

   3. I’m just pondering solutions.

      One pondering thought would be a two-way circle bus route (that lays over at Roosevelt or 148th Link) that generally uses 145th, LCW, Green Lake Blvd and Aurora. That would allow for Aurora transfers at the same stops (no street crossing needed).

      I realize that is way more than a minimum LCW segment which is what this post it mainly advocating for. That’s the more important need. Attaching it to other routes or corridors is great — but the core segment of LCW deserves good service.

2. Should it continue north and jog over to 175th/ Shoreline North Link or 148th/ Shoreline South Link? Should it then connect to Aurora in Shoreline? It seems possible to have Link connectivity at both ends. Admittedly, Stride3 dos connect it to Link but that’s a two seat ride from Lake City.

   1. The 72 continues north and west. I would have the 72 go as far as Shoreline Community College (replacing that part of the proposed 333) but that will be part of a different post. I don’t think it makes much sense to have both the 72 and this bus (what I’m calling the 76) go from 145th to Shoreline Community College — that seems excessive. I think having the 72 go across is a better choice than the 76, simply because it spends most of its time to the east. Imagine you are heading to Shoreline Community College. If you are at the U-Village, or anyplace north, the 72 is your bus (especially if it extends directly to the college). In contrast, with the 76, if you are at Roosevelt, then you could very well just hop on Link and transfer at 148th. I think the farthest north this bus should go is 145th (if it even goes that far).

3. Would it make sense to extend RapidRide J from its current terminus to Lake City? I’m not too familiar with NE Seattle, but it seems like it could be a logical extension assuming decent reliability can be maintained along the entire corridor.

   1. RapidRide J is constrained by using electric trolley wires. It was actually supposed to reach Roosevelt station but that was cut to save money. https://www.theurbanist.org/2020/12/11/sdot-presents-abbreviated-rapidride-j-plan-now-opening-in-2025-or-2026/

      1. Glenn, the zoning capacity right now in Seattle could accommodate tens of thousands of new units. Builders just haven’t built them. Changing the zoning won’t change that. Only market conditions and profit will.

         I do agree that if all the former commuters to downtown Seattle wanted to live there it would require much more housing construction (but not zoning). But they don’t want to live there. Since 1970 they have moved east. The irony is the legislature now wants to upzone these outer SFH zones in East King Co. rather than the areas you list, which were just upzoned a few years ago.

      2. There’s places for rent at Uwajimaya Village for somewhat over $1,500 a month. Close to Westlake rent is closer to $2,900 a month. There’s a small apartment building in Inner Magnolia with 1 bed, 1 bath and $1,700 a month, but it’s by the BNSF yard.

         Sounds to me like there’s plenty of demand. Otherwise prices wouldn’t be that high.

         You’re not going to see office workers migrate to urban living spaces unless it is something they can afford on the wages they are paid.

      3. Mike, Sammamish has 66,500 residents. Issaquah 39,500, and Lake City 36,400. Sammamish has some of highest property values so I am guessing it pays quite a bit in transit taxes, certainly compared to the service it receives.

         I understand equity attempts to provide more service to higher ridership areas and poor areas where transit might be the only transportation choice. But at the same time cities like Issaquah and Sammamish need a basic level of service, and not just to park and rides. The reality is King Co. is a very big county.

         My guess is land use planning is going to increase the areas Metro must serve while Metro’s costs per hour will increase and funding will decline. There are going to be some difficult “equity” decisions ahead, especially for north Seattle areas that do have high ridership but really don’t meet an equity index.

         The distinction will be between those who ride transit because they prefer it who will lose service and those who ride service because they must who will gain service.

         This equity index has been applied to my city for a long time and I think it is coming to more Seattle neighborhoods because Metro will need to cut service.

         Basically on MI we are told buy a car if you want to get around. Other north Seattle neighborhoods might get told the same thing if Metro can afford only so much service, like LCW and Ballard. Ballard might have high transit ridership but that isn’t an equity factor any more, and those residents can afford other modes.

      4. Daniel:

         Last I saw, Only about 2.8% of Metro’s revenue comes from property taxes, while over 50% is from sales taxes. (The search I did just now turned up only 2012 or earlier results, so are hardly relevant now, so I’ll have to work with what I remember.)

         Thus, it makes financial sense for Metro to prioritize service that delivers people to retail, weather that be Ballard, Roosevelt or Southcenter.

         Sammamish is difficult to serve because it’s a tangled mess of streets and spread out over an area the size of Lake City, Shoreline and Aurora Village. Lake City has far fewer people but those people live mostly along a single corridor where much of everything (residential, retail and commercial) are concentrated. As noted in Ross’ writing, it has one of the busiest bus stops in Puget Sound north of the U Distict. The closest thing Sammamish has to that level of transit use is in Redmond.

         Here in Portland, it used to be that anything less than about 11 riders per hour was in threat of getting the ax. Sure, coverage routes that people might use someday are nice, but if that route doesn’t generate any actual riders then why operate it at all?

         Lake City has a proven history of transit demand. People there have come to depend on the resulting level of service. For both equity (Lake City isn’t exactly Orcas Island in income level) and utilization reasons, it’s best if they continue to have good service.

      5. Mike, Sammamish has 66,500 residents. Issaquah 39,500, and Lake City 36,400. Sammamish has some of highest property values so I am guessing it pays quite a bit in transit taxes, certainly compared to the service it receives.

         Yet Lake City is much smaller in physical size. It is also much closer to major destinations (UW in particular, but also downtown Seattle). My first proposal would be a route that is 3.5 miles long — a bus route that long in Sammamish would never leave the city. All of this makes serving areas like Sammamish and Issaquah much more costly than serving Lake City. So not only is ridership smaller, but providing the same level of service is a lot more expensive. I would argue that Sammamish does have a basic level of fixed route service.

         It is possible that Sammamish is subsidizing the county when it comes to transit (if you look at the amount it costs to run the buses through there, versus how much they pay) but it is also likely they are being subsidized in other ways. This is not at all intuitive, and takes a while to explain, but there is plenty of research to support this idea: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/4/16/when-apartment-dwellers-subsidize-suburban-homeowners.

      6. Ross,I agree with you, and your original post which I thought was very very well researched and written.

         I also agree with your previous point that the best equity index is ridership itself, especially when you consider lost ridership during the pandemic because riders’ businesses were closed.
         Also I think ridership and cost per mile should be factors, population density, and income levels. All of these factors would support one of your proposed routes.

         However that is not how equity is being applied. I don’t think Metro or ST made a mistake when omitting service on parts of LCW. In fact, I think that is the future for service in North Seattle because Metro’s costs per hour/mile are going to increase and tax subsidies increase going forward just based on the economy.

         Of course it sounds foolish to try and allocate Sammamish any kind of decent transit service, even to park and rides, or to allocate service to Sammamish commensurate with the amount of taxes it pays toward transit. That is how you get Issaquah Link.

         The point I am trying to make is it is equally foolish to upzone areas like Sammamish and reduce parking minimums on the basis those new residents will use transit, because then you do need to provide real neighborhood transit (someone without a car can’t drive to a park and ride), and those areas are going to get much louder about how much they pay toward Metro or ST express buses that serve Seattle and want commensurate service, which based on cutrent equity guidelines will resemble a return to 40-40-20, or something closer to subarea equity for Metro.

         With a limited and likely declining Metro budget that service will likely come from mostly white poor/working class neighborhoods in N. Seattle that use transit, and maybe some in between like Ballard.

         It is “inconsistent” to argue Sammamish’s land use patterns make serving it with transit expensive or uneconomical while increasing the zoning in that zone, which of course is the whole point of the PSRC’s 2035 and 2050 Vision Statements.

         If the legislature wants more folks living in Sammamish without cars then Metro needs to spend at least the same amount servicing Sammamish as Sammamish pays in taxes toward transit, which with WFH and online shopping now allocates the sales tax to Sammamish and not some downtown which has been a nice revenue boost for cities like MI and Sammamish at the expense of Seattle.

         If planners and transit advocates want everyone to live without a car and ride transit and plan to upzone places like Sammamish to create that then transit needs to serve those areas with reasonable transit, and some areas in N. Seattle are going to have coverage gaps or poor frequency. The transit pie is only so big. Invite new neighborhoods to it and the amount of pie for existing eaters goes down.

         Which is why I argue let sleeping dogs lie. My guess is many transit users on this blog thought upzoning the SFH zones would not affect them. It will especially if not in an equity zone but too poor to demand levels of service commensurate with the transit taxes they pay when farebox recovery on Metro is less than 20% today so the litmus test is how much in general taxes does an area pay toward transit vs. the levels of service they get. It is one thing to give LCW the old equity thumb in the eye and another for Issaquah or Sammamish, especially if we ever get someone to represent us.

         So everything you write about LCW deserving service is correct. And yet it doesn’t. And I think LCW is the top of the iceberg. For 10 years transit advocates have debated where to add service. 2023 we will need to begin discussing where to remove service. Equity only matters if the funding is finite, let alone likely to decline.

      7. “The point I am trying to make is it is equally foolish to upzone areas like Sammamish and reduce parking minimums on the basis those new residents will use transit”

         Nobody is doing that. If the state overrides single-family zoning to 4-plex minimum statewide, Sammamish is far less than 1% of the lots so the effect will be diluted and low in Sammamish. If the state limits the upzone to areas around frequent transit lines, then the boundary won’t go far beyond Marymoor Station and the Issaquah Highlands P&R. In other words, it won’t go far into Sammamish. If the county pursues upzoning, it would probably be targeted to areas around multifamily/commercial zones. If Sammamish itself upzones, well, it wouldn’t, because Sammamans don’t want density.

         The state bills you keep talking about are just bills. There’s no certainty they will pass. Metro isn’t rearranging service for them because they’re just bills. Even if upzoning passes, owners can decline to densify. The owners most willing to densify are in the larger cities — not Sammamish. Even if some Sammamish lots densify, it won’t be many, or even as much as in the larger cities.

         The PSRC’s growth targets are highest in the largest and densest existing cities. So Sammamish’s target is low. Sammamish may have a high nominal population, but that can only be possible if it’s over a huge area. Sammamish’s population is still smaller than Bellevue, Kirkland, Redmond, and Renton — and Kent and Auburn and Seattle.

      8. The point I am trying to make is it is equally foolish to upzone areas like Sammamish and reduce parking minimums on the basis those new residents will use transit

         I think that point is better made on an open thread. Please try and keep this comment thread about this particular subject. Theorizing as to why Metro omitted this part of Lake City is a stretch (I would consider it irrelevant) but discussing upzoning — especially in Sammamish — certainly is off topic. It is definitely related to transit, just not this transit post.

      9. Ross, the reason(s) why Metro chose to omit parts of LCW in its restructure is IMO the key question, because I don’t think this will be a one off.

         You assume a mistake or oversight. I just don’t see planners at an agency like Metro going through a major restructuring overseeing missing service on LCW (when there used to be service) although I could be wrong. I guess you could ask Metro if it was an oversight. I think you have a great deal of transit knowledge, but assume so does an entire group of Metro planners. One thing I have learned as a lawyer is usually if you see something that looks odd so do others, and you are just missing the reason for the oddity, which 80% of the time is money and around 10% incompetence.

         If I am correct that service was eliminated along parts of LCW due to budgets and reallocating service to equity zones. Discussing new routes — even though your post is excellent — may be irrelevant, or at least the most important criteria for any proposed route is cost rather than traditional criteria like ridership. If you have X dollars what can you do for X dollars, which is probably the reality. If you have X dollars.

         I guess the starting point is to ask Metro if it is a mistake.

         Long term other demands on Metro service — including equity or serving new areas — are going to force reallocations of service assuming rising costs and the same or lower subsidies. In that case, without new revenue or taking service from other areas LCW will have gaps and that is just the new political reality. I think we will be repeating this exercise over the next several years designing routes without the funding so understanding where new transit service demands are occurring, including the suburbs despite “truncation”, is probably going to be necessary for it to make any sense.

         If there are not significant increases in Metro revenue service will need to be cut, probably based on things other than ridership. Again, my point is Metro has served a relatively small area of huge King Co. with tax dollars from the entire county, and LCW may not be a mistake and may reflect those other non-Seattle areas demanding more service from the King Co. Board, no matter how good your routing is.

      10. Metro has underestimated lower Lake City Way forever. Neither the 72 nor 372 serve(d) it south of 100th. We had to beg ST for years to get a 522 stop at 85th and get the 522 routed to Roosevelt. You’re speaking as if Metro used to serve Lake City Way between 100th and 75th but is now leaving because of budget cuts and equity. It never served it. Metro apparently thinks lower Lake City Way is a stroad with little on it and little ridership, but the performance of the 522 stops shows otherwise.

   2. The J’s original project was to get it to the U-District. Options were to extend it to 65th or Northgate. SDOT didn’t have money for either of those. I hadn’t heard that trolley wires were the sticking point, just the overall cost of upgrading the streets and stations and buying buses and operating them. We’re a long way from being able to extend it, but if we did, those other options would be the default first choice, and you’d have to argue that Lake City Way should override them.

      There are also other unbuilt lines in Move Seattle and Metro Connects,. that were expected in 2016 but there wasn’t enough funding for them. Those will probably be at the head of the line for future funding, depending on how the city feels about them then. Examples are the 7, 40, 44, 48, and 62.

      1. Lake City is an interesting combination of Seattle politics: as Mike notes LCW is I think the 4th largest designated urban growth center, but as Ross notes LCW is not considered a transit equity zone even though some areas by Woodinville are and LCW has high transit ridership.

         I am not a transit planning expert but I don’t understand how a transit restructure for Link omits large portions of LCW (of course I have never understood how East Link skips Bellevue Way).

         Maybe Metro is keeping something in reserve so it can begin frequent service to all those remote upzoned SFH zones. Maybe the bus stop outside my house on N. Mercer Way that has been covered and dormant since 2009 will suddenly have 10 minute frequencies (at the expense of LCW). Now that is equity.

      2. I’d put it this way DT.

         The NW King County cities pushed Stride3 as a way to have ST pay for improving 145th. The jurisdictional structure (what government should pay to fix 145th?) made that difficult. That seemed to be the veiled intent. It maybe will shave transit travel time to Downtown but it will be negligible. I see this element of Stride3 as transit dollars paying for a desired traffic project.

         The side effect of creating Stride3 is that it eliminates 522 service on LCW that runs today.

      3. I am not a transit planning expert but I don’t understand how a transit restructure for Link omits large portions of LCW.

         You and me both. I’ve talked to some transit planners, and they find the decision baffling as well. Just to put things in perspective, check out the maps that the city made for the Seattle Transportation Plan: https://seattletransportationplan.infocommunity.org/#map. Now select the layer for Transit. Notice that there is a line for Lake City Way (along this very corridor) that is in blue. This is “premium” — the highest priority. Thus the city thinks this corridor is high priority, and yet Metro comes out with a proposal with no service on it at all. Obviously the fact that ST used to handle this corridor plays a big part, but still.

         As for the various Equity Priority Areas, those seem baffling as well. This part of Lake City isn’t considered one, but View Ridge is? Various parts of Haller Lake as well and Fircrest, in Shoreline? It just doesn’t add up. I think the designation of those areas really needs further exploration — I don’t think they make sense. I would like to know how they were drawn — what data and criteria they used.

      4. Ross, I thought you hit the nail on the head a long time ago when it came to transit ridership (and LCW): ridership IS equity. Allocate transit to where the riders are because obviously those are the riders who need transit. Even I get that.

         It is also a cautionary tale about upzoning. I like Nathan’s idea that transit service should precede upzoning, but it won’t because Metro will tell you it doesn’t have the money, and serving remote SFH zones who don’t ride transit but also don’t complain about transit taxes that don’t benefit them is a sleeping dog best left sleeping.

         If Metro is having issues serving LCW that I agree should be served, way before my neighborhood, imagine serving Sammamish with the same (and probably declining in the future) Metro budget.

      5. Seattle’s largest villages are Center City (greater downtown to Roy St, Broadway, S Weller St), the U-District, Northgate, Ballard-Fremont, and Lake City. The first three are “urban centers”, the highest tier, and are expected to have midrise (8-16 story) offices and housing and suitable for a large campus (like Amazon or UW), and maybe some highrises.

         The others two are in the second tier, “hub urban villages”, and are expected to have a medium number of lowrise (7-story) housing and maybe an office building or two. Mount Baker and Westwood Village are also in this category.

         The third tier, “neighborhood urban village”, is smaller, and has a smaller number of lowrise buildings and neighborhood-oriented retail. Beacon Hill is in this category.

         PSRC “urban growth centers” are a different system, and correspond most closely to Seattle’s “urban centers”. Seattle’s three urban growth centers are the same as its urban centers: downtown, U-District, Northgate.Being a PSRC growth center makes it must-serve by Sound Transit, which gives it higher priority for Link, Stride, or ST Express investments.

         Ballard and Lake City are not PSRC growth centers because they fail the county’s criteria. Urban growth centers must have a minimum zoned job capacity, and are expected to intermix housing but that’s not quantified. So Kirkland and Issaquah dutifully zoned the required number of jobs in Totem Lake and northwest Issaquah to make them PSRC growth centers. Lake City and Ballard have a more even balance of jobs and housing, which makes them better urban centers, but means they don’t have enough job capacity to qualify as PSRC urban growth centers. To add the jobs you’d have to reduce the housing, which is unacceptable.

         That’s ridiculous: Lake City is the perfect place for a lot more housing and jobs. It has the space. It has many decaying industrial lots (cough, car dealerships and strip malls) that can be converted to apartments and office buildings and multistory industrial buildings without taking away any single-family house or street parking space. It should be a PSRC urban growth center, and that would have made it higher priority when Lynnwood Link was being designed or for a Stride line. If Lake City and Ballard fail the county’s criteria, then the criteria need to be changed or an exception made for them.

         There’s also another PSRC category, “industrial growth center” or whatever it’s called. That’s what Paine Field and Redmond Tech are. Southern Ballard is now a PSRC industrial growth center, and that may have helped get it into ST3. Although the Link station is north of the industrial area. 14th still has some industrial companies, but the part near the Link station and further north is expected to become more urban somewhat (more housing and retail), under a complicated zoning plan that tapers down as it goes east.

         But since the Ballard station isn’t closer to the industrial district, I assume the PSRC designation was a minor factor if at all. The main factor was that Seattle politicians and the part of the public really wanted Link in Ballard. In Lake City, a few members of the public have championed it but the politicians have mostly ignored the opportunity.

      6. “Maybe Metro is keeping something in reserve so it can begin frequent service to all those remote upzoned SFH zones.”

         Metro always keeps some hours in reserve so it can make adjustments if ridership is different than predicted, but that’s not enough to fill in 15-minute service on all the core routes that lack it. It’s enough to fill in some runs here and there, or maybe add one infrequent route. Metro may be wanting to surprise us with more service than the proposal shows, but it doesn’t want to guarantee it and then look bad if it doesn’t happen. It all depends on the economy, and whether Seattle’s Transit Benefit District is renewed and at what level.

      7. “I don’t understand how a transit restructure for Link omits large portions of LCW”

         It simply means Metro doesn’t prioritize LCW south of 125th because it looks like a lower-density stroad. This has been happening a long time. The U-Link restructure in 2016 deleted the 72, which started around 20th & 145th and ran on 30th to LCW, then like the 372 to 80th & Ravenna Ave, then west on 80th to 15th, south on 15th to Ravenna Blvd, and south on the Ave. That doesn’t cover all of the Lake City-Roosevelt area but it covered almost all of it, and it connected Lake City to the northern U-District. I lived on 56th & University Way and took it to Lake City sometimes.

         The U-Link restructure deleted the 72 but kept the 71 and 73. This created a hole between Lake City and the U-District. The 372 eventually gets to the U-District but in a more time-consuming U shape through U Village, and doesn’t serve the northern U-District, and doesn’t go anywhere near Roosevelt.

         Then people begged ST to add an 85th stop to the 522 to mitigate the loss of the 72. ST was reluctant but finally did. And that stop became relatively well-used.

         All along I and others have been begging Metro or ST to fill in the Lake City-Roosevelt or Lake City-UDistrict gap. We pointed out that Roosevelt would be a good terminus for the 522 when the station opened. ST doesn’t always make forward-thinking decisions but this time it did. So then the corridor was restored, albeit with an express route that serves only 120th and 85th. But two stops are better than zero, and they have the densest walkshed.

         So in round 1 of the Lynnwood Link restructure we asked to keep service in that corridor, but in this round it isn’t there. That shows Metro still doesn’t recognize the value of this area or the connection. Or it does but it puts it lower priority than everything else, and it didn’t have enough service hours for it. We think it’s higher priority than that.

         It’s also part of Lake City getting the short end of the stick in everything. The 522 serves Lake City simply because it’s on the way, and its predecessor the 307 served it. But it’s not in the 522’s primary service area, and North King is paying for only the Lake Forest Park portion of the route. Yet Lake City and 85th have the highest ridership on the route. That should tell Metro and ST that Lake City has high potential. But it’s only tenuously connected to the rest of Seattle.

         There was a 75 milk run that made a U shape from Campus Parkway to Sand Point, Lake City, Northgate, NW 85th Street, 24th Ave NW, and Ballard. That was a long slow route so it made sense to break it up. Metro split it at Northgate into the 75 and 40 during the RapidRide D restructure (ca. 2012). Few people at the time realized how much that would impact Lake City-Ballard or Lake City-Greenwood or Lake City-Aurora trips. Because you’d get to Northgate and then have to wait a while for the 40. In retrospect it might have been better to extend the 40 to Lake City and truncate the 75 there. Sand Point is so much smaller so a 2-seat ride would affect fewer people. And the densest concentration in Sand Point is near 65th, so a 65th route could serve them. (The 62 was created in the U-Link restructure.)

         Currently Lake City has no all-day route to Aurora, Greenwood, or Ballard, except the weekday-only hourly 330, which goes on 155th to Shoreline College. So we wanted to get core route from Lake City to all those areas, and 148th Link station and future 130th. Metro’s round 2 proposal does some of this but not all of it.

      8. Mike, thanks for that informative post.

         Along with housing allocations the GMPC allocates cities job allocations based on the the PSRC’s vision that more people should work near where they live to reduce commuting, traffic congestion and carbon emissions. This was pre-pandemic and WFH, and in response to the failure of the first vision: workers who work in urban centers should move to the urban center to avoid commuting which didn’t happen, which is what happens when the PSRC is stocked with progressive planners who don’t have kids.

         The problem as MI points out is we would love to have more jobs, especially high paying jobs, but we can’t get them. Large companies want huge buildings in urban cores (or did), and a city like MI can’t compete for jobs. Every city is competing for good jobs. Little cities are at a disadvantage. We get fast food and bank branches b

         We have asked the GMPC to include WFH in job totals but so far the GMPC claims those jobs are too speculative and the job targets are not binding but aspirational.

         At some point the PSRC needs to revisit its assumptions in its 2050 Vision Statement that are based on 2018-19 data. The PSRC claims it is waiting for the “new normal” to become permanent although I think it is permanent.

         At the same time we have the legislature — as payback for campaign donations from builders are realtors — going in a totally opposite direction and de-densifying housing zoning and dispersing it without any hope to provide transit to these upzoned areas, which will have the exact opposite effect the PSRC hopes to avoid: more sprawl, more people driving everywhere and less TOD and walkable density.

         Maybe the legislature feels lower traffic congestion due to WFH and EV’s and the decline of urban centers like Seattle make TOD and the PSRC’s vision obsolete.

         But someone needs to acknowledge several housing bills at the legislature are the opposite of regional planning policies since 1991. It is disingenuous for some to argue both visions can co-exist because millions will move to this region when the visions are so diametrically opposed and population growth will be very mild, and the PSRC’s vision is in response to large estimates in future population growth and how to coordinate that.

      9. “workers who work in urban centers should move to the urban center to avoid commuting”

         That’s an ideal that will work for some people but it was never realistic for everybody. Many people in the U-District both live and go to school or work in the district and don’t leave it more than once a month, or if they do leave it, it’s mainly for work. Simultaneously many people from outside the district go to UW or the Ave shops or other retail or visit friends or go to meetings there. That’s how all successful villages work: some people both live and work in it, others just live in it, others just work or shop in it. Ballard and Capitol Hill and First Hill are the same way,

         You can’t expect everybody to both live and work in one urban center. People change jobs, get laid off and have to find another job, get married, get divorced, their spouse works somewhere else, they have kids, their kids move out, etc. And since urban villages are the most expensive places to live because we don’t build enough of them, often people who work in the village don’t make enough money to live in the village, even if they work at Microsoft or Amazon.

      10. The history is a bit more convoluted. (see “original”). The McGinn SDOT wanted a streetcar, roughly SLU Line extended to Roosevelt. The Murray SDOT dropped the streetcar and suggested electric trolleybus, roughly Route 70 extended to Roosevelt and possible Northgate. Then both agencies felt a fiscal crisis during Covid, and it was truncated in the U District. SDOT chose an awkward pathway using the Roosevelt couplet; Eastlake riders would be better off with the current Route 70 pathway as it provides shorter walks to/from the dorms, NE Campus Parkway, bus routes on the Ave and 15th Avenue NE, and Link. It is as if SDOT really wants to show the FTA that they aim for Roosevelt. It went through a few names: Roosevelt BRT and J Line.

      11. It is as if SDOT really wants to show the FTA that they aim for Roosevelt.

          Yes, exactly. It was like they never got over the fact that it won’t go to Roosevelt — at least not for a long time.

      12. “workers who work in urban centers should move to the urban center to avoid commuting”

          Move where? Places near the urban center like Cascade, Queen Anne and Inner Magnolia are zoned against density. Belltown is pretty much built out.

          You can’t move into housing that doesn’t exist.

      13. Daniel, the Metro Council has a form of “sub-area equity” included in its planning metrics. That was the reason for 40-40-20 a couple of decades ago. It didn’t work well then, but Seattle established its TBD to ameliorate the spectacle of empty buses running around Enumclaw while people were being left at stops in Seattle.

          Enumclaw DOES need and deserve “coverage” buses as a “social service”. There are poor people and those who can’t drive in Enumclaw, but most buses should run where people who ride them live and want to go.

          145th to Roosevelt right down the street should be covered by a frequent bus. I guess that it would have to live-loop using 30th as Ross suggests. Add more cross-walks, too.

      14. Thanks Tom, for bringing this thread back around to the original topic. I realize that some of these topics definitely apply to the lack of service along this part of Lake City Way, but it does seem like the discussion has drifted well away from that. Discussing PSRC, for example, seems way off topic. Likewise, upzoning various neighborhoods is really not the problem here. Those sorts of general topics are best discussed on an open thread. Just reference this post as you bring up the idea (e. g. “The recent post about bus service along Lake City Way got me thinking about …”).

      15. Sorry about that Ross. I will pay closer attention to the topic of the thread.

          I thought your post was excellent. Your solutions all seem reasonable to me.

          But I just can’t figure out why the transit agencies or elected officials would do a transit restructure and omit large parts of LCW. I thought Link was going to free up large amounts of Metro funding due to truncation. What happened to that.

          Your post does a good job analyzing different ways to service LCW, and any of them would be fine, and that would be great if Metro or ST were asking for the best way to serve LCW but they are not, which no doubt is frustrating for you. I hope you submit your post to Metro and ST.

          If the decision to not service LCW is financial then I do think zoning actions that will further stretch Metro’s already thin budget are germane. If Merro can’t afford to serve LCW then that tells us in those zones Metro can’t possibly afford to service other more remote and less dense areas.

          Maybe a good topic for a thread is which new Metro routes will be required if certain upzoning bills pass, what those routes will cost, and if Metro’s budget is so tight it can’t serve LCW then what other routes will get cut to provide that additional service, along with LCW.

      16. The elephant in the room is that this new “equity” focus is creating a new 40/40/20 equivalent that is starving Seattle of service hours. The Northgate restructure, if you recall, shipped much of the 41’s service hours down south.

          I had occasion to visit my dog’s babysitter a few weeks ago in the south king area. The land use and streetscape is so awful, it is simply impossible for transit to succeed. Rather than RapidRide, the area needs basic pedestrian improvements, like signalized crosswalks to cross SR-515 at all of the bus stops, sidewalks on arterial streets that don’t have them, and improved street lighting. And then, of course, once you reach Renton Transit Center, all the connecting buses are hourly or half hourly to go anywhere else. This area makes the area around Lake City and 20th look like a walker’s paradise.

      17. The 40-40-20 rule was abolished in 2012 in the grand bargain that replaced it with Metro’s then-new performance metrics and eliminated the Ride Free Area. Now every year Metro looks at the bottom 25% of routes and considers shifting some resources to underserved corridors. (That doesn’t mean coverage routes will always disappear, since a certain percent of hours is dedicated to coverage.)

          In restructures, historically it has kept service hours in existing subareas, so Northeast Seattle hours would stay with Northeast Seattle. But in round 1 of the Lynnwood Link restructure, at least one councilmember (Balducci) wanted to shift the 41’s hours to southeast Seattle or South King County for equity, and said neighborhoods don’t have a right to their service hours. The loss of the 61 proposal came soon after that; it was probably due to declining revenue but it may have been shifting hours too. So it’s unclear now how much Metro is committed to keeping hours in the subarea. I think it’s mostly still doing that but it’s worth pressing Metro on. There’s no subarea that deserves to lose hours. Even the least productive subarea, the Eastside, needs all its existing hours.

      18. I thought Link was going to free up large amounts of Metro funding due to truncation. What happened to that.

          That happened before, but it isn’t happening now — not in King County. There are very few buses that go over the freeway at the ship canal now. Community Transit will save a bunch, but not Metro.

          Ironically, the decision by Sound Transit to replace the 522 with Stride 3 creates a service hole. The old bus used to go along Lake City Way, the new bus doesn’t. It is easy enough to say “well, Metro will cover it”, but there is no money to pay for it. Basically Sound Transit is creating extra costs, not savings.

          All that being said, I think they can afford this and if push comes to shove, they should cut elsewhere. Based on my calculations, this restructure shifts service dollars outside of this part of Seattle. I see no good reason for this shift. Ridership is high, and many of these buses serve plenty of low income people (this bus would run through the heart of Lake City Way, for heaven’s sake). Maybe this was just an oversight. Mistakes happen. Maybe they felt like the 372 was good enough. It isn’t. This is why these proposals go through multiple iterations. The planners aren’t perfect.

      19. Transit “equity” seems to be a pretty fluid concept. As someone who lives in a city with almost no intra-city transit here are some concepts for equity:

          1. Figure out how much a city or area pays in taxes for transit and allocate them that amount of service.

          2. Allocate service based on current ridership although that depends on how good current transit service is. Asdf2 complains about the transit infrastructure in S. King but it may be it is that bad infrastructure that depresses ridership

          3. Based on number of riders during Covid because obviously those persons had no option. But then how do you account for pre-pandemic riders whose offices were closed during the pandemic.

          4. Some kind of split between peak and non-peak ridership.

          5. Based on number subsidized fares, maybe vs. employer provided ORCA cards.

          6. Some kind of “induced demand” model using data like population density, car ownership, and even per capita income to determine where ridership would be highest if more service was allocated there.

          7. Race. I think based on the disparities in Link in north and south Seattle this is a strong argument.

          I am sure there are other ways to define equity. The only one that appears not considered is how much a city or area pays in taxes for transit. As those areas densify — and many are just a long ways away like the Sammamish Plateau — service (at least some coverage as TT noted will have to be shifted there) and more than just to park and rides if the zoning assumes a resident does not own a car.

          Issaquah, North Bend, Snoqualmie and Sammamish have 150,000 residents among them, and probably pay a ton in transit taxes. They are also geographically large. These areas will need more and more transit service and my guess is will demand it claiming “equity” must account for how much an area pays in transit taxes. I suppose race could trump that, but these areas are not going to accept white riders in Ballard or LCW are more equitable than they are.

      20. “Equity” as the agencies and government have been promoting it since 2020 is about social equity: a combination of minorities, lower-income people, and essential workers, which often overlap. There’s also disabled, elderly, and children, which factor in to some extent but haven’t been as visible in routing/frequency decisions. Equity in this sense is the opposite of which areas pay the most taxes.

          “Subarea equity” is a different ST-specific concept, and affects only ST’s routing decisions, so its impacts are a few easy-to-see routes.

          So #1 doesn’t apply to Metro. #2 yes, although it’s complicated because of the widespread underservice.

          #3 is what Metro is explicitly basing equity on. The argument is that areas that didn’t lose ridership during covid (South King County, southeast Seattle) disproportionately have essential workers, lower-income people, and minorities. Those jobs are incompatible with WFH, and essential to keep our stores open, hospitals running, and infrastructure working.

          #4 is de facto happening. 9-5 jobs are disproportionately WFH-compatible, and why the Eastside lost the most ridership. Metro and ST have been reducing extra peak-hour service and shifting the hours to all-day and weekend service, because that’s what has recovered the most. Non-peak workers are disproprtionately lower-income and essential workers — and have gotten the short end of the transit stick — so this dovetails with #3.

          #5 (“Based on number subsidized fares, maybe vs. employer provided ORCA cards.”) More in the sense of ORCALift and other lower-income fares, and now free youth fares. Employer-provided ORCA cards are mostly large companies, where many employees are higher-income and WFH-compatible. That’s the opposite of this kind of equity.

          #6 (“Induced demand”) I’m not sure of the relationship between this and equity.

          #7 (“Race”). This is part of the equity definition.

          Equity emphasis is primarily focused on South King County and southeast Seattle, but the equity maps also have pockets in other areas. Lake City, Broadview, and Northgate (north of the mall) have some equity-emphasis areas. So do the 522 corridor, Crossroads/Overlake, Issaquah, and Snoqualmie.

          Shifting hours from Lake City to southeast Seattle reveals the contradiction between the two models. That’s probably because people tend to see North Seattle as “white” and “higher-income”, a pattern which was more accurate in the 20th century than it is now. The dense low-income apartments at 145th & 30th appear on the equity maps but not in the concept of “South King County and southeast Seattle”. (These apartments are worth looking at, because they’re taller and more numerous than many people might expect in Lake City off the main street.)

          “Issaquah, North Bend, Snoqualmie and Sammamish have 150,000 residents among them, and probably pay a ton in transit taxes.”

          Issaquah is different from the rest. Snoqualmie, North Bend, and Sammamish pay little in transit taxes because they’re so few people: that’s the consequence of low density.

          Issaquah is defined as a regional city and is in the ST district. Snoqualmie and North Bend are rural and outside the ST district. Snoqualmie Ridge is not enough to change the overall nature of the area. Still, Issaquah is smaller than other Eastside cities and more car-oriented, so there’s that too.

      21. Tom T, in response to Daniel:
          Yes, the Metro Council added subarea equity is about 1991. Metro Transit was merged into King County in about 1995; subarea equity continued; it had four financial rules. The service guidelines were adopted in 2011 and the financial rules were deleted. In 2012, simultaneously with the implementation of lines C and D, fare on entry fare collection was implemented (the ride free area was killed). ST has its own subarea rules.

   3. I think it could definitely make sense in the long run. Unfortunately, RapidRide has lots of extra hoops it has to go through, as mentioned. It needs special buses, special bus stops, and as Mike mentioned, in this case it needs wire. It should also come with lots of BAT lanes to ensure good speed and reliability. Those all cost money, and take time.

      But yes, I think it would be great if the J extended to Lake City. I would run it along Roosevelt/12th (and not do a dogleg in the U-District). I think that would be an excellent bus (extremely cost effective and useful).

4. Why is Stride 3 going to 148th?

   If the goal is for it to skip Lake City and get to Link quickly, then go to 185th and provide the Lake City connection using something else. If the goal is faster bus connections for Lake City, then go to 130th.

   Either way, it should continue all the way to 99, so it connects to more than Link for a connection to elsewhere.

   Re: the 76: I like the idea of extending it to the Roosevelt station due to there being not just Link, but a number of bus connections to other locations. It also has at least one grocery store on the way.

   In reality? It probably winds up going to the Green Lake Park and Ride if it goes to Roosevelt Station, since that seems to be the closest spot with decent layover facilities.

   1. Why is Stride 3 going to 148th?

      If the goal is for it to skip Lake City and get to Link quickly, then go to 185th and provide the Lake City connection using something else.

      I think it was definitely designed to give those north of the lake the fastest trip to Link. Going to 185th would take a lot longer. You have to go north and then south again. Mountlake Terrace would be faster than getting to 185th, and almost as fast as getting to 148th. But that would put the vast majority of riders going the wrong direction (the train ride would be longer). If the goal was to create the fastest connection for those on the north side of the lake to Link, then 148th was the right choice. Whether it is the best choice is another matter.

      Either way, it should continue all the way to 99, so it connects to more than Link for a connection to elsewhere.

      Yes, I agree. I think a lot of people feel that way.

      In reality? It probably winds up going to the Green Lake Park and Ride if it goes to Roosevelt Station, since that seems to be the closest spot with decent layover facilities.

      Maybe, but I do like the idea of starting at the Lake City Fred Meyer and then doing a live loop around the station. It really isn’t that far. That could very well save you a little money, while not hurting reliability much at all.

      I do think a live loop around 145th is a more radical idea. It would require running on different pathways than before (or ever, so far as I know). We would probably want to move the 72 as well. Traffic issues come up. As it is, there are traffic issues either way. For example, the north part of Lake City Way only has north bound BAT lanes. Yet the 72 will have to move over to the left lane, leaving those BAT lanes in one of the more congested areas. The city can address that, but it might be better to run northbound on 30th, and move the BAT lanes to the southbound direction. Then again, 30th can be congested northbound as well, and moving the BAT lanes isn’t trivial (there are center islands that would have to be moved as well). It is a complicated thing, and Metro (and the city) may not want to take it on right now.

      On the other hand, a bus that goes from the Lake City Fred Meyer to Green Lake Park and Ride (or goes from the Lake City Fred Meyer and makes a loop around the Roosevelt Station) would be very simple and use existing layovers and bus stops.

   2. The 522 lays over at Greenlake P&R, so that’s not unexpected.

   3. “Either way, it should continue all the way to 99, so it connects to more than Link for a connection to elsewhere.”

      “Yes, I agree. I think a lot of people feel that way.”

      We put that in our feedback. ST wasn’t interested. The original purpose of the 522 was to serve Bothell, Kenmore, and Lake Forest Park. Stride 3 inherited that. 145th is a state highway so ST assumed it would be faster and easier to put transit lanes on. It’s also straight and doesn’t go up a big hill. It may serve stops south of Ballenger Way that an 185th routing wouldn’t.

      So ST sent Stride to 145th. Then it moved the station north three blocks so the bus has to turn to get to it. That makes it problematic to continue west, because it would have to backtrack. But ST thinks Northshore people don’t care about getting to Aurora, they just care about getting to downtown and the U-District.

      1. Metro could certainly concoct a route that serves 145th both east and west of the station, without detouring to it. Of course, lots of riders would then complain that is a major stop, and we’d have lots of passengers navigating the wheel of death on 145th just south of the station.

         Or have a stop on 145th next to a south walking path to the station, going west, and doing the station detour going east. Car drivers will probably not be happy with that.

5. I attended Metro’s open house this week about the Lynnwood Link restructure. Metro made clear that they don’t have any additional funding for this restructure, so it has to be revenue neutral. With UW Link and Northgate Link, Metro had workhorse routes like the 71/72/73 and 41 whose hours could be deployed to new routes. But Metro doesn’t really run any workhorse routes to Shoreline/Mountlake Terrace/Lynnwood, so a new frequent bus will need to be taken away from another proposed route.

   With that said, I think there’s definitely value in serving the full LCW corridor and the lack of any service along LCW south of 95th is a problem. The problem is that if you add a frequent “76” bus from Lake City to Roosevelt, what other route gets reduced? I would imagine that Metro would reduce either the 61 or the 72 since those also provide service along LCW. Would it be better to have the 61 and 72 that each run every 15 minutes? Or would it be better to have the 61 and 72 and 76, but now each bus only runs every 22 minutes? Along northern LCW itself, that change is neutral. But if you’re trying to get to a local destination along any of those routes, it would be a net reduction in service.

   1. We pushed to get the 61 added, but if we have to choose between the 61 and the 76, maybe the 76 is higher priority?

      But that’s where it gets complicated. Without the 61 there’s no service at all to Northgate

      1. I don’t think it needs to come down to those type of choices. Simply getting rid of the 324 would likely pay for option 1 (even though it would run twice as often). There are plenty of other places where we could save money, as I wrote below.

         More to the point, there are a lot of savings that come from this proposal (like the elimination of the 73). This seems like it pushes service from areas of high ridership (inside Seattle) to other parts of the county. I see no reason why it can’t be pushed back.

   2. I’m not convinced this is revenue neutral. Not for the area, and certainly not for Seattle. The 61 replaces the 20 — that saves money. The 72 is much shorter than the 372 — that saves money. The 73 is gone (ditto). The 75 from the UW to Lake City runs less often. The 46 runs less often than the 345/346 through Haller Lake. The 65 is longer, but not that much longer than the part of the 75 that went from Pinehurst to Northgate (that is gone). Overall, just for Metro service in Seattle, this looks like a reduction.

      If we need to make cuts, I can see several places:

      1) Get rid of the 324. Either replace it with an eastern extension of the proposed 334 (which takes over the eastern part of the 331) or nothing.

      2) Extend the 72 to Shoreline Community College and run the 333 less often. That is the only part of the 333 that can possibly justify frequent service. Existing numbers on most of that part of the 331 are extremely low. The only section that has good numbers are from Aurora Village to Shoreline Community College. That trip can be done with a transfer. The E runs every 7.5 minutes. Take the E down Aurora and then transfer to the crossing 72.

      3) Straighten out the routes. Turning takes time (unless the bus is at a stop sign).

      4) Avoid freeway-based arterials (like 175th and 145th). Existing ridership close to these streets is poor, and the buses spend more time stuck in traffic than they do picking up people. A bus like the 346 didn’t pick up a ton of riders, but it ran fast. Many of these routes will do neither.

      4) The 46 doesn’t need to overlap service on Aurora and 130th. That is really wasteful. It doesn’t provide any coverage, while taking extra time to get wherever it is trying to go.

      5) We don’t need a coverage bus for 30th; it is close enough to Lake City Way. We really don’t need to run a bus on 150th, either. The 336 could just go straight to the station (to the delight of many of the riders on 5th).

      6) Don’t run a bus — let alone a frequent bus — from Mountlake Terrace to Aurora Village. There are very few riders on these buses, and most of them are in Snohomish County (which will also be served via Metro buses anyway).

      Some of these might be harsh, and we might not need to do all of them, especially if we can speed up the buses by avoiding turns and areas of congestion. We probably don’t need to make many to pay for the cheapest option here (number one) simply because it is a very short, very fast bus.

      I feel like the Seattle routes got shortchanged, while the north-end routes are too much of a mishmash. As I see it, there are few basic guidelines for this part of the county (or anyplace similar):

      1) Infrequent routes (i. e. the green routes on the map) should be coverage oriented. They should rarely, if ever, overlap frequent routes. Of course they should connect to them, but they shouldn’t spend significant time overlapping them. The southern part of the 324 (from Lake City to Ballinger Way) adds nothing in terms of coverage, and is simply redundant.

      2) Buses should avoid freeway-oriented east-west corridors, and use the other routes instead. In the north end, that means sticking to 130th, 155th and 185th.

      3) Avoid turns. This is true in general, but especially true of coverage buses. If a bus goes straight, it can “cover” a huge area very quickly if it just keeps going straight. Ridership per service hour is a common metric, and applying the same concept to coverage (coverage per service hour) is a good idea. For example, the coverage part of the 75 (roughly Sand Point to Lake City) is a very quick trip for the bus, as it never stops for stop lights or stop signs. The coverage per service hour is great. The 46 looks like it will be the opposite. Turns at traffic lights are especially problematic, since the traffic lights generally allocate more signal time for vehicles going straight.

      Much of this restructure seems to ignore these basic guidelines in an effort to achieve some of the goals on this list. Many of these goals are laudable. I applaud the fact that Metro is finally adding a lot of east-west service. But that doesn’t mean that a bus — especially an infrequent one — should run on 175th or 145th. That won’t be a good connection (because of the traffic an infrequency) and there are much better ways to achieve coverage (such as going north-south along the fast corridors). Other decisions — like ramping up frequency where there are very few riders, or making several turns while also overlapping a much more frequent route — are just a bad ideas.

      I don’t want to imply that this whole thing is a mess. There are a lot of good ideas here. Restructures are never easy. But this is just the first cut, and I think they can do better.

      1. The second Item 3 above seems very relevant, considering the pretzel nature of some of the proposed routes.

         The Husky Stadium to Aurora Village route (373?) spent an awful lot of time waiting to turn. It got deleted when Northgate Link opened.

         As for item 6), it should be noted that there is virtually nothing along the proposed 333 between Aurora Village and Montlake Transit Center. 205th is too difficult to cross on foot for bus stops, and then it’s freeway entrances.

         Something like an Edmonds-Aurora Village – Montlake – Lake City might be justified, but that gets into county line issues.

      2. it should be noted that there is virtually nothing along the proposed 333 between Aurora Village and Montlake Transit Center. 205th is too difficult to cross on foot for bus stops, and then it’s freeway entrances.

         If you look at the data, there is basically no ridership along 205th. There is some in Snohomish County, but still very little, and that is covered with another bus. There is a bit more from Aurora Village to Mountlake Terrace, but still not a huge amount. Those riders can take a fast, frequent two-seat ride using Swift Blue and Link or a one-seat ride using the 130. It is also possible that a lot of those riders are merely using that bus stop as a transfer point for Swift. For example, Ballinger Way to Aurora Village to Edmonds Community College. Transferring to the 333 wouldn’t even save them a transfer.

         As for Community Transit, they are largely working independently here. From what I can tell, there is no cooperation between the agencies. They don’t expect Metro to pick up the slack anywhere (or vice-versa). Right now they run the peak-only 416 along that corridor. They are no longer covering it, presumably because of poor ridership. Even during peak, very few people ride the bus there.

         Unfortunately, there are plenty of places in the county where we don’t have coverage. Some riders have to walk a really long distance for service. I think coverage bus service has its place, but even if that is the goal, running a bus that direction is not a great way to achieve it. This plan, for example, doesn’t serve Hillwood (east of Echo Lake) and creates a coverage gap along Meridian between 130th and 145th. Way more riders take buses serving those areas than along 205th.

      3. Would ST be able to help fund Link feeder buses that Metro runs, or would that require a change to their enabling legislation?

      4. ST has heretofore funded only capital costs for other agencies’ routes, not operations.

         ST may be able to argue that a certain Metro route is equivalent to ST Express, and that it makes more sense to add runs to that route than to create another identical route alongside it.

      5. Mike Orr: ST has funded local service when their capital projects disrupted service. During the Mercer Island garage construction, ST funded an intra MI shuttle. During the NE 128th Street center access project, access at Kingsgate with disrupted and ST funded a shuttle between the lot and BTC.

      6. “Mike Orr: ST has funded local service when their capital projects disrupted service. During the Mercer Island garage construction, ST funded an intra MI shuttle. During the NE 128th Street center access project, access at Kingsgate with disrupted and ST funded a shuttle between the lot and BTC.”

         Eddie, I don’t remember this on MI. The park and ride was built by Metro and then purchased (really granted) to ST. MI had a chance at one point to reserve or purchase all/part of the park and ride but did not, but at the time (like now) the park and ride did not have the use it did right before the pandemic. Metro provided the 201 that circled the perimeter of the Island but ridership was low because it was slow and the steep driveways made it hard to get to The Mercers to catch the bus and so it was just easier to drive to the park and ride.

         Even during the closure of the S. Bellevue 500 stall park and ride I don’t remember ST providing additional service.

         Today the Island has the 204 that runs along the ICW spine from south to north. I don’t see much ridership on it, in part because there is a lot less commuting and in part because there is plenty of space in the park and ride today, which forever has been the source of MI’s commuting problems, and even led to ST to agree to match $4.5 million in the settlement agreement for a MI only parking garage and in part led to the new 1500 stall S. Bellevue Park and Ride. Why drive to a small park and ride on the south end of the Island to wait for the 204 to go to the park and ride on the north end to catch a bus when you can just drive to the north end park and ride?

         For good and bad eastsiders love park and rides, and hate transfers from transit to transit. So if commuting ever returns — especially east to west which today looks unlikely — the first thing to fill will be park and rides. One seat buses from popular Issaquah park and rides to downtown Bellevue (554) will be popular, and I think the 630 from MI to First Hill will be popular with Islanders (it is now because these folks can’t work from home) and other eastsiders who will drive to the MI park and ride rather than take a bus to S. Bellevue to catch East Link to transfer in downtown Seattle to get to First Hill.

         One irony of the discussions about the 322 is some get excited because those First Hill workers don’t want a four-seat ride including park and ride whereas MI (and eastside) First Hill workers don’t want a two-seat ride (third if the park and ride is included plus East Link plus transit to First Hill), if it includes a transfer in downtown Seattle.

         What that tells you is it isn’t the third or fourth seat that First Hill workers from the Kenmore area object to, it is the second seat, and a transfer in downtown Seattle. So they will do whatever they can to avoid that, whether it is having local governments like MI subsidize the 630 or putting pressure on their major employers to put pressure on the powers that be that they keep their one seat ride on the 322, even at the expense of LCW, and the powers that be agreed. Equity has many faces, including political power.

      7. Aren’t the 545 in Redmond, the 550 in Bellevue, and the 554 on Rainier/Dearborn basically providing some limited local service? Certainly for the 545 and the 550, if ST weren’t providing that service, Metro would have to provide something of its own.

      8. 2) Seems like the 333 is a very useful route for riders along Shoreline Aurora to get a 1-seat ride to Link. It’s not just a Shoreline CC feeder. The 331 isn’t a good comp – 331 never had a Link station to anchor ridership. If anything, anemic ridership on the 331 perhaps suggests how Shoreline CC is overstated as a transit destination by this blog (not sure I agree with this take(

         3) “Straighten out the routes” – right, which is why the more important routes – 72, S3 – are straight shots to Link, but the 333 can wander a bit to cover Shoreline CC and deal with a quirky street grid in Shoreline.

      9. Daniel,
         The ST expansion of the MI park and ride reopened in 2008. See: https://www.soundtransit.org/get-to-know-us/news-events/news-releases/sound-transit-partners-dedicate-new-mercer-island-park

6. “Maybe the legislature feels lower traffic congestion due to WFH and EV’s and the decline of urban centers like Seattle make TOD and the PSRC’s vision obsolete. But someone needs to acknowledge several housing bills at the legislature are the opposite of regional planning policies since 1991.”

   You mentioned this before. What are you talking about? Do you mean the proposal to raise all single-family zones to 2/4-plexes or such? That’s not abandoning urban centers or villages; it’s just loosening things a bit.

   Vancouver has what this would look like, it doesn’t mean Vancouver doesn’t have any dense neighborhoods or that there’s no differentiation between the neighborhoods. Vancouver has dense urban areas and it also has low-density neighborhoods. The low-density neighborhoods have a mixture of single-family houses, houses with ADUs, duplexes, small 4-8 unit apartment buildings, and probably townhouses somewhere. Kitsilano is one such neighborhood and it’s a popular place to live.

   The thing is, while this does provide some more housing, it can’t provide a lot more. It can’t solve a city’s entire housing needs. You need multifamily areas too. Or a city that’s mostly multifamily like Chicago.

   1. Vancouver City is 1/3 the size of Seattle and has a population about 100,000 less. All of Greater Vancouver is 1100 sq miles which is half of King Co. alone and less than East King Co.

      If land is basically unlimited (say the three counties or just King Co.) and population pretty limited you can do one of two things:

      1. Try to condense new housing in walkable TOD which means near town centers and existing transit to create some retail density and urbanism even if mild like Totem Lake. This is the approach the PSRC has favored over the last 30 years which is reflected in our zoning. Or

      2. Double down on the original zoning and disperse the housing and any future population growth throughout the counties by upzoning those areas, although my guess is most new construction will be SFH in those outer areas because the available land in nearly limitless and TOD will be anemic because there won’t be the population to create retail vibrancy. This is the approach builders and realtors favor.

      There just isn’t the population for both based on the geographic area, and all indications are our regional population growth will be very mild. Either you build walls to condense the water to create density (depth) or you let it disperse on the surface.

      If you go with option 2 the main objection those cities have is reducing parking minimums because they have ZERO transit today, they know their transit agencies don’t have the funding to serve them, they will be at the bottom of the transit equity list, and so new residents will need cars to go anywhere and places to park those cars other than on streets that have no sidewalks and narrow streets.

      It is the difference between Manhattan that had artificial zoning barriers (walls) because it is an island and cities like LA, Phoenix, Dallas and Atlanta that do sprawled because that is the natural land use default unless their are artificial zoning boundaries. TOD is an artificial zoning and living paradigm, and sprawl is the natural tendency for cities that allow let alone incentivize it. It is why urbanism is so bad in this region.

   2. What is the state proposing that makes you think it’s abandoning growth centers and going back to houses at the edges?

      1. Mike, you upzone where you want growth and you downzone or at least not upzone where you don’t want growth. It is that simple. That is pretty much zoning 101. Zoning can’t guarantee construction will occur in a zone but it can guarantee it won’t.

         HB 1110 upzones every SFH zone and 1133 (DADU’s) upzones every rural lot which is why environmentalists oppose it and the GMHB (Growth Management Hearings Board) upheld the restriction under the GMA.

         Progressives and even some urbanists used to be environmentalists but then the builders showed up with the campaign donations. But forget about the environment. You are an urbanist. You have travelled the world. Aren’t you embarrassed by what counts as “urbanism” in this pretty affluent area. It is like class warefarists like The Urbanist hijacked urbanism because its editor can’t afford to live in Wallingford, which I have learned is the Medina or holy grail for urbanists.

         I would just like one decent urban area in these 6500 sq miles in a real downtown that is not U Village or Bellevue Way, But if everyone lives in Sammamish that ain’t going to happen.

      2. Upzoning single-family areas doesn’t contradict the growth centers; it complements them. We need both, so that people can have a wider choice of units, we can get more units built than can fit in the multiamily areas, and so single-family areas are taking their share of the population growth.

         Bill 1133 is unrelated so it must be the wrong bill. What rural lots do you mean? What does it zone them to? Does it leave the urban growth boundary as is or expand it?

7. I think the Lake City bus should go to 145th to connect with Stride. Needing to ride three buses to reach Kenmore or Bothell along a single arterial street, along a trip that, today, is just one bus, seems awful. A two seat ride, one can live with if it gets north enders to Link faster, but it shouldn’t be three.

   I don’t think it’s necessary to continue the bus southward to the U district given that so many other buses plus Link so this; just end the route at whatever layover point near Roosevelt station is convenient, probably green lake park and ride.

   So, I’m liking option 2.

   1. I see advantages and disadvantages to all three options. I’m partial to number two as well, but my big reservation is about how different it is. It means taking a left onto 30th from Lake City Way (unless the bus went counter-clockwise). Either way, I don’t think the bus has ever done that. Fundamentally, it doesn’t look difficult (no more difficult than turning on 145th) but it is different. There are unknown traffic issues. There would be a few new bus stops. It would not bother me in the least if they simply went with the cheapest option (1).

      Needing to ride three buses to reach Kenmore or Bothell along a single arterial street, along a trip that, today, is just one bus, seems awful.

      Good point. To be fair, there probably aren’t that many that would be hurt by this, since the 372 picks up some of those riders (making it a two-seat ride instead of three). The 522 should stop more often along Lake City Way, but doesn’t. The only stop between Northgate Way and the Roosevelt Station is the aforementioned stop at 20th & 85th. That picks up a fair number of riders going north (about 80 before the pandemic, and they ran it more often) so it is reasonable that some of those riders were heading beyond the Fred Meyer. Still, I don’t think those numbers are huge. There are other ways to reduce 3-seat rides to Kenmore. For example, a 348 that goes to the UW eliminates the 3-seat ride from Maple Leaf as well as well as the stretch along Roosevelt between the station and Lake City Way. To me, the biggest argument for the second option is that it double up frequency along a key stretch — 145th to the heart of Lake City. Doubling up effective headways there makes the connection between Lake City and places like Kenmore a lot better. You still have to transfer, but it isn’t that bad.

      1. The #72 did make a left turn onto 30th Ave NE from Lake City Way when it first started. It would continue north to NE 145th and a right turn to 37th Ave NE and another right to its terminal that was just south of NE 145th.

         This was a bad place for a terminal as there was just enough room for one bus and when the route got articulated buses they could barely fit without sticking into NE 145th.

         The terminal was moved on 37th Ave NE to just south of NE 137th. From NE 145th a right onto Lake City Way to NE 135th. It would turn right from Lake City Way onto NE 135th and then right on 37th Ave NE to its terminal.

      2. I need to correct the post I made concerning the # 72 turning of Lake City Way onto 30th Ave NE.

         In that post I said it turned right from NE 145th to 37th Ave NE.

         That should be 32nd Ave NE. The same when the terminal was moved south and that also was on 32nd Ave NE.

      3. I remember the 72 served 30th north of Lake City Way, but I don’t remember exactly how it turned or how it turned around.

         I also knew some people who lived in apartment at 145th around 20th, and I thought the 71/72/73X all converged and laid over there. Some of them did at least.

      4. I think only 72 and 73 did – 71 was laying over at 35th and 80th or 85th, somewhere around there. Where the old QFC was. I’ve caught it from up there a few times after going for long walks in the area or going to the Wedgwood post office.

      5. The # 73 turned right from 15th Ave NE onto NE 145th and then turned right on 20th Ave NE to NE 135th, make a right to 19th Ave NE and another right to its terminal. From there it started its trip to NE 137th, right turn to 20th Ave NE and made a left back up to NE 145th and another left to 15th Ave NE and then south on 15th Ave NE.

      6. IIRC the 71 laid over at NE 85th St & 38th Ave NE; I believe that’s the pad for the bus stop still next to the sidewalk: https://goo.gl/maps/91emgh2Xwp4pFbtr9

         Even when it was running with 60′ coaches, it didn’t run often enough to need space for more than one bus.

         The 71 ran on 40th so northbound must have turned to 35th on 80th or 82nd (can’t remember which) to get turned around on 85th.

      7. The terminal for the # 71 was on NE 85th just east of 35th Ave NE next to the QFC parking lot. The zone is still there.

         To get to the terminal it turned right of NE 85th onto 38th Ave NE to NE 87th, left turn to 35th Ave NE with another left to NE85th and left to its terminal.

         The problem was the left from NE 87th waiting for opening in the traffic to make the turn.

      8. per Pittman, yes the history of routes 71, 72, and 73 is tangled; note they had also had 5th and Cherry variants (e.g., routes 74, 76, 77, 79) and DSST variants and different tails. In fall 1998, Route 25 was pulled from Lake City; it had served Cedar Park; it was very unreliable on Montlake Boulevard NE. Route 65 served 30th Avenue NE; Route 72 laid near Fred Meyer. But SDOT added a left turn pocket on 30th Avenue NE at NE 125th Street, forcing Route 65 to an awkward deviation past the library. Over time, the Lake City layover of Route 65 was lost and it was extended to Jackson Park. Yes, Route 73 once had a long tail using 20th Avenue NE. Route 73 also had a turnback variant laying near the Green Lake lot. Route 73 once had a turnback variant laying near NE 85th Street. Route 72 was absorbed by Route 372.

   2. It is a network question. There are several potential answers. ST Route 522 will not serve Lake City; Northshore riders will want that connection. P2 Route 324 is one candidate answer; there could be others. RossB points out the hole on SR-522; the P2 text discusses the hole in the Route 322 text. There are several possible answers; the P2 answer is walking. The NE 130th Street Link is a great opportunity. Connecting Lake City and Bitter Lake via the station would be great; some candidate routes would connect with Northshore; some with NE Seattle. P2 Route 72 connects Lake City with South Shoreline.

      We should not dwell too much any longer on the Link I-5 alignment, the Link station sites, or the Stride alignment. Those are cast.

8. This is one the reasons I sold my house in Lake City. It was clear ST and metro were treating Lake City as an afterthought.

   Link should have been 2 horns rather than a spine , with a split at roosevelt with one line going up LCW with a center running train elevated through Lake City and eventually the northshorel,. The other going up levated on Aurora.

   It was have vastly cheaper and better ridership than dead-end Ballard, with an expensive crossing, and low density desert beyond 65th, so nothing to really serve.

   Ballard to UW eventually, but interbay should be a rapid ride at best.

   1. For the record, RapidRide D is (still) quite busy through Interbay.

9. What would you think of your proposed route using 20th between Lake City Way and 65th? It’s not a particularly major arterial through a single-family area, and it might not be able to support a bus (physically or ridership-wise), but it would make it a bit less redundant with the 67 between 75th and 65th. (I went with 20th instead of 15th because 12th cuts down on the walk from the 67 for northbound travelers.)

   1. I thought about that, way back when. I think I had a dogleg as a way to avoid some of the congestion. But it is clear that Metro is not worried about traffic issues. All the buses stay on Lake City Way, with the exception of the northbound 73 (which takes a right on 80th and a left on 15th to avoid having to take a left off of Lake City Way). SDOT has also prioritized the Lake City Way corridor for bus travel. Hopefully it will be faster in the future (and most of the day it is very fast).

      From a coverage standpoint, I don’t think it would be worth it. You do minimize the walking for some people, but at the expense of others. There are a fair number of people in the Pagliacci Pizza area (Lake City Way and 15th). They would have to walk over to Roosevelt, which is not that close or nice a walk. You don’t add much coverage south of there, as the 79 runs on 75th. You would likely reduce ridership, as 20th is pretty much all single family homes until you get to 65th. It would also probably be slower.

      I don’t see doubling up service on Roosevelt Avenue as being a bad thing. Quite the opposite. I would try and time the buses so that you double the frequency along Roosevelt Avenue (a fairly dense corridor) since both buses should have the same frequency. Sometimes people just want to travel the corridor; by consolidating service, you minimize wait time for those trips. For example, from 65th to the Safeway up on 73rd. Right now I’m sure there are people who take the 73 or 67, whichever comes first. Generally speaking, consolidation is a good thing — I’m happy that Metro moved the 73 over from 15th to Roosevelt.

      I think it would be different if I saw this as a coverage bus, but I don’t. I think this bus (in any form) would get a lot of riders. I think overall the 79 covers the area just fine.

10. Having Ross’s 76 just go from Roosevelt Station to 125th or so seems too short to fully draw the ridership within that corridor.

    Metro’s (Stage 2) proposed 324 just goes between 125th-ish to UW Bothell, which will probably stunt the ridership on that route, too.

    I would suggest continuing this 324 (but call it 322) down to Roosevelt Station. The sum of Ross76 + proposed324 is much stronger than the parts.

    Note that 324 is only proposed to be half-hourly all day.

    .

    Here are some places I’d cut, perhaps regardless of the LCW debate:

    1. Eliminate current route 67, for which Metro plans to keep that backtrack to Northgate Station. Instead, run 348 all the way down to U-District Station (on the Roosevelt couplet or the Ave, pick one, but that’s a side issue).

    2. Definitely ditch Metro’s (stage 2) proposed 322 that stops at Northgate Station and then crawls down I-5. First Hill is full of shift workers, not just latte shift workers, so that is a place in which Metro needs to evolve out of predemic thinking. If the employers there want to pay the full service costs of the line, including bonuses to hire more drivers, plus carbon indulgences, then maybe we have something to talk about.

    1. The 67 continues to Children’s. Would the 348 extension do too?

       1. Not likely. But 31/32 would continue to provide a more direct path there along the 45th St Viaduct, with middling frequency, which is basically a wash with a one-seat ride looping down to UW Station.

    2. The problem with extending this north is that ridership drops very quickly as you go north of 145th. It is why they split the 372 into the 72 and 324. If this went to Bothell, there would be two possibilities:

       1) It would run every half hour, unless they found money elsewhere.
       2) If they did find money elsewhere, you are running a fifteen minute bus where one isn’t justified (between Lake City and Kenmore/Bothell).

       If this isn’t long enough, it should extend to the U-District. There is plenty of density there, and this would create some popular one and two seat rides. It would be the fastest way to take a one-seat ride from Lake City to the UW.

       But I don’t think that it is too short. It is about 3.5 miles from 65th & Roosevelt to the Fred Meyer Lake City (the shortest option). There are plenty of buses that are shorter. The 10, for example. For that matter, most of the buses that serve the greater Central Area are shorter. They are tied to other buses that serve Queen Anne but few people ride it that far. The main thing is that the 76 would be straight and fast. It makes key transit connections (to Link and other bus routes) along with connections between neighborhoods, while providing unique coverage for quite a few people.

       All other things being equal, longer routes are better. But not so much that this wouldn’t be a very cost effective bus. It isn’t about total riders, it is about ridership per hour of service. For all the reasons mentioned (speed, density, connections) this would do really well in that respect.

    3. 2. Definitely ditch Metro’s (stage 2) proposed 322 that stops at Northgate Station and then crawls down I-5. First Hill is full of shift workers, not just latte shift workers, so that is a place in which Metro needs to evolve out of predemic thinking. If the employers there want to pay the full service costs of the line, including bonuses to hire more drivers, plus carbon indulgences, then maybe we have something to talk about.

       When I read this comment, it really hit me that we’re probably going to spend the rest of my life designing and running increasingly convoluted transit service to First Hill and it will ultimately cost more than it would have to build a First Hill Link Station, while simultaneously providing less service.

       My first reaction to thinking about the 322 was “They’re going to stop at Northgate Station…and then get on I-5? Can’t people just transfer to Link?” But then they’d need to transfer again, probably at Capitol Hill Station to the Streetcar or the 60, and I can understand why someone would not want a daily 2 transfer commute, even if the expected travel time isn’t that much higher than a 1 seat ride.

       1. The 322 is only a few trips per weekday. Yes, it’s a waste, but the amount of money we’re talking about is still less than a First Hill station would have cost.

          Nevertheless, the 322 is still a waste of money. It’s expensive to run, it’s is only useful to people traveling during a limited set of hours, it’s single-direction nature means every trip carrying passengers must be accompanied by an equally-long trip running completely empty the opposite direction.

          If the problem with simply having them transfer is the wait time for the streetcar at Capitol Hill Station, the solution is to run the streetcar route more frequently. And, if more frequent service is not practical to do with trains, due to limited-sized fleets and maintenance yards, then do it with buses. There is zero reason King County Metro can’t run buses with “First Hill Streetcar” printed on the headsign, stopping at all the streetcar stops, following the streetcar route, schedule-coordinated to run halfway between the streetcar trains. With a streetcar+bus overlay, you could get peak-hour service downtown Broadway running as often as every 5 minutes. This benefits everyone traveling between Capitol Hill and First Hill, both those who transfer from Link and those that don’t.

       2. Regular buses can’t stop at streetcar stations because they don’t have left-side doors. They’d have to stop at the bus stops across the street. So passengers would have to decide ahead of time whether to take the real streetcar or the fake streetcar.

       3. Looking closely at Google earth imagery, very few of the First Hill streetcar stops actually require left-side doors. The few stops like this that do exist don’t seem particularly relevant to First Hill commuters.

          For example, Denny and Broadway northbound, the platform is on the left, but that’s the end line and people are only getting off, so a bus stopping on the other side of the street would be just fine. On Jackson St. within downtown, some of the streetcar stops require left-side doors. But, commuters to First Hill wouldn’t transfer on Jackson; they would be better off staying on whatever bus or Link train they are already on a few more stops, and transferring to the G-line instead.

          On Broadway itself, every single stop which allows boarding the streetcar, the doors open to the right, so a regular bus can easily serve the same stop, allowing passengers to take whichever vehicle comes first.

          So, I think the streetcar bus idea could certainly work, albeit with different stop placement on Jackson St. I’m not saying such a bus would necessarily be the regionwide best use of funds, but it certainly seems better than running the 322 all the way downtown, and since the route is so short, it would cost much less to run.

          Another option also worth considering is to simply create a new numbered bus route that serve all the streetcar stops on Broadway, but loops around at Boren and Yesler. This avoids spending money to run yet another bus down Jackson, which already has tons of service in the form of the 7, 36, and streetcar, while also avoiding the left-side-door awkwardness completely. The schedules of this hypothetical numbered bus route could still be coordinated with the streetcar to provide a transit vehicle down Broadway every 5 minutes during peak hours. Given the route’s extremely short distance, running it ought to be cheap. I would imagine 3 buses would be sufficient to run it at the 10-minute frequency necessary to complement the streetcar.

       4. Being rid of all the First Hill Expresses would help the latte executives at these 24/7/365 businesses focus on making the streetcar work, including the larger fleet and base, and extending the frequency the whole length of the line. But frequency on route 60, at least between Capitol Hill and Beacon Hill, is also needed to run through the heart of Pill Hill.

          At any rate, keeping this express, while abandoning LCW, is a travesty.

       5. Another option also worth considering is to simply create a new numbered bus route that serve all the streetcar stops on Broadway, but loops around at Boren and Yesler. This avoids spending money to run yet another bus down Jackson, which already has tons of service in the form of the 7, 36, and streetcar, while also avoiding the left-side-door awkwardness completely. The schedules of this hypothetical numbered bus route could still be coordinated with the streetcar to provide a transit vehicle down Broadway every 5 minutes during peak hours. Given the route’s extremely short distance, running it ought to be cheap. I would imagine 3 buses would be sufficient to run it at the 10-minute frequency necessary to complement the streetcar.

          Jackson also has the 14, FWIW.

          But think a little bigger. Peak frequency would be a vehicle headed down Broadway every 4 minutes. Alternating between a streetcar (or streetcar-like bus) and 60 should be fairly painless. I would have the long-Broadway bus turn east eventually to (Providence?) Swedish Cherry Hill.

          That said, I’d love to see the bus service sales tax renewal include funding to finish the streetcar line, with a base and fleet large enough to run 4-minute peak headway the whole length of the line, and ongoing maintenance similar to what ST does every night, just less frequently.

       6. But think a little bigger. Peak frequency would be a vehicle headed down Broadway every 4 minutes. Alternating between a streetcar (or streetcar-like bus) and 60 should be fairly painless. I would have the long-Broadway bus turn east eventually to (Providence?) Swedish Cherry Hill.

          Yes, combining service on Broadway is the way to go. I would keep the streetcar, and extend the 49 along Broadway to Beacon Hill, effectively combining the 49 and 60 (but without the jog of the 60). I think 6 minute headways are realistic (with 12 minutes on the 49 and streetcar). Maybe we could get that down to 10/5. I would backfill some of the 60 by running a bus along Boren, from South Lake Union to Mount Baker, probably as a redirection of the 106. I wrote about this a while back (https://seattletransitblog.com/2022/04/28/bus-restructure-after-rapidride-g/). There were actually a series of proposals (with various options) but no need to get into that now.

          This is largely an implementation detail. The main thing is what Phillip said. The lack of a station in First Hill continues to bite us in the butt. But I think the way to fix that is not with routes that overlap Link for much of its time (and only run for a small part of the day). The way to fix it is with improved service between Capitol Hill Station and First Hill. That not only helps those that arrive by Link, but also plenty of people who travel within that area. A 49 that goes to First Hill would avoid an awkward transfer for a lot of people, while doubling the headways along Broadway would make a huge difference. Three seat rides are inevitable with Link — instead of trying to eliminate a handful of them with routes like the 322, we should make them less painful for everyone.

       7. Link does not serve First Hill. Accept it and stop trying to make Link serve First Hill. If ST really wanted to make up for the mistake of skipping First Hill it should build a very large parking lot on First Hill because so many of the 322 and 630 transit riders are originating at a park and ride, and congestion is not bad today.

          These are the most essential workers. During the pandemic SDOT provided these workers with free street parking passes and allowed them to park just about anywhere on the street BECAUSE PEOPLE GOING TO THE HOSPITAL DID NOT WANT TO DIE. These workers originate in Kenmore and Mercer Island and drive for all their other trips, except post pandemic they don’t get free street parking anymore. My guess is these buses run during peak times because there is adequate onsite parking during night and swing shifts.

          ALL transit riders hate transferring after getting off Link. One issue with Link and the decline of downtown Seattle is Link now serves one less ultimate destination, one many are afraid to transfer in, and so more of its riders are not going where Link is going. But this was always going to be an issue with First Hill.

          MI will subsidize the 630 (I don’t know why since eastsiders don’t go to Harborview unless shot or stabbed or burned, and more and more choose Issaquah Swedish, Overlake or Evergreen), even though “only” a two-seat ride on Link (not including park and ride) they refuse to transfer in downtown Seattle. You know, the downtown Seattle that Jon Talton roasted in Sunday’s Seattle Times as unsafe and dead, on an avenue (3rd) SDOT and downtown Merchants claim needs “revitalizing”.

          The 322 originates in a park and ride in Kenmore. Some now think these really essential workers should drive to a park and ride, get on a bus, transfer to Link at Northgate, and then exist onto sketchy Capitol Hill to catch the worst form of transit on the earth, the FHSC (or a shadow bus because the FHSC is the worst form of transit on earth) so they can save your ass. So some folks on LCW can catch a bus with phantom savings.

          I too once thought maybe the hospitals themselves should subsidize bus service to First Hill because Link does not serve First Hill but will serve Fife and Judkins Park, but the reality is the hospitals are at the breaking point after Covid. They don’t have the money, and if they had to subsidize transit because Link does not serve First Hill it would come out of medical service to mostly poor residents, even though ST will spend $142 billion, most a big waste.

          The real solution so many commuters have adopted is to not commute so you never take transit. Rather than four seats to reach First Hill zero seats, except of course you need to save someone’s life in person. If I were a First Hill healthcare worker living anywhere near Kenmore I would find a job on the eastside because those workers are in very short supply, even if it was still a one seat bus ride, let alone a four-seat ride to First Hill.

          Sometimes you just have to accept Link’s routing can be a turd, which in many places it was always going to be because its route is not within walking distance of the key places on either end, especially places like the eastside or Kenmore, and so many refuse to transfer in downtown Seattle which was the entire purpose of the hub and spoke Link system. Stop trying to force folks to take Link when Link doesn’t go where they need to go, and begins with some kind of first/last mile access. It won’t kill folks on LCW to walk a mile or so to get to a transit stop if the money is needed other places.

       8. So what you are saying Daniel, is that a handful of people north of Northgate should have express service to First Hill (but only during a very short period of time) while other people, much closer to First Hill (but too far to walk) should get nothing. Oh, and everyone else gets nothing as well. Everyone else — from high population centers like the UW and Roosevelt — is supposed to transfer, but not those special riders north of Northgate, on that one particular corridor. Is that it?

          Or are you saying that we should run buses from all over the region to First Hill, to space people a transfer? If so, why are we only running them during rush hour. Medical personal — you know, the people that SAVE YOUR LIFE — work various shifts. Emergency trauma cases don’t happen on a nice, neat 9-5 schedule. So now we are running buses from all over the region, all day long, while also running the various buses to downtown in areas that Link doesn’t serve (which is more than half the city). Basically a twin-hub system.

          Sounds great, except we can’t possibly afford it. You end up running buses every half hour (if that) and that simply won’t work for people. A lot of people just say “screw it” and up taking Link, because at least it is frequent.

       9. “Stop trying to force folks to take Link when Link doesn’t go where they need to go”

          • Despite what Fox News or whatever news personality you watch says, nobody is forcing anyone onto Link.

          • Capitol Hill isn’t downtown Seattle.

          • For every high income hospital worker that can afford to drive everywhere, there are a dozen other staff members that are lower income.

       10. Ross, when I’ve complained about my Kirkland neighborhood once having a one-seat bus ride to downtown, to now having a three-seat ride, the comment section told me that because of increased frequency, that my neighborhood has actually seen an improvement in service to downtown. So, maybe that’s how you should look at people having to transfer. That multiple transfers is actually a higher level of service than the one-seat, express service on the 322.

       11. Yes, combining service on Broadway is the way to go. I would keep the streetcar, and extend the 49 along Broadway to Beacon Hill, effectively combining the 49 and 60 (but without the jog of the 60).

           That jog on the 60 is how it serves most of the hospitals, without a really long walk from Broadway (especially to Virginia Mason). Both routes are needed to adequately connect the whole Pill Hill campus with CHS. If the streetcar were to run at 1+2 Line frequency, there would be no purpose in rerouting the 60. Even if it just ran at 1-Line frequency, having the streetcar and 60 alternate, each coming every 8 minutes during peak, ought to be enough.

       12. What I am saying Ross is Link does not serve First Hill, and these are the most essential workers in Seattle. I am guessing these hospitals and clinics — who are the first line healthcare workers for the poor — gave their input to Metro, Seattle officials, and ST, and pointed out these workers are very hard to get, retain, can work anywhere, tend to live in the suburbs, won’t transfer in downtown Seattle (or probably on Capitol Hill), a four seat ride including park and ride is abusive, hospital budgets are so stressed they can’t afford private transportation or subsidies, Seattle wasn’t willing to chip in like MI (or is through the TBD), and so figure it out.

           Which SDOT and the powers that be already knew because they basically restriped every street to allow them to park there for free during the pandemic. Equity means these workers because these workers are the ones providing the healthcare to the people living in the equity zones. The rest of us are at Issaquah Swedish or Overlake or Evergreen.

           At some point ST and transit advocates have to stop thinking everyone is a transit slave. They are not, especially if they are the most coveted of all workers. If I were Evergreen or Overlake Hospital or any healthcare clinic along 405 north of NE 8th I would hire someone to hand out flyers at the Kenmore park and ride offering a bonus and parking to come work there and not on First Hill.

           “Sounds great, except we can’t possibly afford it. You end up running buses every half hour (if that) and that simply won’t work for people.”

           I think we are going to be faced with this choice a lot more in the future, which I have tried to point out on this thread. Rising costs, expanding areas to cover, and declining budgets for Metro will mean “equity” choices. I would put essential healthcare workers on First Hill probably in the top tier of equity, certainly before coverage or frequency on LCW which as Mike points out never was much of a priority for Metro. You can’t blame them because Link skipped First Hill, and you can’t afford to lose them to another employer and city.

           It would be great if Link went to First Hill but it doesn’t. All those essential workers still need to, and I would place them at the top of the equity index because they care for the top of the equity index. I think a large free parking garage dedicated for these workers paid for by ST would be the best solution, or dedicated shuttles like tech companies that are not nearly as essential, but don’t see that, but for someone to suggest driving to a park and ride to catch a bus to Northgate Link to catch the FHSC to the hospital is abusive. If the choice is retaining these workers and giving them a one seat bus ride or more coverage or frequency on LCW (or in SE Seattle or S. King Co.) I am prioritizing these workers who can work anywhere.

           So yes, I agree we can’t afford everything although that is a novel experience for some on this blog, and choices must be made, and I would make the same choice Metro is making in this case and cut someplace else. We spent too much on Link that skips way too many places folks need to go. I know some prioritize the “grid” or system, and some race or density or wealth; I prioritize the importance of these workers, which is my “equity” index although others may disagree, (until they get sick).

       13. Tens of thousands of medical workers don’t all think the same way. The transfer would be at Capitol Hill, not downtown. First Hill asked for the streetcar when it couldn’t get the Link station. First Hill is excited about RapidRide G, even though it goes downtown which you say no medical worker would ever go to or transfer at.

       14. Brent, adding shadow service to the awful FHSC would cost the same as the one seat ride on the 322, and discourage these essential healthcare workers from working on First Hill. How important is it to get residents living on Capitol Hill to First Hill a little quicker because the FHSC that cost a fortune sucks?

           It is 2023. All I ever read about on this blog is adding service or routes or frequency. The new normal is going to be cutting service, routes or frequency, unless someone finds a bunch of new revenue, labor costs and inflation decline significantly, and so does the amount of area Metro must serve because so far “equity” has really meant not serving most of East King Co. but taking the tax revenue, although past inflation is baked into the COLA’s.

           Link skipping First Hill but planning for WSBLE underground from one end to the next, and the FHSC, are just terrible and wasteful transit decisions that come back to haunt a city when revenue gets tight. Poor areas in SE Seattle and S. King Co. understand that, which is why they are playing their equity index. The hospitals played their equity card for the 322, and LCW and shadow service on Broadway are too low on the equity index to matter. Skipping service on LCW or shadow service on Broadway are not inadvertent mistakes. Neither is the 322. These are choices.

           The trick in the new normal is for an area to prove their “equity” to maintain declining levels of service. Capitol Hill shadow service and LCW are near the bottom when it comes to equity. Still better than MI or Sammamish though. Don’t have to worry about “shadow service” on MI when there is nothing to shadow.

       15. If we are going to talk equity, why did Metro cut Route 9X but not Route 322? Route 9X is the only route to get from Rainier Ave S to Harborview and it’s only a short distance.

       16. “Tens of thousands of medical workers don’t all think the same way. The transfer would be at Capitol Hill, not downtown. First Hill asked for the streetcar when it couldn’t get the Link station. First Hill is excited about RapidRide G, even though it goes downtown which you say no medical worker would ever go to or transfer at.”

           Mike, I don’t know if there are tens of thousands of healthcare workers working on First Hill, but if there is only a small fraction the 630 and 322 make more sense than ever.

           I don’t know why someone would take RR G downtown if they work on First Hill. I imagine if Link had a stop on Madison and Broadway that would help, or if all the healthcare workers worked in Madison Park, but probably only a small fraction do.

           Basically EVERYONE does not want a four-seat ride that begins at Kenmore park and ride, transfers to Link at Northgate, and then transfers downtown or at Capitol Hill (also sketchy) to get to work. That includes healthcare workers and non-healthcare workers, except non-healthcare workers have been able to switch to WFH or work closer to home.

           Some transit riders don’t work so they don’t understand the value of time. Others don’t understand how safety and perceptions of safety are a deal breaker, especially for this class of rider. So they tend to try and force crummy transit service, which is why 90% of all trips are by car, probably higher outside of downtown Seattle/First Hill where parking is expensive or not subsidized.

           In a perfect world the hospitals and clinics would offer free or subsidized parking to these essential workers like they do for the doctors and executives (and on the eastside), and then let the workers decide whether to drive or take four seats on transit. My guess is some would still take the 630 since it is one seat and short and the park and ride today is empty, and none would opt for the four-seat ride on transit.

           Instead these workers are being treated like transit slaves, except Metro, ST and Seattle understand they are too important and valuable to be treated like transit slaves, so they get a one seat bus ride and someone on LCW can walk farther, or on Broadway a rider can wait for the awful FHSC. That is the equity index at work.

           The relevance to Ross’s article is LCW is not going to get any of the options because budgets are tight and LCW can’t make the case for “equity” to take service from someplace else. Metro and the powers that be did not make an inadvertent mistake with service on LCW. It isn’t as poor or brown as S. King Co. or SE Seattle, and the residents are not as essential as healthcare workers on First Hill.

           In this new normal if you want additional transit service when revenue is declining an area has to first make the equity case. A shadow bus on Broadway is terrible equity IMO. Essential workers are great equity, and that is pretty plain if SDOT restripes every street surrounding First Hill and the Polyclinic so these workers can park for free on the streets during a pandemic when everyone is afraid of dying, which I am sure they would like to continue parking on. Just because Covid is passing does not mean they are not as essential.

           There are going to be lots of transit cuts going forward despite “truncation”. Equity is a fluid term Metro and ST will use to justify those economic decisions. I agree with the 322 and 630 (although I am paying for the 630 through my taxes but to me it is better than most transit I pay for), and understand not serving LCW because budgets are tight and the workers less essential, and think a shadow bus on Broadway because the FHSC sucks is the absolute lowest equity I can think of.

           So far the powers that be agree so I don’t think my views are out of bounds. If I were LCW looking to fund one of Ross’s options I would not look to cut service on the 322 for that funding because SDOT made it pretty clear during the pandemic it will prioritize these workers no matter what it takes, and so has Metro in the restructure. I would look instread at wealthy white neighborhoods like Ballard, West Seattle and Capitol Hill if I were LCW, and no doubt those areas will willingly give up transit service because of their privilege.

       17. “If we are going to talk equity, why did Metro cut Route 9X but not Route 322? Route 9X is the only route to get from Rainier Ave S to Harborview and it’s only a short distance.”

           Because healthcare workers and patients have different levels of importance. No point in getting a faster bus to the hospital if no one is there to treat you, and staffing shortages are making waits for the poor — who tend to go to the ER — unbearable.

           I am not sure riders on the 9X to Harborview would want the 322 cut. They would rather see service cut in Ballard, Capitol Hill, West Seattle, and the other wealthy white neighborhoods, or Madison Park that now gets RR G. Maybe a better question is why Madison Park gets RR but not the 9X, although I think we know the reason why. Density in Madison Park, Washington Park, Broadmoor, and surrounding areas near the Tennis Club is about the same as on MI, and no one is going to downtown Seattle these days. Talk about a boondoggle. At least it isn’t my subarea.

       18. The 322 is only a few trips per weekday. Yes, it’s a waste, but the amount of money we’re talking about is still less than a First Hill station would have cost.

           Yes, good point. More importantly, shifting service won’t get us much service elsewhere. I agree, it is still a waste, but not nearly as bad as how it was after Northgate Link. Back then, there were lots and lots of buses doing the same thing. Obviously most of them (if not all of them) did not perform well, so they are holding on to one of the better ones (or hoping this combination does better). It would not surprise me if it goes away after another round of restructures.

       19. “ Because healthcare workers and patients have different levels of importance. No point in getting a faster bus to the hospital if no one is there to treat you, and staffing shortages are making waits for the poor — who tend to go to the ER — unbearable.”

           This actually is a tacit white privilege statement. Who says that no Harborview workers live near Rainier Ave S? There are also multiple non-urgent reasons for residents to go to Harborview.

           Meanwhile, there is no daylong way to take a bus from Rainier Ave S to an ER.

       20. Phillip: that two-transfer three seat ride would be faster than the Route 322 of today or the slower P2 Route 322. It all comes down to minutes. With Link after East Link, the transfers should be frequent-to-frequent. The Capitol Hill Link station is served by the FHSC and Route 60; the USS Link is served by routes 2, 3, and 4. The G Line will have six-minute headway on Spring Street one block south of USS. The First Hill work shifts vary and have different lengths; it is hard to serve them with a one-way peak-only route with a short span of service; note that routes 302, 303, and 322 also run on congested James Street and meander to get to each institution.

       21. Because healthcare workers and patients have different levels of importance. No point in getting a faster bus to the hospital if no one is there to treat you, and staffing shortages are making waits for the poor — who tend to go to the ER — unbearable.

           I am not sure riders on the 9X to Harborview would want the 322 cut. They would rather see service cut in Ballard, Capitol Hill, West Seattle, and the other wealthy white neighborhoods, or Madison Park that now gets RR G. Maybe a better question is why Madison Park gets RR but not the 9X, although I think we know the reason why. Density in Madison Park, Washington Park, Broadmoor, and surrounding areas near the Tennis Club is about the same as on MI, and no one is going to downtown Seattle these days. Talk about a boondoggle. At least it isn’t my subarea.

           Kind of all over the map on that one, Daniel. This looks suspiciously like trolling, or at the very least a random attempt at complaining about the world, in hopes that someone will agree with one of your points.

           Let’s see if I have it right: All the medical personnel live in the north end (along one corridor). Oh, and they all work the day shift. They don’t live in Rainier Valley. No doctors, nurses, technicians — nobody.

           Ballard, Capitol Hill, West Seattle are all wealthy white neighborhoods, but the northern suburbs aren’t.

           RR G will go to Broadmoor and Madison Park (what???).

           No one is going to downtown Seattle these days. Yeah, right.

           You might want to double check your information there Dan before spouting off your unfounded opinions. I would start by actually looking at where the G would go, then maybe look at neighborhood demographic information, then talk to people who actually work in the medical field, then take a trip downtown or better yet, ride the 12 and see if you the only one on it. Your comments are dripping with various stereotypes so numerous I really don’t feel like addressing them. Why bother. You just don’t have your facts straight.

       22. “Kind of all over the map on that one, Daniel. This looks suspiciously like trolling, or at the very least a random attempt at complaining about the world, in hopes that someone will agree with one of your points.”

           Not really Ross. I AGREE with the decisions on the 322 (and 630), agree with not running a shadow bus along Broadway, think the FHSC is very poor transit but that is what it is if you want to go from Capitol Hill to First Hill, accept Link does not access First Hill and don’t pretend it does, understand how LCW got the short end of the “equity” stick, and according to this 2016 article the “cuts” to the 9X were to provide more service to culturally similar areas rather than First Hill hospitals which suggests to me Metro and the hospitals were aware not a great deal of their healthcare workers or patients take the 9X to First Hill. That does not sound racist or privileged to me, and assume the neighborhoods were involved in the decision making. Al should have known that. Not every transit change is racist.
           https://kingcountymetro.blog/2016/05/16/king-county-council-approves-changes-to-routes-9x-38-106-107-and-124-for-september-2016/

           So the folks agreeing with my points are the folks who make these sometimes painful but necessary transit decisions.

           When it comes to downtown Seattle I don’t know if you read Talton’s article in the Sunday paper but the statistics were alarming (not the least of which that 7 of 9 Councilmembers will not run for reelection).

           The Nike store has closed. So did the flagship store for Columbia Sportswear due to looting. The DSA estimated in Oct. 2021 that 500 street level businesses had closed since 2019 vs 300 opening. Third Ave. has become even more desolate according to Talton. As he writes, “I’ve never lived in a city that’s collapsing around me”.

           In 2019 the downtown had around a 2% retail vacancy rate. Today it is 13.5% while Bellevue’s is 1.5% when it was 5% in 2019.

           Amazon is pulling out if its offices at the Port 99 tower. According to Talton, “One real estate insider called it ‘the first domino’ as the company — Seattle’s largest private-sector employer — rethinks its property strategy in the city” (which of course I have been posting about for some time is the worst kept secret in the region — Amazon is moving to Bellevue and WFH).

           Then there is the closure of the Regal Cinemas, and according to Talton the AMC theaters are on life support because Pacific Place is on life support. We can go back to Macy’s as well or Bartells.

           Talton then goes through the usual excuses Seattleites offer. As Talton, who has lived downtown for over 20 years, puts it, “The conceit that places like Seattle could get away with street crime and urban disorder, chalking it up to a big city with big city problems — and people would still come to invest — is being put to the test.” Researchers at NYU and Columbia call it the “urban doom loop”, which for me is sad having lived and/or worked in Seattle from 1959 to Sept. 2022.

           And of course, Talton discusses what I think is the central issue for Seattle and transit: large budget deficits beginning in 2023. You are right that there just isn’t enough money for all the transit folks want, which is why LCW is not getting any. It isn’t rocket science: LCW does not have the power or equity so gets the shaft. Transit planners plan to use “equity” to determine where those cuts will happen, but the 322 just proves equity is a fluid concept, and not always white vs. brown.

           And it goes on. My guess is a higher percentage of eastsiders subscribe to The Seattle Times than Seattleites, especially progressives, and this is what we read every single day from a paper we think is too Seattle centric and too progressive.

           Of course healthcare workers who work on First Hill don’t want to transfer in downtown Seattle or the Capitol Hill station. Jesus, Link runs along 3rd.
           They would prefer to not be on transit at all. I am sure they are envious of their friends who now don’t commute at all and WFH with their kids.

           So my guess is the major medical players on First Hill, who obviously have a lot of political juice, communicated with Metro, ST and SDOT and Harrell the need for a one seat ride from the suburbs to the First Hill to keep their healthcare workers who can work anywhere (and why they choose First Hill I have no idea when there is NW Hospital or the eastside) https://www.seattleweekly.com/news/healthcare-workers-unions-warn-that-the-states-hospitals-face-unprecedented-collapse-amid-covid-uptick/

           https://www.seattletimes.com/subscribe/signup-offers/?pw=redirect&subsource=paywall&return=https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/hospital-staff-shortages-health-equity-pandemic-response-among-issues-tackled-by-wa-legislators/

           So to conclude: I agree with the decisions on the 322, and LCW, the cuts to the 9X appear to me to be well thought out and what the community wanted, and progressives and transit fans wanted the FHSC and got it. I don’t know what complaints you think I have that I want others to agree with when the transit agencies agree with me (or really me with them).

       23. “I don’t know if there are tens of thousands of healthcare workers working on First Hill”

           I worked at Harborview in the 90s alongside the people who schedule the nurses and check their license renewals. There were a thousand nurses, mental health specialists, and medical assistants in the inpatient units, ER, and OR. That doesn’t include the day clinics, doctors, machine technicians, and non-medical staff. Since then Harborview has added several buildings. The other hospitals and standalone clinics all have nurses and staff too..

           “I don’t know why someone would take RR G downtown if they work on First Hill.”

           Most neighborhoods don’t have a direct route to First Hill, and many neighborhoods aren’t on Link. The First Hill expresses from Northshore and Mercer Island are unusual.

           “Basically EVERYONE does not want a four-seat ride that begins at Kenmore park and ride”

           Three- and four-seat rides are less than ideal, but two of the seats are high-capacity transit (Link and Stride 3) so a better experience than regular buses, and some First Hill destinations are within walking distance of Capitol Hill station. Kenmore is not in the main north-south corridor, and Link isn’t a multi-branch system. Having fifteen-mile one-seat rides from everywhere to First Hill, downtown, and the U-District so close to Link leads to redundant resource use, which leads it to not serving as many neighborhoods or as frequently as it could have.

           “Madison Park that now gets RR G.”

           The G will terminate at 29th in Madison Valley; it won’t serve Madison Park. Madison Park will most likely have a Madison-Denny route transferring to the G in the valley and to Link at Capitol Hill.

           “why did Metro cut Route 9X but not Route 322?”

           They were cut at different times under different considerations. The 9 was part of the 2020 covid reductions, and is not in scope of the Lynnwood Link restructure.

       24. “In 2019 the downtown had around a 2% retail vacancy rate. Today it is 13.5% while Bellevue’s is 1.5% when it was 5% in 2019.”

           And a normal, neutral residential vacancy rate is 5-10%.

           “Of course healthcare workers who work on First Hill don’t want to transfer in downtown Seattle or the Capitol Hill station. Jesus, Link runs along 3rd.
           They would prefer to not be on transit at all.”

           Some of the do want take transit and aren’t as bothered about the 3rd Avenue situation as you are. That’s what I mean by tens of thousands of people don’t all think the same. RapidRide G will soon make getting up the hill much faster. And hopefully the 3rd Avenue problems will recede.

           “My guess is a higher percentage of eastsiders subscribe to The Seattle Times than Seattleites”

           It’s targeting that readership. That’s why its unofficial name is the Suburban Times.

       25. “Kind of all over the map on that one, Daniel. This looks suspiciously like trolling, or at the very least a random attempt at complaining about the world, in hopes that someone will agree with one of your points.”

           Not really Ross.
           …
           The Nike store has closed.

           It is kind of laughable, really. You claim that you are sticking to one topic, and yet in the middle of a comment that is somehow related to a fairly simple proposal about a restructure in the north end (along Lake City Way) you start the fifth paragraph of yet another rambling comment with:

           The Nike store has closed.

           Holy Cow — I don’t know how many times I have to write it. Stick to the subject! Hell, I would be OK if you could manage to stick to one subject a comment (even if it was off topic)! Really, just one! You bounce around and are amazed that one of us agrees with one of the dozen or so things you are trying to say. Even when you have the facts wrong, it gets lost in the rambling abyss. For example:

           RapidRide G does not go to Madison Park, and it sure as hell doesn’t go through Broadmoor. You wrote that it did, I corrected you, and yet there is nothing about that, because you are once again off on another dozen topics, this time including the sneaker market downtown. This is clearly a violation of the policies here. It sure looks like trolling to me, and it is definitely off topic. But if I were to dare remove your clearly off topic comment, you would cry bloody murder, and claim it was because we don’t agree with you. That isn’t it at all. It is because you can’t manage to craft a simple argument that sticks to the subject at hand.

           This is my complaint. You need to stick to one topic per comment. You need to make sure that the comment is on topic. That’s all. The rules of the game aren’t that complicated, but when the comment section becomes this sort of mess it makes it difficult for others to join in.

           This is not a personal attack. You do have useful things to say. Sometimes others agree with you, sometimes they don’t. But you need to figure out how to make those arguments in a simple, straightforward manner, while sticking to the topic at hand.

       26. Daniel’s claim that everyone who works in First Hill is commuting from either Kenmore or Mercer Island just cracks me up. They come from all over the region, not just these two places. If Kenmore and Mercer Island deserve a First Hill express, then so should Redmond, Issaquah, Lynnwood, West Seattle, Federal Way, and everywhere else. To say otherwise is to argue that First Hill doctors who commute from two very specific neighborhoods are more important than First Hill doctors that commute from all other neighborhoods. And, of course, running a First Hill express from every single one of these neighborhoods (and more that I didn’t mention) would be cost-prohibitive.

           In any case, the entire premise that Metro should bend over backwards to roll the red carpet for a small group of riders who happen to be deemed more important than everybody else is already bad. Sure, the specific people that benefit from the route may like it, but it hurts the service for everybody else.

           As an illustration, imagine if Metro simply took the cost of operating the 322 and instead simply deposited the money into the bank accounts of people who meet the specific criteria of working in First Hill, living in Kenmore, and commuting both directions during rush hour. The impact to service for everyone else would be identical, yet the unfairness of it all feels more obvious, and would reek of improper use of funds.

           The right way to design the system is to benefit the region as a whole and not get fixated on particular subgroups of interest groups. If this means a few well paid people in one particular subgroup don’t like it and decide to drive instead, that’s fine. A better transit network means Metro easily makes up the ridership elsewhere.

           The hospitals themselves are also welcome to operate their own commuter shuttles on their own dime, but it is unreasonable to expect the taxpayers as a whole to fund such a specialized service.

           At the end of the day, the job of a transit system is to move as many people as it can with the money it has, not to make left-leaning taxpayers who fund it but don’t ride it “feel good” that their money is paying for some kind of specialized charity service to people that somebody imagines is most deserving. The latter attitude has become all too common after the pandemic and will inevitably lead to declines in service quality if left unchecked.

       27. “Daniel’s claim that everyone who works in First Hill is commuting from either Kenmore or Mercer Island just cracks me up. They come from all over the region, not just these two places.”

           No shit, Sherlock. I never said that asdf2. What I said is no matter where the First Hill healthcare workers are coming from they can’t get there by Link, which is why two areas, MI and Kenmore, want direct one seat buses.

           So deal with it, rather than telling these essential workers to take four seats to get to a job they could do anywhere else without four seats because you want some service on LCW, so the ultimate losers are Seattle, and folks who get their healthcare on First Hill, because I certainly don’t.

           Stop thinking everyone is a transit slave post pandemic and have just a tiny bit of sympathy for the fact ST didn’t build Link to First Hill. Just once I would like transit advocates and agencies to think the rider is a customer and not a slave. We might have a lot better service if they did.

       28. The point is not what Northshore First Hill commuters alone want, it’s what works for the largest cross-section of people and trips in North Seattle, Shoreline, and Northshore.

       29. A friend lives in Shoreline and commutes to somewhere on First Hill. On Sunday mornings she winds up taking the long, slow slog on the E into town and then taking a 20 minute walk up the hill because that’s the only functioning route at that hour. If a 3 seat ride were available that significantly reduced her travel time, she’d probably use it (depending on the time of day it was available).

           So I don’t see why the same wouldn’t be true of those coming from Kenmore, Bothel, etc., especially seeing how the Lake City restructure plan currently takes service away from so many.

       30. Well, this thread went off the rails, to the point I regret making my initial comment.

           Regarding the first part of my post, I think it’s unassailable that the lack of a Link Station in First Hill forces, or at least encourages Metro to distort the transit service in the area. While I don’t agree with all the decisions our local transit agencies make, if we had a First Hill Link Station, I don’t think they’d be so daft as to suggest the 322 as it’s planned. Riders would transfer at Northgate or Roosevelt Station and get off at First Hill Station and it would be faster than an express bus.

           Eddiew makes a good point that even with the transfers, 322->Link->FHSC or bus looks pretty competitive with taking the 322 all the way to First Hill. Google Maps pegs the current 302/303 as taking about 30 minutes to make the trip from Northgate Station to Swedish and puts the Link trip at around 35 minutes. I’m skeptical that the bus always takes 30 minutes on I-5, but buses and streetcars can also run late or not show up. As Eddie notes, the Link trip will get even more competitive when East Link fully opens and we have 5 minutes or less headways for most Link’s operating span.

           I agree with most of the commenters here in thinking that Metro should reduce the transfer penalty further by running more bus or streetcar service along Broadway.

       31. For whatever it’s worth, I prefer one-seat rides that are within reason longer over two-seat rides that require a long wait or an inconvenient walk. Seattle doesn’t have a lot of tedious one seat rides that I’ve ever had to make use of, but back when the old 243 was running, I preferred it over 271 + 68 to get to/from Ravenna and downtown Bellevue, even though the 68 wasn’t getting stuck in the Montlake mess by going through campus. It meant that I could have a guaranteed seat by getting on the 243 early on, and zone out or read while we were stuck in traffic. If I regularly carried heavy bags, I would have been even less willing to switch, especially as changing buses at Campus Parkway and 15th meant having to cross 15th, which is inconvenient.

       32. For whatever it’s worth, I prefer one-seat rides…

           You aren’t alone. The transfer penalty is real. Studies have shown that an extra transfer hurts ridership, just like slow buses and infrequent service. It all matters.

           The issue with avoiding transfers is that it costs more. A hub and spoke system, for example, costs more to operate than a grid. It avoids transfers, but the buses come less often. There are definitely advantages to avoiding a transfer, but sometimes the “cost” isn’t worth it.

           The issue I have with the 322 is that:

           1) It only serves a small subset of people.
           2) It only runs during peak.
           3) It spends much of its time picking up no one.
           4) It duplicates Link to a certain degree.

           All of these go together. Because it goes on the freeway (where there are no riders) it isn’t that cost effective. We simply can’t afford to run it more often, or to more places. Making matters worse, if we did run it the rest of the day, the bus would be stuck in traffic. It is worth noting that it also serves downtown. The first stop south of Northgate is at 5th and James — the heart of the business district (and a short walk to the Pioneer Square Station). But the biggest overall flaw is its specialization. While it goes by a Link Station, I don’t see why anyone would transfer there to get to First Hill. It *only* makes sense for those along this corridor, and it is too expensive to serve just those riders.

           In contrast, if frequency is improved along Broadway, it serves more than those taking a one seat ride. It improves travel for *everyone* who takes Link and wants to go down that corridor. It helps the thousands who ride other buses that cross Broadway, and end up transferring. This far outnumbers those that would take the 322.

           Like it or not, we simply can’t solve this awkward part of our system by running express buses. It is too expensive. You end up with much lower frequency, which is worse than fewer transfers (remember when buses all ran every half hour, and mostly just went downtown — it wasn’t great). There are worse things than a transfer.

       33. “I think it’s unassailable that the lack of a Link Station in First Hill forces, or at least encourages Metro to distort the transit service in the area. While I don’t agree with all the decisions our local transit agencies make, if we had a First Hill Link Station, I don’t think they’d be so daft as to suggest the 322 as it’s planned.”

           Very true statement.

           Why the public obsesses about low activity areas at many future Link stations, the giant hub of Harborview is still not a convenient and quick connection after spending another $50B for ST3.

           Meanwhile, Jefferson Street appears to be almost completely bordered by government buildings between Harborview and Pioneer Square Link, providing little obstacles outside of funding and construction to frequently connect the two with something — gondola, incline, counter balance, escalator bank, a few towers with elevators or whatever. It would not only be fast but the right vehicle could enable spectacular views, and it would make bicycling a more viable option to get up First Hill.

           Back to the 322 and a few other Harborview peak bus routes, the most equitable solution is a fast and frequent connection to Link. It deserves a joint study by Metro, Harborview, ST and SDOT led by King County to figure out how to make that happen.

           As for double transfers, Link is going to be between 3 to 5 minutes from 5 am to 11 pm. That’s about the amount of time it takes to get through some of these stations. People sometimes wait that short of time for elevators! People won’t think badly about that part of the trip unless it’s crowded.

           I think the bigger transfer “problem” are simply the horrible transfer paths that ST is designing and building Downtown. Northgate and 148th aren’t that bad frankly. It’s the deep subway transfers that are. This is the more painful Achilles heel of Link. Metro shouldn’t have to run any routes to get around the problem. Instead, they should be able to push ST to make the transfer experience better because right now it appears that ST believes that “consensus” is for property owners and community groups and opinionated elected officials — but not for the actual riders.

       34. Most workers trying to get to First Hill still won’t have the option of using route 322 to get to work. They’re mostly shift workers. Only a lucky handful of them get a shift whose start time works with the morning southbound 322 and the evening northbound 322.

           Luckily, most of them will have a pretty darn nice commute on the frequent 522, the frequent 1 Line (and soon superfrequent 1/2 LIne), with a choice of the streetcar, 60, Lyft, Uber, cab, bikeshare, scootershare, walking etc to get to their First Hill employement site via CHS, or 2, 3, 4, or G from downtown. The commute will be even nicer if ST doesn’t use the 322 and/or 324 as an excuse to reduce frequency on the 522.

           Those who have to come or go during graveyard hours, well, that’s still going to suck.

           The commuter routes coming from Northgate do okay right now because it is a hub, where people have transfer options that include 302, 303, 320, and the 1 Line. Most of the routes currently serving Northgate will cease serving Northgate when the Snohomish County starter line opens. Routes 20, 75, 301, 302, 303, 304, 320, 345, 346, 347, 511, 512, 513, 810, 821, 860, 871, 880 will serve Northgate no more. The 20 would be mostly replaced by the new 61. The 345 and 346 partially by the new 46. That leaves just the 40, 61, 67, 322, and 348 serving Northgate after 2024. The vast majority of riders transfering from a bus to a downtown express bus at Northgate will already be on the train, and won’t want to get off of it for a bus that will crawl down I-5.

11. I think the easiest solution to all this is to extend the 324 to Roosevelt Station

    1. Good luck getting RossB to compromise with all-day 30-minute headway.

       1. Correct. It is crazy to run a half hour bus in an area with that much ridership (per service hour). It would be like running the 17 every 15 minutes, and running the 40 every half hour. Ridership along this section is huge — much higher than various places where they propose 15 minute service (such as the 333) or places with existing 15 minute service (like most of the 271). There really is no logical reason why this doesn’t have 15 minute service (if not better) other than “Sound Transit used to cover it”.

          Look at it this way. Imagine if they altered the new 72. Instead of going straight up 25th, it turned west on 65th and detoured by the station before going north again (like so: https://goo.gl/maps/PHQGbtR79Ywsxp5i9). From a ridership standpoint, this would be a huge improvement. I’m not saying that would be a good alternative overall, but I’m saying there are more riders per hour along that corridor than the default. If you really can’t bring yourself to add a new route, modifying the new 72 in that way would be better. It would leave a coverage hole, but given the 79, fewer people would be hurt.

          But mostly I’m saying we don’t have to do either. Major corridors, with lots of riders (like Lake City Way) should have frequent service. The 372 should be frequent and straight. I am willing to compromise in a lot of different areas, but there is no reason to shortchange this corridor.

       2. There is still plenty of time to convince Metro and ST that ST Express 522 / Stride 3 ought to be the only service running the length of Bothell Way, and if more stops need to be added, so be it, since, as Ross pointed out, it isn’t that many.

          What would be truly silly would be for ST to cheap out on Stride 3 frequency because of the shadow route(s). Stride should go big on frequency, and Metro should get out of the way. 10-minute headway on Day 1, or don’t bother ruining the new brand.

       3. I agree on all points, Brent. As I see it, Sound Transit only needs to add one bus stop, at Bothell Way and 83rd Place NE. There are no street crossings between there and 96th (where the 230 comes in). Once you do that, there is no need for coverage, and thus no need for the 324. Then the goal is to run the S3 as frequently as possible, to make the new transfer from Lake City to Kenmore/Bothell less painful.

       4. There is still route 334 serving several stops between Ballinger Way and Kenmore P&R (not an ideal place for an operator to be stuck laying over).

          I would suggest that most people boarding the 334 southbound along Ballinger Way would want to connect to the 522 going south, or even to the new 72, than want to go to Kenmore. I’d like to see it turn south onto Bothell Way, and serve one of the southbound 522 stops that has an easy crossing to a northbound 522 stop.

          There ought to be space somewhere to lay over at the Lake Forest Park mall. And the Everest Kitchen is back! OMG hooray!

       5. Yeah, Ballinger Way is tricky. It does seem like kind of a waste to go to Kenmore, since the 522 makes all the same stops. I assumed that riders would tend to head south too. But looking at the data, that doesn’t seem to be the case. Not that many transfer at the mall (although the transfer itself likely hurts ridership that direction). But more to the point, it gets pretty good ridership along that stretch to Kenmore. For example, a bus headed west gets about 100 riders on the three stops before the mall. Metro could save a little money if they could find a layover by the mall, but it would be a trade-off.

    2. Giving the 333 the ax between Aurora Village and Lynnwood might save enough to make that extension.

       1. (I assume you mean Aurora Village to Mountlake Terrace.)

          Quite possibly, yes. That, and extending the 334 to Bothell (to cover the service gap along SR 522) instead of running the 324 would definitely do it.

       2. Yes, somehow I was mixing up my Freeway Transit Centers.

          It’s really quite disappointing that there was so much push here for a 130th Street station to benefit Lake City, and the entire concept doesn’t seem particularly well used.

12. I wonder if the severity of service removal in this route restructure has to do with the expiration of the City’s bus service sales tax bump-up. It makes me wish it hadn’t been limited to adding service and barred from using any of the money to improve or electrify service with capital improvements. If the pandemic/”endemic” settles down, I’m pretty sure Seattleites would vote to renew that sales tax, especially those now getting free ORCA passes because of it.

    1. It probably does; Metro can’t count on the renewal until it’s in place. Seattle’s TBD is one of the only sources for service hours: state and federal grants are limited to capital improvements.

       1. Sound Transit and Metro get federal grants for capital improvements. Metro, among a number of bus agencies across the country, gets federal grants to subsidize service.

          The state, up until last year, only offered service grants for inter-county connectors. The new grants are mostly to subsidize service, with the requirement to eliminate fares for riders under 19.

          Until last year, the state was largely not in the business of subsidizing local bus service, merely deigning to allow localities to tax themselves, and limiting their ability to do so.

          The city sales tax to support transit operations was a response to a former STB writer’s attempted initiative to do that with a property tax bump.

       2. Maybe, but that seems misguided at best. I think a restructure should assume the same level of funding. If cuts are eventually made, they should come after the fact. It is highly unlikely that Seattle will fail to pass a transit levy, given the last one passed by over 80%.

          In general there is a lack of consistency with some of the decisions here. In some cases — like the 75 along Sand Point Way — there is a service cut. Yet in others (like most of the 333) there is a huge service increase. That doesn’t seem justified. I could definitely see the 75 going with 15 minute service, but in that case, so should most of the 333.

13. I like that Metro is doing virtual sessions, out of concern for the health and safety of their planners (who are more than just planners, but also have to be politicians). The best I can do, with my schedule, is watch a recording. But I wasn’t going to go to an indoor session right now anyway.

    1. I agree. I’m not sure how much folks here would get out of the sessions anyway. The vast majority of people who attend a meeting have not read the Jarrett Walker book (or gathered that information elsewhere) which means that most of the discussion is basic (as it should be). I’ve heard back from people, and there hasn’t been anything too surprising (e. g. money is tight — got it). Other aspects of it are covered with the guidelines (e. g. more east-west service).

       To be fair, I have had some interesting moments at open houses, and there have been some different perspectives I’ve gained, but in this case I doubt that would happen. With the exception of this particular omission I can see what they are trying to do, I just disagree with some of their decisions (e. g. the 46 is clearly trying to connect part of Aurora with Link, but I don’t think it will work, simply because it runs every half hour, while the E runs every 7.5 minutes).

    2. The biggest thing I get out of in-person open houses is hearing what residents who aren’t everyday transit fans think. Early Link open houses used to have people sit around tables and discuss the corridor; that was the most useful to me and helped inform my feedback. Then ST eliminated the tables and just had poster stations, but still there would be several people people talking around each one and you could talk with an ST or Metro rep for a while and ask why this, why that, have you considered this? It wasn’t as effective as the tables because I couldn’t get as complete a picture of what other people were thinking. The last few sessions before covid I attended didn’t have much more than close-up pictures of the streetscape and there weren’t any presentations or much opportunity to listen to or talk with other residents so I didn’t get much out of them. And now with online meetings there’s none of that, just whatever questions or testimonies get in the equivalent of a central microphone, which isn’t as much. And some Sound Transit open houses I can’t even get into because it asks for a username/password which non-ST people don’t have.

14. I live near the 15th ave ne area near Northgate Way. For me, walking to Lake City is a chore. The hills are steep. I don’t want to reduce transit somewhere else, and I am not asking for any favortism in service, but I believe a block here is like 3 blocks in a flat neighborhood. That is my personal opinion.

    1. To be clear, I don’t see anyone trying to reduce service to any neighborhood. We just want the neighborhoods getting bizarre outcomes (like an infrequent overlay route to serve a few stops not served by a frequent Stride line) to get more sensible, legible options.

       The proposed 322 and 324 are bizarre duds of routes to serve purposes better served by ST 522, that may end up undermining frequency on ST 522, while Lake City Way is getting the shaft.

15. I was just making an personal observation of walking distances on hills based on what I see around me in my neighborhood. And I know they are biased. I hope that bus service is maintained on 15th. But I still think that the Lake City corridor is more important and should be solved first. It is too bad we have to choose.

    1. I agree, it is steep. This is another reason why I think we need a bus along Lake City Way. That way people can walk downhill, both directions. For example, let’s say I live at 17th Avenue NE and NE 94th. I would walk down the hill to catch the bus (https://goo.gl/maps/QZkZZKyDhG9utHqq9). Coming back, I would get off a different bus at Roosevelt and walk down the hill (https://goo.gl/maps/QZkZZKyDhG9utHqq9). It is a farther walk, but it is downhill. From Sacajawea school (or Boys and Girls Club) it is a shorter walk involving less elevation as well. This is because the crossing on 95th doesn’t serve the 372 (which means you can’t go this way: https://goo.gl/maps/TrB2ci43F6aAePzr5). As you get a little bit farther south, it makes sense to just follow 20th. It isn’t completely flat, but it is a lot better than going east-west. 17th is remarkably flat south of around 91st. Thus if you wanted a pleasant, flat walk to the bus stop, going this way would work out really well: https://goo.gl/maps/dgBa3JSvQiAVsMTo7. (We would need to add bus stops there, but that is a given).

    2. Yes, the whole issue is convincing Metro that the Lake City corridor is important. If it were just this restructure I could lay it down to resource limitations and other priorities. But Metro has never had a route down it even in flusher times, and the 72 that served part of it was the first route it deleted in 2016. The only service it has gotten since then is from Sound Transit. So the first task is to convince Metro that this is an important corridor.

       1. Metro used to provide the main service along Bothell Way (the 372), while STX 522 ran only half hourly. Let ST take over serving Bothell Way and Metro take over serving Lake City Way, a reasonably even swap.

       2. “Metro used to provide the main service along Bothell Way (the 372), while STX 522 ran only half hourly. Let ST take over serving Bothell Way and Metro take over serving Lake City Way, a reasonably even swap.”

          If the 522 is funded like other eastside ST buses the eastside subarea is paying 100% of the cost despite servicing Seattle riders as well (including four stops on LCW). https://www.soundtransit.org/ride-with-us/routes-schedules/522?direction=0&at=1675152000000&view=table&route_tab=schedule&stops_0=1_23561%2C1_75992&stops_1=1_75995%2C1_23422

          The Stride S3 line https://www.soundtransit.org/system-expansion/stride-s3-brt looks to me that it will also be funded by the eastside subarea although I don’t know for sure, although the number of stops is more limited including at least six in the N. King Co. subarea.

          So why would this area of the eastside — which serves some equity zones — have its Metro service reallocated to LCW because it is funding Stride? Funding service for LCW is a Seattle issue IMO. Find service in the Seattle subarea to reallocate to LCW is how I think this part of the eastside would see it. Surely there are areas in Seattle that would be willing to give some of their transit service to LCW, which is why I think Metro needs to go to a subarea approach.

       3. ST Express is normally funded 100% by the suburban subareas, based on the assumption that it’s overwhelmingly for them and wouldn’t exist otherwise. The 522 is explicitly for Woodinville, Bothell, Northshore, and Lake Forest Park. NOT Lake City; it just serves Lake City because it’s on the way and its predecessor the 307 served it. BUT… Lake Forest Park is in North King. People tend to forget that. So North King may be paying a portion for Lake Forest Park’s service.

          In Stride 3’s case the route goes to Shoreline South/148th station. The 522 never did that. So is Shoreline an explicit beneficiary of Stride 3? If so, North King would have to fund Shoreline’s share of it. I’m not sure if Shoreline is a beneficiary in that way, because the main purpose of S3 is to get Northshore residents to Link, and I doubt Shoreline considers BRT to Bothell a high priority.

          In other ST Express routes the non-downtown Seattle stops are marginal (I-90 Rainier, 520 Montlake, I-5 45th and 145th) so not considered important enough to make North King pay for them. The 560 explicitly serves Westwood Village and earlier served Alaska Junction, so north King may pay for that. The reverse trips on the 545 and 550 are an unusual case, in that Seattlites are a large percent of riders. That was less common in the 1990s when the ST Express funding formulas were drawn up, and the formulas haven’t been adjusted. Still, those routes will disappear in a few years when East Link starts, so it’s only a short-term issue.

       4. So why would this area of the eastside — which serves some equity zones — have its Metro service reallocated to LCW because it is funding Stride? .

          Brent is merely suggesting that Sound Transit provide the main service along Bothell Way (which it plans to do with the S3, although it has a service hole) and Metro handle Lake City Way. No one is suggesting that East Side riders somehow subsidize the rest of the county.

          It is like when Link got to Northgate. The 41 was cancelled. The service savings were spread through the county. Does that mean that Northgate was subsidizing bus service in other parts of town? Of course not. To determine whether anyone is subsidizing anyone else deserves a lot more thought and consideration (as well as data).

          It is worth looking at the subarea map: https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/fly_sound-transit-district.pdf. Notice that the old 522 was about evenly split between the subareas. The previous route had a ton of ridership in Seattle, that happened to be on the way. This meant that the service cost was minimal, while the fare revenue was very high. Thus it is highly likely that Seattle riders were essentially subsidizing the rest of the riders (from both subareas, but especially the North King subarea, since there aren’t that many Lake Forest Park riders).

          I have no idea who is paying for the S3. I may be the East King County subarea. This means that Kenmore is basically subsidizing Bothell, and may be subsidizing Lake Forest Park. Hard to tell until we get ridership data. But that is just one way of looking at it. Should we look at tax rates? Per capita spending? Should we just look at the city, or break it all down to neighborhood? It gets very complicated, and there is no obvious way to determine who is subsidizing whom, or even what the means.

          Regardless, that is neither here nor there. What remains is how best to build a network for everyone. In this case, it means running a bus down Lake City Way from at least Lake City to Roosevelt. Sound Transit, meanwhile, can very easily plug the service hole in the S3 by just adding a bus stop at 83rd.

16. “Yes, the whole issue is convincing Metro that the Lake City corridor is important. If it were just this restructure I could lay it down to resource limitations and other priorities. But Metro has never had a route down it even in flusher times, and the 72 that served part of it was the first route it deleted in 2016. The only service it has gotten since then is from Sound Transit. So the first task is to convince Metro that this is an important corridor.”

    Mike, the point I have tried to make is the whole issue is to convince Metro the LCW corridor is MORE important than service someplace else. Obviously LCW has had a hard time doing that in the past, or in the restructure. LCW is going to have to convince Metro service should be cut someplace else and reallocated to LCW.

    IMO LCW suffers from a double whammy: 1. it does not meet the current “equity” Seattle criteria for an area (maybe based on out-of-date stereotypes); and 2. it has little political power. One would think LCW would trump wealthier areas like Ballard or West Seattle or Capitol Hill when it comes to transit “equity”, but those areas have much more political power and don’t want to give up transit service.

    I thought at least Glenn addressed the issue: he identified the 322 as a place to cut to reallocate service to LCW. All I tried to point out is riders on the 322 have political power, or their employers do, so that was not likely to succeed.

    If Metro’s costs don’t continue to increase per hour, and transit funding increases, maybe LCW can get transit service. If the opposite happens going forward LCW won’t get service, and some other areas that have the same double whammy of not great equity and little political power will get the same cuts.

    Just because the KC Council started to use an equity index for allocating transit does not mean the primary factor for allocation — political power and neighborhood desire for transit — has gone away. Political power still remains the main factor, with equity an attempt to temper political power for the less politically powerful but “equitable”. LCW just does not meet what Metro and the KC council are looking for in “equity”, and has little political power, hence it is at the bottom for limited transit service. I don’t see LCW increasing its political power so unless it can increase what Metro and the Council consider an equity quotient it won’t be getting transit service.

    1. There’s another factor: transit best practices. If Lake City Way is important because it has a lot of walk-up riders in the middle or Lake City-Roosevelt is an important transit corridor, then it should be reflected in Metro’s long-range plan and priorities. If resources are limited they should be allocated from higher to lower priorities. I’ve always thought Lake City Way should have service, but I deferred to Metro that maybe it wasn’t as important as it appears because of the few destinations alongside the highway. Now I’m hearing other people say it really is a priority, people who know more about lower Lake City Way than I do. If Metro can’t fund it now, it at least needs to say it is important and currently underserved, and outline at what point it would get service.

       Ross and the other commentators have suggested a simple way to get lower Lake City Way more service hours: delete the 322. The opposition to this shows the perrennial long-term issue we’ve been dealing with for years: 9-5 commuters not wanting to lose their one-seat express ride. This has been an issue throughout the Lynnwood Link restructure, Northgate Link restructure, U-Link restructure, and others. Some expresses may need to be reserved; e.g., a 101 or 577 MAY be worthwhile for example. It’s a judgment call and tradeoff, so we express our priorities, and Metro expresses its, and we try to get Metro’s to be more like ours. That’s a long-term effort and nothing new.

       What I think is happening in North Seattle/Shoreline/Northshore, is that Metro is agreeing some reduction in downtown expresses is worthwhile, both because of the Link extension and the post-pandemic ridership shift away from downtown peak travel. So Metro has reduced the number of expresses and redirected the remaining ones to First Hill/Cherry Hill or SLU. That’s to try out a new model where you serve job centers on the periphery of Link’s service area rather than right in the middle of it (as 3rd Avenue expresses were). Metro is evaluating how much demand and ridership for these peripheral routes there is. There’s also the question of how reasonable a Link transfer to First Hill/Cherry Hill is. That’s another judgment call, and one we need to evaluate, and that Metro is evaluating.

       Northshore commuters have long pressured Metro to keep their one-seat rides, as most other areas do. That pressure is greater in some areas, less in others. Sometimes Metro and ST are willing to override them, other times not. Metro kind of promised Northshore that the 522’s/Stride’s truncation would be accompanied with an express to downtown, which is now an express to First Hill. Some areas have gotten that, while others (probably most) haven’t or won’t.

       However, I think we’ve reached a point where we’re overestimating Northshore’s opposition to deleting the 522, and Northshore’s clout to keep it. We’re following past assumptions, not what Northshore has said in the past three months or a current Metro/Northshore battle. I hate to even say “Metro/Northshore battle” because it’s not really all of Northshore, just 9-5 commuters to First Hill who really want this route instead of a Link transfer. That has to be weighed against all the other transit needs in the Lynnwood Restructure route scope. (The list of routes Metro said at the beginning it would consider changing in this restructure.)

       The current action issue is what we should tell Metro in our feedback. If we think Lake City Way deserves higher priority, we should tell Metro that. That’s why this feedback period exists, to gather public input. If we think deleting the 322 is a reasonable tradeoff to get the necessary hours for at least a partial 61, then we should tell Metro that. If Northshore commuters feel strongly about keeping the 322, they can tell Metro that. We’ll see how much they do so. It’s at least possible that there’s declining intrerest in that, now that the benefits of Lynnwood Link and Stride 3 are closer to being realized. Benefits that may not help this particular trip pair, but give Northshore overall better transit.

17. Eliminating the 372 direct service between the UW Seattle campus and the Bothell campus, making riders transfer in Lake City, does not seem like a good idea. From what I hear, Campus commuters are still very unhappy about losing their CT campus routes.

    1. Either with this proposal or the Metro proposal, that direct connection would go away. The problem is that the 372 is a very slow way to go between campuses. It takes about 40 minutes. There are two alternatives:

       1) Take 522 (eventually the S3) and then transfer to Link. This would save time, and be a lot more frequent.
       2) Metro or ST could build a new express route between the campuses that would go on the freeway. This would connect to the various freeway stops, especially Totem Lake.

       But even without this second option, the old 372 would struggle. Imagine you are in Bothell, headed to the UW. Chances are, the S3 arrives first. Do you wait for your 372, knowing that it will take longer to get to the UW? No way. You get on the S3. Going the other way is a bit different, but if you check Google Maps or any other online scheduling system, it will tell you to get on Link. Very few people would end up riding the 372 from UW Bothell to UW Seattle. It’s just not worth it.

       It is worth noting that UW Bothell ridership was big, but not enormous. Around 300 riders or so. Like the 522, most riders got on and off the bus in Seattle.

       1. Ross – a point that you miss with your argument is that UW-Seattle isn’t a single point. Despite having 2 Link stations, the campus proper is not all that well served by Link. The U District, Husky Stadium, and UW Medical Center are well served. Not so much the classroom buildings like Kane Hall, the HUB, the quad, Drumheller fountain, etc.

          The 372 runs through the center of campus. For people traveling between UW-Bothell, and central UW-Seattle campus, S3 + Link + walk from the U District / Husky Stadium would be slower than the 372, or even the new proposed S3 + 72.

       2. I’m well aware of the fact that Link doesn’t serve the UW as well as it should. I’ve made that point many times (there should be three stations, not two). Still, that is an argument for option 2, an express from UW Seattle to UW Bothell. Such a bus would likely layover on Memorial Way, covering a different part of the UW. This would be by far the fastest way to connect the two campuses. But that isn’t the only benefit, as it would add service along the way (to places like Totem Lake). It just isn’t worth it to keep the old 372, given how few people ride between the campuses.

          Look at this way. Imagine they keep the 372. You would have a route that branches, with one branch going to UW Bothell, and the other going to the station at 148th. The shared section would run every 15 minutes, but the old 372 would run every half hour.

          Even before you add Link you start losing riders. Less than 300 people ride between campuses. With the loss of frequency alone, you are probably down to 200. Now add Link. Suddenly a lot of people who took that trip just take the train. It is faster and more frequent. Some people who wait for the 372 (on campus) just grab the 67 or 45. Once they get to the U-District Station, they get off the bus and take the train. Yes that means an additional couple of transfers, but it sure beats waiting for that 372, which is both slow and infrequent. I’m not the most phone savvy guy, but I still know how to use Google to get from point A to point B using transit. If the first option is a three-seat ride (involving Link in the middle) that is the one I’ll take. If it recommends walking to the station as the fastest option, I’ll take that. Chances are, it will rarely, if ever, recommend taking the 372, either direction. It all adds to very few riders. You don’t get that many riders now — I don’t see how you are going to get that many later given more competition, and worse frequency. Meanwhile, you’ve probably just lost a lot of riders on the 72 (the branch that goes to Link) because now that is forced to run every half hour. It just doesn’t add up to a cost-effective option.

          On the other hand, the freeway based express could very well be a cost-effective option. It would actually be faster than using Link/S3, and much faster than riding the old 372. It would make a huge difference for those on Totem Lake. It also wouldn’t cost that much, since buses on the freeway go very fast. Express buses usually perform poorly, but in this case, the strong anchors (UW Bothell, UW Seattle) along with the enormous improvement for Totem Lake could easily make it a solid route. It probably still only makes sense for Sound Transit (just because Metro has bigger fish to fry) but either way it makes way more sense than the existing 372.

       3. Ross – I think we’re talking past each other because you think the 372 is a slow bus while I think the 372 is a fast bus. It all depends where on campus you are trying to get.

          UW Bothell to UW Seattle – UW Tower:
          372 – 65 minutes
          522 + Link – 55 minutes

          UW Bothell to UW Seattle – UW HUB:
          372 – 50 minutes
          522 + Link (walking from Husky Stadium) – 65 minutes

          So which is faster, S3+Link or the 372? If you’re heading to the U District, a 2-seat Link ride will be faster. If you’re heading into central campus, the 372 is faster. The next question is where people are heading on campus. I don’t have an answer for you on that. Other than to say that ignoring the people who are heading to central campus seems like a poor oversight.

       4. 50 minutes is slow. That translates to a minimum 2-hour gap between a class at one campus and a class at the other. When you add that up that’s four hours for two classes. I’ve ridden the 372 end to end to see what’s there along the way, and I remember it taking a long time, and that was just once or twice.

          When Ross says freeway, we should clarify he means a 405-520 route, not an I5-522 route. A 405-520 route would be much faster than any current service, and it would give important coverage to the northeast Eastside. Right now it’s a bear to get from Kirkland, Totem Lake, or Bothell to the U-District or the rest of North Seattle such as Ballard, Wallingford, or Greenwood, and that would be the best way to serve that.

       5. Link is not always the answer depending on where you are going.

          I live near Ravenna Avenue and several of my doctors are located on First Hill on Madison Street. Before Link was extended to the UW station and now to Northgate I was able to catch the # 72, ride it to downtown and transfer to the # 12. One transfer.

          But after Metro re-organized their service I now had to catch # 372, ride to the stop on Stevens Way, take a 5 minute walk in all kinds of weather to catch the light rail at the UW station, ride that to the Capitol Hill station and transfer to the #60. Going home do the reverse. Now with light rail to Northgate I can ride the # 372 to the U District station eliminating at least the walk across the UW Campus but I still have 2 transfers versus only one when I could ride the # 72 to downtown. So the speed of light rail doesn’t always override the inconvenience of making 2 transfers instead of one transfer.

          So now instead taking transit when I go to these doctors I sometimes drive instead.

       6. Link is not always the answer depending on where you are going.

          I agree. The shorter the trip, the more annoying the transfer. That is part of my thinking with a lot of the restructure ideas. The 61, for example, is not that much different in terms of connecting to Link, but it will make a world of difference for those trying to get between neighborhoods, either directly (Greenwood to Lake City) or indirectly (Phinney Ridge to Lake City). Likewise, I definitely understand why people miss the express buses to downtown, especially if they have to deal with the awkward transfer at the UW Station.

          But ultimately, we have to look at how we can do the most good for the most people. In your example, we can’t afford to run the old 72 to downtown, unless we run it every half hour (if that). Ridership was driven not by trips like yours, but trips from the UW to downtown, that Link has largely replaced. Lots of people who used to board on The Ave close to 45th now just walk to Link. They would continue to do that, even if we ran those buses.

          These are trade-offs. All things being equal, we should reduce transfers. But in a lot of cases, they aren’t equal. The cost of avoiding transfers is really high, and not that many riders benefit. Three seat rides can be annoying, but if the transfers aren’t bad, and the trains and buses are frequent, you get used to it. It reminds me of this outstanding post: https://seattletransitblog.com/2013/08/19/your-bus-much-more-often-no-more-money-really/. This definitely forces transfers. But in exchange it offers much better headways. The truncation of the 71/72/73 buses after UW Link was very controversial (in part because the transfer to UW Station is terrible). But ultimately it lead to a very big increase in transit ridership because they were able to increase frequency on the buses. We really shouldn’t backslide on that approach.

       7. “It is funny that Sound Transit is willing to just give Metro money (for RapidRide bus service) but wasn’t willing to work with them in crafting a good regional bus route.”

          Madison was a Sound Transit corridor in the long-range plan, so it merely adopted Metro’s/SDOT’s G plan as a way to fulfill it. The C and D improvements are part of the WSBLE plan, originally intended as interim support until Link is ready. (Now with the realignment that’s uncertain as they’ve been pushed to the end, and by then the C and D won’t exist. So would the money go to RapidRide 40 and 128?) I don’t know of any other case where ST has given money for a RapidRide line.

       8. @Mike — Yeah, I’m just saying that they could have easily drawn the line that goes from Bothell (or is it Woodinville?) to Link and continue it eastward to Shoreline Community College. It would never make sense as a light rail line, but than neither would any of the Stride Lines. They make sense as major regional bus corridors.

       9. Even for a trip like Ravenna to First Hill, I don’t think the old 72 was ever all that great.

          For starters, the bus only ran every half hour, so you might have to arrive at the appointment 20 minutes early to avoid being 10 minutes late. The 72, getting from one end of the U-district to the other, was never fast. Without Link to do the heavy lifting of the downtown->U-district traffic, the 72 had loads of people getting on at every single stop. University/50th to 12th/Campus Parkway could easily take 15 minutes even though it was only a mile. Then, when the bus finally entered express mode, it could only really move fast when the I-5 express lanes were open in the correct direction. Assuming the medical appointment lasts 30 minutes to an hour, there exists no time you can schedule the appointment that would allow the bus to use the express lanes both directions. When the express lanes are unavailable, the bus has to slog it down Eastlake, adding more time, and wait for all the stoplights on Stewart to each the downtown tunnel entrance. And, when it’s all done, you still have to either walk up the hill or transfer to another bus. If you wanted to go the transfer option, you’d be forced to remain on the #72 bus to Westlake Station and transfer at 3rd Ave. – even though the path between Convention Place Station and First Hill was a direct path along a straight-line arterial (Boren Ave.), metro has refused, and continues to refuse, to run a bus down it, so you’re forced to travel out of the way and sit through more bus stops. And, on top of all that, the 72 on the way back would be in pay-as-you-exit mode, which made the slog through the U-district painfully slow, again. Plus the risk that the 72 might be completely packed with downtown->U-district travelers, to the point that you have to wait another 30 minutes for another 72. The old 71/72/73 days were definitely not the golden age of transit.

          Now, let’s compare that to what we have today. You can call it a 3-seat ride, but the 72 runs every 15 minutes, and Link runs every 10. In practice, you won’t be waiting at the platform anywhere near the full 10 minutes for Link because you can consult OneBusAway while on board the 72 and choose between a fast walk or a slow walk depending on when the next train is coming. In a couple years, the all-day Link frequency is also supposed to improve from every 10 minutes to every 5 minutes. The trip from UW Station to Capitol Hill Station takes all of 4 minutes, plus another two minutes on the escalators to get out. Then, since the distance is short, if the 60 isn’t coming for awhile, you have options and aren’t captive to it. You can take a streetcar for instance, and get most of the way there. Or, if nothing is coming for awhile, you can just walk the entire way. The distance is about 1 mile, which corresponds to a 20 minute walk. So, no matter what the bus/streetcar situation is, the longest possible travel time from Capitol Hill station to the First Hill hospitals is 20 minutes. And improvement over that the transit system offers is just an added bonus, but at least the travel time has an upper bound that is not the case when you’re riding farther and *have* to transfer.

          Of course, with the old 72, the option also existed to avoid the transfer and just walk up the hill from Convention Place Station. But, the difference is, there, you had to actually walk up the hill. From Capitol Hill Station, you’re already up the hill, and the walk is mostly flat.

       10. @asdf2:

           You can give all the facts you want but you miss the point of my post.

           With the #72 I had one transfer and it didn’t take that long to get from my home to my medical appointments on Madison Street at First Hill . Now with the #372 I have 3 transfers and I have done it and takes longer and it is not as convenient.

           I am also in my late 70’s so walking is not as good as it used to be so telling me walk here or there isn’t going to work for me.

           Light Rail is fine and works for a lot of people but it doesn’t always work for everyone when it requires multiple transfers which I didn’t have to do before.

           So more times then not I now drive to those appointments because it is more convenient for me then having to make two transfers and taking longer then before.

       11. @asdf2,

           I’m with you. The speed and convenience of LR today is far superior to the old days of the 72. Those 70 series buses always seemed to be stuck in traffic.

           And, as you said, the benefit of using the express lanes only really applied if you were doing a standard morning/evening type commute and could use them both directions. But if you were using any of the express lane buses for something like a medical appointment, then one leg of your round trip was going to stink to high heaven!

           Now Link can deliver a rider from Roosevelt/U-Dist/UW to Cap Hill or Downtown in just minutes, can do it reliably, and can do it in both directions. Wait times are 8/10 mins peak/mid, and will go to 4/5 mins in about a year and half. That is a huge speed advantage that more than makes up for most transfer situations, assuming of course that the bus is on time.

           And, depending on where someone lives on Ravenna Ave, there are several options. I’m not sure why anyone would choose an infrequent bus like the 372 that only runs every half hour and then loops through campus, but maybe Jeff just lives near some obscure section of Ravenna Ave that isn’t well served.

           But hey, anyone who is in their late 70’s has seen a lot of changes in Seattle. Imagine Seattle without freeways or tall buildings, no Space Needle, no Metro transit at all, the Kalakala still plying the waters on its daily runs, and steam engines rolling back and forth moving freight. Must have been something to see, but I’m not sure it was better in any way, shape or form.

       12. With the #72 I had one transfer and it didn’t take that long to get from my home to my medical appointments on Madison Street at First Hill . Now with the #372 I have 3 transfers and I have done it and takes longer and it is not as convenient.

           Yes, absolutely. There are definitely winners and losers with every restructure. It doesn’t matter how you do it. Go back to the old way, and you have plenty of people that come out way behind. Half hour buses are extremely inconvenient, even if they go where you want to go. As Lazarus mentioned, the 71/72/73 only worked well when the express lanes were in your favor.

           My point is that with the truncations, there are more winners than losers. More to the point, the amount of winning is better than the amount of losing. Transfers are annoying, but not as annoying as having to wait 20 minutes for a bus (which is common with a half hour bus). Or worse yet, having to arrive 20 minutes before you are supposed to be there, because the alternative is to arrive 10 minutes late. It is easy to say that the old bus was “faster”, but in many cases, it didn’t actually save you time.

           But again, no is claiming that there aren’t people (like you) who are worse off. What we are saying is that you are in the minority. Not only that, but you aren’t that bad off. You have one additional transfer, but often you save time. Gearing our system for a handful of riders in your situation just means we screw over a lot more riders somewhere else. The crux of the problem for those who live east of Lake City Way is that the UW Station is terrible. It requires a long walk. The other option (that you mentioned) of just staying on the bus until you get to the U-District works, but it means you ride the bus all the way through campus and up The Ave. Either way is bad. I get that.

           But it is also worth mentioning how rare your case is. You were able to ride the 72. This meant you had a one seat ride to downtown. Now, you have a two-seat ride to downtown, with the dreaded UW Station. But the 65, 75 and 78 (all of which went east of Lake City Way) never went downtown. Riders there had a two seat ride anyway! For all its flaws, Link is a huge improvement. Meanwhile, those along 65th (who rode the 71) now have a three-seat ride, but it involves a much more convenient station (Roosevelt). Those north of Ravenna have swapped out the 372 for the 522, which means they get to have the same (quite good) transfer. You are really in an unfortunate little sliver of the city where you traded a one-seat ride to downtown for a two-seat ride involving the awkward UW Station (or a long ride through campus before reaching U-District Station).

           One of the reasons I wrote this post is that there will be many, many more people in the same boat as you unless Metro backfills service there. They will be forced to deal with the infamous UW Station, unless we add a bus like the one I’m proposing. This isn’t the only reason to add that route — but it certainly is a very good one.

       13. “Now, you have a two-seat ride to downtown, with the dreaded UW Station.”

           The 372 also goes to U-District Station. A slightly longer bus ride, but you skip the 7-minute walk and the three escalators down to the deep platforms. The 372 doesn’t really “serve” UW Station, it was just pressed into that role when UW Station was the terminus.

       14. “Now, you have a two-seat ride to downtown, with the dreaded UW Station.”

           The 372 also goes to U-District Station.

           Yeah, I know that. I mentioned that in some of the other paragraphs. I just got tired of adding on the phrase “or ride through campus to the U-District Station”. In contrast, folks coming from the north have a straight shot to that same station (if they haven’t already used the one at Roosevelt).

       15. Can’t someone trying to get to First Hill from the 72 or 73 with only one transfer just do so at Husky Stadium and take the 43?

       16. Glenn, I assume the rider got to UW station via Link. How did they get to Link? You are really talking about two transfers and three seats, generally the death of transit, especially if there is a transfer after Link.

       17. @Glenn in Portland,

           The #43 no longer runs all day and is primarily a rush hour route on weekdays.

           And even if still was an all-day route it would not work for me to get to Madison Street where my doctors are located. The #43 runs on John Street and Olive Way and not Madison.

       18. Daniel:
           A number of Link stations have a number of bus routes at them. This includes Husky Stadium, where a number of bus routes converge. At one time this included the 373 and 372 as in the not too distant past I’ve made use of those. I don’t have a good feel yet for where stuff goes with the Northgate restructure.

           Other buses from the Husky Stadium location include a number that go further south without going through downtown Seattle. 43, 48, 49 are among them. So, it’s a logical place to transfer to go further south if you want to cut out a transfer in downtown Seattle.

           But as Jeff noted, getting to the specific desired point on Madison depends where on Madison because they all cross it at different locations.

           With UW and Madison being busy locations it seems like there should be something that basically does RapidRide G then turns north at 23rd and then to UW, but not as frequent as the G.

       19. Can’t someone trying to get to First Hill from the 72 or 73 with only one transfer just do so at Husky Stadium and take the 43?

           As mentioned, not really. On the other hand, if the 49 kept going south (instead of turning to go downtown) then that would work for a lot of First Hill. This is an example: https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1z77_UZ0p-jIhfys48pONPThtomml2x42&usp=sharing. It still might not work, depends a little on where on First Hill you are trying to go. That is very close to Swedish First Hill, and a couple blocks from Harborview. But a ways from Virginia Mason. I’m afraid ST’s very large stop spacing means that 3-seat rides will be common in the future, even to very busy places.

       20. To me it seems like the problem is too few bus routes reflect the current travel patterns.

           Eg, those times I’ve visited Volunteer Park, 15th has always seemed really busy with through traffic coming from the north. The 10, however, stops at Volunteer Park.

           It seems as though all things being equal it would be best to have as few dead end bus routes in that area as possible, and run 8 more blocks of trolley wire and have some of the 10s drop down onto 10th, and continue to UW. The traffic patterns I observe suggest there’s a demand for a connection that isn’t there right now.

           The problem is all things are not equal and there are two drawbridges in the way and Montlake Mess traffic, which will lead to unpredictable schedules on those buses that make this trip.

       21. The problem is all things are not equal and there are two drawbridges in the way and Montlake Mess traffic, which will lead to unpredictable schedules on those buses that make this trip.

           Yeah, exactly. I also think we have to caution ourselves when it comes to traffic patterns. If you are in a car in Capitol Hill and want to go the U-District, or pretty much anywhere north, it is quite reasonable to just go north on 15th. Notice how Google sends me that way onto the freeway (https://goo.gl/maps/8z1xW45JZckSQHdd7). On the other hand, if you are anywhere near the Capitol Hill station and headed anywhere near another station, you are taking Link. This is the exact same trip pair, but with transit (https://goo.gl/maps/8z1xW45JZckSQHdd7). Obviously that is because the bus doesn’t keep going, but even if it did, a lot of people who would drive that way wouldn’t take the bus that way. They would take Link.

           But that doesn’t mean there isn’t merit in extending the 10. There is. I think the first thing you have to do is fix the traffic situation. I would try and give the 49 the same treatment as the 40. At that point you have two choices. One is to extend the 10 (or the equivalent) all the way to the UW. That could work, but even without traffic (or bridge delays) it takes a while. The other is to just end a bit further up the road, to connect to the 49 (while making it more frequent). That would be a two-seat ride for a fairly short trip (in some cases) but at least riders are always going the same direction.

       22. In 2015, in the equivalent of P2 for U Link, implemented in March 2016, Metro did ask the public about a Route 49 shifted to Madison Street from Pine Street. It could have been the future Madison BRT. It would have served the Capitol Hill Link station.

       23. Yeah, but I think it would have a tough time doing what the G does. Right-of-way on Broadway is tough to get (the streetcar doesn’t have it). The bridge is challenging, and will cause some delay, even if you can minimize it with enough right-of-way (worthy for both the 47 and 70). As a result of this, and the longer length, I doubt you could have 6 minute all-day headways (which is a big selling point). Of course if they really felt like it, they could do that (or have a split, where one bus goes straight and the other turns). I would be happy if they just ran the 49 every ten minutes, and kept it going straight (towards Rainier Valley or Beacon Hill) doubling up service on Broadway (with the streetcar).

    2. Would using Link and Route 522 be a faster way to travel between the two campuses? ST says Link will have five-minute headway and Stride will have a 10-minute headway.

       1. The problem is that not everyone wants to or is capable of walking the campus walks as quickly as we might think. There are also differences between what we expect “30-something busy professionals” with no gear to walk downtown, vs. other people. Not to say that I think students aren’t capable of walking the campus – obviously they are, and do, but it’s not unreasonable to expect that they will prefer a bus route that actually takes them closer to their first class or their office (if grad students). Some (many, even) may even choose to turn it into a three seat ride by catching one of the few buses left actually going along Stevens Way.

          Should we optimize for students’ comfort over others’ coverage? Depends on other things, too – students are a “captive audience”, it’s easy to make them feel ignored. Instilling the idea that transit is not just useful but convenient can build brand loyalty for transit, too. But everyone has their own constituencies that they advocate for. Make of this what you will.

          I would suggest, in closing, that it would be empathetic to not dismiss the idea that the bus routes like the 372 aren’t useful to people, though.

       2. Of course it is useful, the problem is that it would be useful to relatively few people (see my comment above). Even now, relatively few people use it. With competition from Link, ridership would drop like a stone.

          As far as “brand loyalty”, it is hard to imagine that a UW student is so intellectually fragile as to base their lifelong opinion of transit over whether they had to make a transfer or not back in college. It is quite likely the opposite. The UW makes a boatload of money on parking. Do they put some of that money into running shuttles between the campuses? If not, why not? Maybe that should be the next campaign for some student activist. The shuttle, of course, would take the fastest route, which is using the freeways (not the current pathway of the 372).

       3. I said nothing about intellectual fragility, just to be clear. I said something about “brand loyalty”, which is a fairly well established concept. If you are not familiar with it, I encourage you to read about it, starting with the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand_loyalty

          For details on brand loyalty in teenagers (which many incoming students are), there are also many sources of discussion; I happened to glance at this one which seemed relatively balanced: https://www.apa.org/monitor/jun04/driving

          Now, I am not suggesting that transit should advertise to kids in nefarious ways; however, I am suggesting that making transit easier to use and more convenient for teens may in fact help turn them into loyal users later in life, because in part the concept of brand loyalty. Do you (Ross) have any reason to deny that that will happen, other than the facetious comment about intellectual fragility? If so, I look forward to reading it, as your posts are generally very insightful and quite often well argued, too.

          Thanks.

       4. Before we worry about students traveling between campuses, let’s verify they actually exist and are numerous. I’ve always assumed the 372 was used by them and was an important connection, but do we really know? The fact that Metro is breaking the 372 suggests it isn’t, or that Metro thinks Link+Stride is a reasonable substitute. Metro consults UW before making any route changes, and it’s hard to imagine Metro doing it if UW strongly opposed it, and UW should know how many of its students are affected.

          Also, the 10-minute time difference is not significant enough to warrant a long milk run that wouldn’t otherwise be there. We’re building Link and Stride to be the transit trunk, so we should use it as the transit trunk. The fact that they’re more frequent than the 372 is another factor that can make up for the longer trip. One that can’t be seen now because Stride doesn’t exist yet.

          The distance from the Hub to a Link station is a tiny part of a fifteen-mile trip, and is a normal part of UW life for the vast majority of students. Those who don’t want to walk can take one of the many bus routes from the hub to the U-District. Or maybe not, if UW still has its long-term plan to eliminate buses on lower Stevens Way and route them on upper Stevens Way (between 17th and Pend Orielle Way) instead. That may have disappeared because a bus street wasn’t created on 43rd between 15th and 17th, but it’s worth checking with UW whether it still intends to reduce buses on lower Stevens Way before assuming the 372 can do that forever.

       5. Before we worry about students traveling between campuses, let’s verify they actually exist and are numerous.

          I think it is fair to assume that those riders took the 372 before Northgate Link (if not now). I don’t have data from after Northgate Link, but I found some from before the pandemic. This isn’t trip data (that shows beginning and ending) but stop data by direction. Basically around 300 people took the bus heading south from UW Bothell. Some of those riders obviously got off the bus before it got to the UW. At 300 the numbers are good, but not spectacular.

          Which is why I am a big fan of a freeway express route. That would be much faster than the 372, and faster than Link/S3. Faster trips get more riders. If you base East Link on 550 ridership, it will be a complete flop. But ridership increases as you speed up service, and thus is it reasonable to assume a big jump. The same would be true of an express between campuses, but as I wrote before, the biggest beneficiaries would be those in Totem Lake. It wouldn’t necessarily be a high ridership bus, but with relatively low costs (because it would get there fast) the ridership per service hour would be good. It would definitely be one of the better ST express buses, and could easily outperform S1 or S2. I still think the UW should chip in for it.

          Ridership isn’t the only consideration. One is how much time they save. The 41 would be quite popular if they resurrected it. It would get very good ridership, and ridership per service hour. But it wouldn’t save that many people time. In contrast, the express bus I would like to see between the campuses would save people on that trip some time, while those from Totem Lake would save a huge amount of time.

       6. One thing to keep in mind throughout this discussion. Any particular commute, in isolation, it is always possible to run a direct route. But, in a world where you have millions of people all moving around in different directions at different times, it doesn’t scale. And anyone who tries to do it for everyone will very quickly run out of money.

          It’s easy to say “transferring sucks; I want a one seat ride there from where I live”. Asking others who have different commutes from you to put up with a bus that runs less often, or for fewer hours per day, to pay for your one seat ride – that’s much harder.

18. The politicians ignored the suggestions of riders who were also planners in ensuring that 145th would be the routing for the future ST BRT line. They even made sure that 155th, a street that already had bicycle lanes and complete sidewalks on both sides, with a parking surface on the west side of I-5 that was apropos for a garage. Their objective was to get the region to pick up the tab for improving 145th street that was characterized by narrow sidewalks, telephone poles in the middle of parts of it, and a 60 foot right-of-way, something at least some of the ST boardmembers didn’t check out before voting on it. It was a well-orchestrated plan. They ignored the pleas for the BRT bus to go further down Lake City Way, cutting across at 125th, Northgate Way, or continuing south to connect to Link at Roosevelt to serve more of Seattle residents. The region will be worse off when the platoons of BRT buses are going in and out across 145th, for the street will feature many pullouts. Hopefully, Metro can make things better for the folks of Lake City Way.

    1. “Their objective was to get the region to pick up the tab for improving 145th street”

       Evidence?

       The choice of 145th seems to be 20th-century thinking, that the best place is obviously a highway next to a freeway exit and an existing P&R, and that it nominally serves both Shoreline and Seattle (adding one more city), and oh yes, maybe there will be villages on 145th someday.

       “They ignored the pleas for the BRT bus to go further down Lake City Way, cutting across at 125th, Northgate Way, or continuing south to connect to Link at Roosevelt to serve more of Seattle residents.”

       Stride and the 522 are explicitly to serve Bothell, Kenmore, and Lake Forest Park, which don’t otherwise have Sound Transit service. Seattle already has a Link line. What the Northshore cities wanted was the fastest way to Link, which they thought was 145th. I wish ST had taken the opportunity for Stride to serve more of Seattle where the most riders are, but ST considered it out of scope for the route.

       1. The improvements to 145th are pretty minimal. The rebuild interchange with roundabouts is not a Sound Transit project. 145th will get a few queue jumps and some better bus stations. Most of the new BAT lane occur along 522.

       2. I believe that at this point, the improvements along 145th are still a “todo” item for Shoreline. I remember this being explicitly stated in the documents (that the City of Shoreline was on the hook for various improvements). Yet if you look at the latest roll plots, they aren’t there. They could be added later, of course, but that’s not a good sign. One of the key elements was a bus-only lane westbound, turning northbound. The people taking a right onto the freeway (or heading to the station) would do so from the lane to the left of the bus. Shoreline, instead, has spent much of its efforts on improving multi- modal access to the station. This is laudable and understandable. This will benefit folks from Shoreline who walk or bike to the station (or just bike in general). In contrast, Shoreline doesn’t get that much out of a faster S3. There are a few people who will take the bus from along 145th, but not that many. Some will take the bus towards Kenmore, but that isn’t the problem (it is more inbound in the morning). It is possible that they assume that the roundabouts will fix the congestion — I doubt it. From a system/regional standpoint, this a big disappointment.

          I can’t find the documents that directly relate to the above paragraph, but here are some hints. This is the old executive summary, from 2019. Notice on page 14 they have BAT lanes along westbound 145th, from about 17th to 5th NE. These show up in the old roll plots as well. Now see the more recent roll plots. Nothing there. What I can’t find easily is where it says that it is up to the City of Shoreline to build the BAT/bus lanes.

       3. The buffer and sidewalk 0work disappearing near the hard, most dangerous bits, near 5th and LCW is some weak tea. They clearly aren’t prioritizing much, if it gets expensive or inconveniences drivers.

    2. The planning around the station seems like it was very shortsighted. This is nothing new, but as Link goes outward, it becomes more and more important to work with Metro (and surround transit agencies). In some cases, the decisions are obvious, and little work needs to be done. For example, a station at the Lynnwood Transit Center is very good, as it has HOV lanes from both directions. You can consult with Community Transit, but there really is no need.

       With 145th/155th, it wasn’t so obvious. For someone at the north side of the lake, this is the fastest way to get there. But that is part of the problem. It means traffic goes that way too. The idea that you can just build your way out of it (by taking lanes or widening the street) remains to be seen. Shoreline is supposed to pay for improvements, but it isn’t clear these will happen. This raises the possibility that the bus will encounter traffic around the station.

       Then there is the idea of ending at the station. This is generally not a good idea. It was inevitable for Northgate (you can’t go east-west at the Northgate TC) but 145th is a cross street. A bus coming from the east should go all the way across. That way, a bus coming from Lake Forest Park/Kenmore/Bothell would connect to buses going on Aurora and Greenwood Avenue. You even have a very good anchor to the east, with Shoreline Community College. That wasn’t a priority for Sound Transit, but it should have been. It is funny that Sound Transit is willing to just give Metro money (for RapidRide bus service) but wasn’t willing to work with them in crafting a good regional bus route.

       Then there is the station itself. Everyone assumed it was going to be 145th, which means that other buses (or some day the S3) would eventually continue east. Instead they moved the station to 148th. This means to access the station they will have to turn (with those headed to the freeway). It means that buses that do keep going will use 155th. Compared to a station at 155th, they didn’t really save a significant amount of time for folks coming from the north end of the lake. Metro would have told them the same thing the folks on this blog did: build the station at 155th. The bus can turn on 15th, then left at 155th and keep going. It would have made for a much better transit network.

       I think ultimately the problem was that Sound Transit and Metro are two different agencies that don’t cooperate very well. If Link was built by Metro (if Metro built our metro) it would have been much better in various ways, including this one. At least they got 185th street right though. I think Metro and ST should be pleased with that station.

       1. I’m not convinced there is much of a difference between 148th & 155th. In both cases, almost all buses will turn on to 5th (in the most recent proposed redesign by KCM, I think there were actually zero buses that remained on 145th; every route either terminated at the station or turn on 5th).

          The difference is a bunch of buses will travel 155-5th-145, rather than 155-15-145 … but since there is almost no ‘through-running’ proposed, the congestion avoided at the 5th/145th turn isn’t that relevant, particularly if there a queue jump for left turns. For S3 or 72, the station is slightly closer, offsetting any congestion delay, whereas the 333 will travel slightly further but doesn’t actually run into any congestion because it turn arounds using the station’s bus bays.

          Which gets to a more strategic point – “ending at the station … is generally not a good idea.” This is only true if demand is balanced on both ends of the station. like at Columbia City (50), U District (44), or at 135th (presumably a single (frequent) route to serve the 130/135 corridor) or there if is a logical branch (Beacon Hill, the 60 & 36, or Mt Baker with the 106 & 7). I don’t think that is what is happening at 148th. Routes are converging, but demand is very imbalanced, skewed towards the east, with a large share of ridership transferring. So instead, KCM & ST are leveraging the station as a transit center, a logical place for routes to end. Rather than feeding buses onwards (e.g. to Shoreline CC), they are using the Station As Transit Center framework to enable a multitude of transfers.

          Put another way – staff thinks sending all the 72 or all the S3 buses to Shoreline CC is overkill, as they think that leg is sufficiently served by the 333. You could have the 72 go to SCC and have the 333 run only between SCC and MT station, but that assumes there are more people in Lake City trying to get to SCC than there are people in Shoreline trying to get to Link. Most riders are trying to get to Link to travel onwards, so that’s the natural break point.

          If Shoreline-Kenmore or Shoreline-Lake City become major trip pairs then there would need to be a re-think. But I don’t see either of those pairs getting anywhere near Shoreline-Link, Kenmore-Link, Lake City-Link, or even Bitter Lake-Link (the proposed 46).

       2. The problem with the two Shoreline Link stations are that there is not really any “there” there. A Metro rider has almost no reason to use an adjacent stop unless they are headed for a Link transfer. Ideally, a station area has a primary activity and transferring is just one part so ending a route at a station makes sense.

          So how to restructure for that? Yeah probably through routing is preferable — like activity on Aurora. Of course, ST didn’t lay out on-street stops like in the RV (MBTC excepted; dangerous street crossing to transfer) so riders will be subjected to lots of queasy bus looping.

          As for agencies not working together well, who can fix that? Board members that sit on both boards! That’s who! The fact that this is a long-term issue shows me that KC members of the ST Board are ineffective at their elected jobs.

          It’s also possible to run every ST design through a rider-focused committee that also includes drivers, people with disabilities and others that use the system at different times of day.

          Seriously guys — we need a regional riders committee with clout! The transit system we build and use is preoccupied with accommodating every other interest (adjacent property owners, homeless advocates, golfers, bicyclists, car drivers) that may be temporarily or permanently impacted — yet no one asks “What’s best for the rider?” When you hop on a transit vehicle, you become a second class citizen in our region.

       3. Al, https://transitriders.org/ Here may be the transit riders group you are asking for.

          “The Transit Riders Union is an independent, democratic, member-run union of transit riders organizing for better public transit in Seattle, King County and beyond. Through our organizing efforts we won a low income fare! We invite you to join us and fight for the future of public transit!”

          Although I will say much of the “accomplishments” don’t have a lot to do with transit:

          “We raised Tukwila’s minimum wage to $19 an hour!

          “Organizing with renters for stronger tenant protections in King County.

          “Continuing the Fight for Progressive Revenue.

          “Sustaining Our Unsheltered Neighbors.

          “House Our Neighbors Coalition & Initiative 135 for Social Housing.

          “Organizing for a Solidarity Budget.

          “Defeating an Amazon warehouse near the Mt. Baker Transit Center”.

       4. Al, have you completely missed the upzoning done by Shoreline? It’s now midrise several blocks in both directions. Shoreline did several years ago what we are now clamoring for Seattle to do around 130th. Both station areas will be vibrant urban villages by the end of the decade.

          https://www.theurbanist.org/2021/03/24/shoreline-apartment-boom-picks-up-along-rapidride-e-still-in-infancy-near-light-rail/
          https://www.theurbanist.org/2015/03/27/shoreline-rezones-185th-street-but-holds-off-on-145th-street/
          https://www.theurbanist.org/2016/09/26/shoreline-to-adopt-a-final-145th-subarea-plan-tonight/

       5. DT, I’m not suggesting an advocacy group like TRU. I’m suggesting a formal committee that reviews the many station designs and service restructures that come forward.

          As the “protagonist” agency, ST should have active rider committees in addition to mere “stakeholder” committees on every project.

          KC Metro could independently create ST integration committees to advise Board members early in the process, rather than wait until 1-2 years before construction is complete and the only option left is bus routing. Then, the KCC should and listen to them when reviewing project details, even at early stages.

       6. AJ, certainly Shoreline should be lauded for setting up denser zoning and 70 foot buildings. However, the single family character of the station areas and the challenge of property assembly of those homes will mean that changes will take quite awhile.

          Bus service restructures are really for only a few years out. So from a bus restructure perspective, it’s only a passing consideration. Maybe in a post-2035 or post-2050 restructure it will be helpful.

       7. Property assembly has been going on for a half decade. Developers won’t break ground on assembled property until the Link station opening date is known (they can just rent out the SF homes in the meantime).

          https://www.knkx.org/news/2016-11-23/neighbors-in-shoreline-capitalize-on-rezoning-sell-property-together
          https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/shoreline-neighbors-pool-together-to-sell-homes/281-354241764

       8. The Transit Riders’ Union and STB both try to improve transit in the region and have worked together on campaigns like passing Metro measures or certain restructure proposals at the county council, but largely focus on different things. The TRU has been described as the voice of working-class transit riders, and STB as the voice of middle-class choice riders. So the TRU focuses more on low-income fares and increasing access to the existing routes, while STB focuses more on how the routes could be restructured and neighborhoods made more walkable.

          “The problem with the two Shoreline Link stations are that there is not really any “there” there. A Metro rider has almost no reason to use an adjacent stop unless they are headed for a Link transfer.”

          Right, but Link transfers in themselves are important. 130th station has the same issue, but is still needed.

          Ideally, a station area has a primary activity and transferring is just one part so ending a route at a station makes sense. So how to restructure for that?”

          The answer is to improve the land use. No restructuring can make up for the inability for a large number of people to live or shop within walking distance of the station. But that’s outside ST’s scope; it’s Shoreline’s responsibility.

          We’re lucky we have Bellevue Transit Center, because that shows the almost-ideal situation of a main transfer station in the middle of a downtown, and the city’s P&R at the edge. P&R drivers aren’t going to take a local bus or walk to a business, and pedestrians don’t want a P&R displacing part of the walkshed and destinations, so the best strategy is to separate them and put the P&R outside downtown.

          In Shoreline’s case, the problem is that Shoreline doesn’t have a large walkable neighborhood with lots of destinations. The destinations it has are spread out over small villages or all alone (like the library), and not where perpendicular higher-density streets cross. Shoreline’s density is arranged in a hollow rectangle on Aurora, 185th, 145th, and I’m not sure about the eastern side. Inside the rectangle is single-family. So City Hall and the library are at 175th, but 175th is not one of the denser streets. And 145th does not make the most of its potential. Nevertheless, Shoreline has upzoned the north side of 145th around the station, to an impressive level for a residential suburb. That will gradually become apparent as it’s built up. The street improvements on 145th are for that growth as much as they are for Link. And the growth is there to keep it out of the interior of the rectangle.

          Shoreline and Seattle have been discussing Shoreline buying the highway from WSDOT and the southern sidewalk and maybe the first row of houses from Seattle. Shoreline is much more interested in improving that area than Seattle is, because it’s so close to Shoreline’s center and is such a large percent of Shoreline’s lots. So far nothing definitive has happened, but it might someday.

       9. The development Shoreline has zoned for is heady in its early days, especially a city like Shoreline that is desperate for any kind of renewal. A city’s property tax levy is capped at 1% increase/year without a vote of the citizens, but new construction is exempt from the cap. Plus the city realizes sales tax on the construction. Mercer Island tried this beginning in 2012, as did many cities.

          Then the construction slows or ends. Or market conditions change (2008, the pandemic, current interest rates). There are only so many people in this region, and the future population growth estimates are inflated. Buildings age. The city is left with the infrastructure costs for new and larger water and sewer lines, schools, more police, roads, fire, EMT, and all the other costs that come with greater population — especially rental — which is why the larger the city usually the larger the per capita tax burden.

          Then add in the loss of property tax revenue from the MFTE, and the fact most of Shoreline’s development will be low to moderate priced rentals that rarely create any kind of vibrant retail scene, and the city finds itself having to raise taxes for all the other residents.

          Transit does not create retail density or vibrancy. In fact, most of the vibrant retail areas (Bellevue Way, U Village) have poor transit service. What creates retail vibrancy is wealth, and zoning that condenses that retail in a wealthy place. Otherwise you have Southcenter Mall with shootings every other week (a lawyer friend of mine represents the mall for shootings on the property).

          Is Link going to make Shoreline Totem Lake. No. Will all the new apartments make it Totem Lake? No. And most eastside areas don’t want to become Totem Lake, and don’t want Link in their downtown cores because that is not the “vibrancy” they want.

          Transit can provide mobility for the poor, and it can provide mobility in dense areas. The only two advantages Link has are: grade separation which was important pre-pandemic when Shoreline hoped to become a commuter bedroom community for downtown Seattle (not “downtown” Everett), and it can carry lots of people if frequency is high. The TOD in Shoreline can help provide housing for poor and moderately poor folks, along with transit within walking distance, but my guess is most of those folks will want to own cars, and that kind of artificial housing density rarely creates organic vibrancy. But Shoreline was somehow counting on a wealthy commuter from Everett to Seattle and back living in TOD along I-5 with 20% of the units subsidized, because that is what ST promised it.

          After all, how many “urbanists” on this blog plan to move to Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, or Shoreline, to live in one of these TOD units with such great transit access?

          Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace (with a “u”) and Shoreline are depressed SnoCo cities along a freeway desperate for capital and development and some kind of vibrancy in a pretty rural area with low population and population density during a time even downtown Seattle can’t create or support retail vibrancy. Hoping that any form of transit will transform these towns into vibrant urban cities is wishful, otherwise the bus would have done it since these cities are along I-5.

          Just the photo of the new huge multi-family building in the Urbanist article surrounded by basically a rural neighborhood is instructive, and so incongruent. This is not organic growth. It must be fueled by outsiders. It is artificial, out of scale, and in an area that traditionally has been unattractive, at least commercially. Will light rail and some cheap TOD change that. I wouldn’t bet on it, just like I don’t see the gentrification in cities served by Sounder S. Transit advocates and ST hope it will manufacture the ridership for Link that was promised, but it won’t.

          The good news is Lynnwood, Shoreline and Mountlake Terrace accepted higher housing growth targets from the GMPC than legally required hoping more housing would mean some kind of vibrancy, which lowered the other cities’ housing growth targets, because we know transit and housing for housing’s sake does not usually end well because many of us have already tried it.

       10. In Downtown Seattle, from Pike to Jackson, the avenue with the best public transit, has the worst retail vibrancy (3rd Ave). And, the avenue that has no public transit, has the best retail vibrancy (1st Ave).

       11. The difference is a bunch of buses will travel 155-5th-145, rather than 155-15-145 … but since there is almost no ‘through-running’ proposed, the congestion avoided at the 5th/145th turn isn’t that relevant, particularly if there a queue jump for left turns.

           That isn’t true. Unless Shoreline fixes 145th, there will be congestion approaching the station. I’ve driven that road many times (on my way to a hike) and it is quite congested in the morning and evening. If a bus went 155-15-145 it would be faster. It would also pick up more riders along the way.

           Which gets to a more strategic point – “ending at the station … is generally not a good idea.” This is only true if demand is balanced on both ends of the station.

           Which it is. To the west you have Aurora and Greenwood — major corridors. You also have Shoreline Community College, a major attraction. They don’t have to be balanced exactly, either. It is about avoiding transfers. Phinney Ridge to Kenmore. Licton Springs to Bothell. Those, and many similar trips will continue to require three seat rides, even though it wouldn’t cost any extra (in terms of service) to eliminate them. A grid involves a line going all the way across. They made a mistake putting the station at 155th, and made a mistake by not sending the S3 all the way across. Sound Transit has made bigger mistakes, but it is still a significant mistake.

       12. “The problem with the two Shoreline Link stations are that there is not really any “there” there. A Metro rider has almost no reason to use an adjacent stop unless they are headed for a Link transfer.”

           Right, but Link transfers in themselves are important. 130th station has the same issue, but is still needed.

           Exactly. To be fair, both stations will get some walk-up ridership (eventually). But I don’t think either will be a destination, like Northgate (clinics and the college) or even Roosevelt (bustling urban center long before Link got there). Ridership will mostly be based on connecting bus service. Nothing wrong with that. You don’t want to extend the line only for that (especially next to the freeway). That is expensive, and doesn’t get you that much. But adding in the stations there was a very good idea, and why 185th will be a very good station. It is a natural crossing point. So is 155th, which is why it is awkward that the station is at 148th, forcing buses to the ridership-nothingness and yet traffic-congestion-rich 145th.

       13. My observations about 148th or 185th are not criticizing the siting of a Link station. It is instead about the strategy to end bus routes there. It’s admittedly great to get off a train and see your bus idling — but there isn’t much motivation for a resident a few blocks away to 1 or 2 miles away to go there unless they are going to Link.

           It’s too bad that S3 doesn’t go to Aurora, for example. Judging from prior posts on the S3 topic, my observation is echoing that lament that many of you have made many times.

           Station activity can be retail, work, dining, recreation, education, medical or museum. A library or post office even has some utility in attracting riders from nearby residences. However, while building primarily dense housing is great for Link ridership local residents will view it as just another residential building. It’s why upzoning is good but mixed use can make it better — unless of course the bus route connects to more attractions beyond the station.

           Is a concentrated high density residential area really a good place to force bus-to-bus transfers, or should the place to transfer be near attractions like Target or a hospital? Ideally it’s both.

       14. I’m not sure the grid is balanced. East of I5, the routes run diagonally and converge on Link, particularly as a quirk of the street grid and also because Lake Washington ends and therefore development swings east along 522. West of I5, Aurora and Greenwood are excellent corridors, but the grid doesn’t curve towards Link but instead focuses N/S. 147th is a point on convergence, not an on-the-way. Riders will want to go there because 1. that is where Link is, and 2. that is where the other routes will be.

           Is it that different than Lynnwood TC? It doesn’t have (nor does it need) a freeway bus connection, but at Lynnwood is there any objection to various CT routes all bending towards and ending at the TC? And the Aurora bus behaves the same, SWIFT plug gets tantalizingly close, but it doesn’t leave 99 but instead focuses on the linear corridor, like the E doesn’t swing towards 147th (or 135th nor Northgate)

       15. I’m not sure the grid is balanced. East of I5, the routes run diagonally and converge on Link, particularly as a quirk of the street grid and also because Lake Washington ends and therefore development swings east along 522. West of I5, Aurora and Greenwood are excellent corridors, but the grid doesn’t curve towards Link but instead focuses N/S. 147th is a point on convergence, not an on-the-way. Riders will want to go there because 1. that is where Link is, and 2. that is where the other routes will be.

           Your original point about “balance” was that a bus should not go all the way across unless there is “balance” on both sides. I agree. If there is very little to one side, then an intersecting bus might as well end there. No one is claiming that the grid is the same, or even that there is equal balance. I’m just saying that there is enough ridership west of the freeway (Link) to justify having the bus go all the way across.

           Everything else you wrote just strengthens my point. Just to back up here, much of SR 522 is east-west. Consider a bus from Bothell. By the time it reaches Ballinger Way it has gone a little bit south, but quite a ways west. The bus can’t go straight across on 175th, or it would. It has to go south, continuing on the same highway. Once it reaches 145th, it can finally continue going west, which it does. There are awkward aspects to the route, but if you think of it as merely an east-west bus, it is quite reasonable.

           My point is that having done that — having formed as easterly-westerly route as possible — the bus should continue going east-west. In other words, the east-west high-density corridor does not end at the freeway, it ends at Shoreline Community College. It shouldn’t suddenly stop at the station, just because there is a station there. That would only make sense if there was a great imbalance — if there was little to nothing to the west. That simple isn’t the case. Ending the S3 there forces transfers for many riders. These include riders along the western part of that corridor (the college as well as the very large apartment complex on the way) but also people who live in north-south corridors that would intersect this east-west bus. Various places too numerous to mention (Greenwood, Phinney Ridge, Bitter Lake, etc.) all have a three-seat ride to Lake Forest Park, Kenmore & Bothell. That’s not good. It means that ridership along this expensive “BRT” line will be hampered, as many decide it just isn’t worth the hassle.

           The good news is that solving it would be very easy. Hopefully someday the S3 will go all the way across. Whether that is paid for by ST or Metro doesn’t matter to me. Eventually it should.

       16. Agree that the fix is easy. With the station at 148th rather than 145th, having buses not terminating at the TC simply stopping on 5th, and adding a ped crosswalk right at 148th, is very straightforward and low cost.

           Let me try asking my question differently – let’s assume either 72 or S3 extends to Shoreline CC, terminating there. What happens to the 333? Does it terminate at Shoreline, forcing everyone on Shoreline’s Aurora to transfer to get to Link? Keep it as-is and double frequency along 155th?

       17. Ah, I see you answered this question elsewhere. You see the demand imbalance is with the 333, with Shoreline CC -147 Link far more useful than MT/Aurora-Shoreline CC, and therefore want the forced transfer at Shoreline CC. I disagree, but fair enough; proof will be in the ridership.

       18. You see the demand imbalance is with the 333, with Shoreline CC -147 Link far more useful than MT/Aurora-Shoreline CC, and therefore want the forced transfer at Shoreline CC. I disagree

           Seriously? Shoreline CC is a major destination. If you look at the ridership data, it does very well, with every bus it serves. It is the reason many of these buses exist in the first place. Without the college, ridership drops off of the cliff.

           Consider the rest of the 333. Basically, it is weak. Existing ridership data is very low (as expected, since density is very low west of Aurora). Aurora to Link that way makes little sense. The bus has to detour to get to the college. You are way better off taking the much more frequent RapidRide E, then a bus going across. Say you miss the 333 by five minutes. The E comes around in a couple minutes. You can catch the E, and catch up to that bus, or you can wait another 8 minutes for the 333, which will get you there 15 minutes later. Everyone will take the E. At 185th you just take the 348, arriving at a Link Station well before the 333 would, even if they leave at the same time. Likewise with Aurora Village (which is also more frequent than the 333). Mountlake Terrace to 148th Station? You take Link, of course.

           It just doesn’t add up to that many riders. The “forced transfer” you mention (at Shoreline College) will effect only a handful. The forced transfer at 148th (for those trying to get from everything west of I-5 to Lake Forest Park/Bothell/Kenmore) is much worse. It is really kind of nuts that folks here are bemoaning the loss of one-seat ride between two state colleges (despite a very fast/frequent alternative) while ignoring the fact that Sound Transit is doing exactly the same thing without a good alternative. I’m sure there are people who go from UW Bothell to Shoreline College, just as there are lots of people who go from Shoreline College to Kenmore (and people who go from the apartments in Shoreline to UW Bothell, or people who go from Licton Springs to UW Bothell, or …).

       19. My roommate lives on Capitol Hill and has at times attended Shoreline College and Bellevue College by bus because they had certain programs he was interested in. Highline College is one of the few that still has wrestling. I go to Edmonds and Highline Colleges occasionally on weekends to see matches. North and Central also draw from a wide area. When I worked at Harborview, I got free tuition for certain college classes and took one at North.

       20. OK, so I’ll concede Shoreline CC is a major destination. So the 72 should stay on 5th and continue onwards to SCC, and the 333 should be truncated or re-routed accordingly. S3 will continue to terminate at the station’s TC unless Kenmore or Bothell suddenly get all excited about connecting to Shoreline CC (unlikely with Cascadia CC right there). Everything east of I5 still has the most direct route to Link. I still don’t see why helping the 72 avoid some congestion is worth making Link further away from Lake City, Bothell, and Kenmore, in particular when Shoreline has already committed to mitigating that congestion.

           I just don’t get why travel between colleges is important, may because I didn’t grow up here. In the Midwest, there might be multiple schools in a city, but people enroll at one school, whether they are full time or part time. It’s not like we try to ensure we have 1-seat rides between two libraries or two hospitals.

       21. I just don’t get why travel between colleges is important, maybe because I didn’t grow up here.

           It is extremely common in Seattle, at least for state schools. The state encourages it. You can transfer credits very easily. You can get a bachelor’s degree at North, South and Central College (which is why they dropped the “community”). Each school has specific programs. It is like a university. You graduate with a degree and take most of your classes from one college, but chances are, you took classes from the other colleges as well.

           Of course there are people who stick to the same campus, especially at UW Seattle. But that is a major, prestigious university. It is extremely difficult to get into. It caters to lots of foreign students, who tend to spend most of their time a mile or so from campus.

           In contrast, the other colleges tend to cater to more working class people. These are folks who already have jobs, and are trying to get better ones. They take classes that fit their schedule. If that means a class at Seattle Central at 10:00 AM and a class at North Seattle at noon, so be it.

           But college-to-college travel is only a subset. Mainly it is just home to college. If you look at any of the routes within our system, you will see very high ridership next to colleges. Bothell/Kenmore to Shoreline CC makes sense just for the same reason Lake City to Shoreline CC makes sense — there are a lot of people headed that way. Shoreline College is one of the biggest destinations north of Shoreline, if not the biggest. It has 12,000 students, and my guess is, they come from all over.

       22. I still don’t see why helping the 72 avoid some congestion is worth making Link further away from Lake City, Bothell, and Kenmore, in particular when Shoreline has already committed to mitigating that congestion.

           I’m not sure what you mean. We’ve talked about a lot of subjects on this thread, including things that will never happen (e. g. the station at 155th). But there are several relevant things, but only the first is plausible in the shorter term:

           1) Truncate the 333 at Shoreline CC, and send the 72 there instead. Three reasons for this. First, SCC is a major regional destination. Second, it is a detour. If you are trying to get from the north part of the proposed 333 to Link, it requires going out and then back, involving a bunch of curvy streets. Third, Shoreline CC sits east of Aurora, which means the 72 would be connected to the E and 5. Shoreline CC is just a natural division point, both in terms of geography and demand.

           2) Eventually send the S3 to SCC. This adds similar benefit to those in Bothell/Kenmore/Lake Forest Park (one seat ride to SCC, two-seat ride to anywhere on Greenwood or Aurora Avenues).

           3) After implementing 2, add layover space for buses at 145th & Lake City Way. Then send a bunch of buses there (61, 75, 76). This would better the trip from Lake City (and many places to the south) to Bothell/Kenmore/Lake Forest Park at very little additional cost.

           4) After implementing 2 and 3 above, consider truncating the 72 there as well (to save money). You would force an extra transfer on some people, but at least you save money (which means better service somewhere else).

           But like I said, that is all long term. The only thing that could happen in the short term is swapping the 72 for the southern tail of the 333. That is easy and would simply make for a better network.

    3. Oh, and there is another issue. On paper 145th doesn’t look that bad. Theoretically you could end a bunch of buses at 145th & Lake City Way. This is a natural convergence for buses coming from the south. Ridership to the south is significantly higher than the north, with 145th being the dividing line. Buses from the southern corridors like Northgate Way (61), Lake City Way (76) and 25th (72) could converge on Lake City Way and then end at 145th & Lake City Way. From 125th to 145th along Lake City Way would be a spine. This would be a very good match of density and frequency, and in some ways better than if the S3 went down to Lake City and over on 130th.

       The problem is, there is no good way to turn around up there, let alone create a layover. The easiest thing is probably to do the loop I have for option 2 (north on 30th, south on Lake City Way). I think they could find layover space on 30th, close to 145th (by where the truck with the canoe is parked in this picture: https://goo.gl/maps/esbV3WzFP4Z7qhaJ7). The only big issue I see is having lots of buses on 30th. I’m not sure that will work. So it isn’t just Metro and ST, but SDOT that needs to get involved (although Metro and SDOT are used to working on issues like this). All of that should happen early on in the process, instead of doing what we are doing now. We should have a rough idea of what the bus network should look like as soon as they settle on a station location, as opposed to the way things are working now. Metro should already know if they can layover/turnaround there (or someplace around there) by now. It reminds of what a commenter that went by “d. p.” used to say. I think he was quoting some government official in transit circles. The quote was something like:

       The worst thing you can do is have your train people tell your bus people “here is where the trains will go, deal with it”.

       Unfortunately, that is more or less how we built the system.

Comments are closed.