This is another in a series of posts about the bus restructure following the Lynnwood Link extension. This one is geared towards Seattle, although the maps include north King County as well. As before, they cover a number of themes. There is one additional theme worth mentioning:

  • Whenever possible, overlapping buses should increase frequency on worthy areas.

There are advantages and disadvantages to this approach. If timed, the routes can form a nice branching system, where the “trunk” has justifiably more frequency than the “branches”. However, timed branches tend to be “brittle”, in the sense that any change requires a similar change on each branch. For example, the 347 and 348 each run every half hour, but combine for 15 minute headways along a popular corridor. We can’t improve frequency on the 348 to 20 minutes without doing the same for the 347. Otherwise service would be worse for that shared section. In contrast, with enough buses along a common corridor, they can form a “spine“, where timing is not important. But you need lots of buses to get to that point.

Challenging Neighborhoods

There are several neighborhoods in northwest Seattle that are challenging to cover. The first is the Haller Lake neighborhood. Other than Northwest Hospital, this is a very low density area (for Seattle). The hospital is especially difficult to serve (it isn’t “on the way“). Northwest Hospital has surprisingly poor ridership, but that may change over time, given its expansion. I came up with at least a half-dozen ways of connecting it to the network, but none of them are particularly satisfying.

The Four Freedoms area, in contrast, has a lot more riders. My guess is there are plenty from the facility itself as well as surrounding apartment buildings. This particular part of town (close to Linden, between 125th and 145th) is one of the more densely populated north-end neighborhoods, and it continues to grow. The 65 will serve some of the riders, and a stop at Four Freedoms House would complement it nicely. However, detouring to the stop is just not worth it. It makes more sense to end a route there, if possible.

Finally, there is Broadview. It isn’t that far from Broadview to the 130th station, but I couldn’t find a combination that was worth it. Like Metro, I find it hard to justify service there, unless the city (or county) had better overall coverage.

Austere Proposal

As with the previous maps, you can make it full page (in its own window) by selecting the little rectangle in the corner. There are a lot more routes, so I put them in different “layers”, visible on the legend (to the left). Thus you can hide or display the unchanged routes or those that are the same as the Metro proposal. Selecting individual routes highlights them. Feel free to ask questions in the comments if you find it hard to understand (there are a lot of lines).

The baseline frequency for these routes is 15 minutes. The exceptions are the 333, 334 and 336, which would run every half hour. It is worth noting that the word “austere” is a bit misleading. This covers less of the city than the “robust” map (although more than the Metro proposal) but that doesn’t mean it is worse. It has fewer routes and the routes are faster. Thus for the same amount of money, many of these routes could run a lot more often. I would especially like to see better headways on the east-west routes (like the 44, 61, 62, 65, 72 or 348). I could see many of these routes running every 10 or 12 minutes.

Most of the routes are the same as the previous austere map (for north of Seattle). The exceptions are:

  • 76 — The simplest way to cover this part of Lake City Way.
  • 348 — Sent to the U-District instead of Northgate. This saves money, as there is no need for the 67, and the bus spends less time making turns. Riders lose their one seat ride to Northgate, but gain a one-seat ride to the UW. I expect riders on the main cross streets (185th, 145th, 130th) to take an east-west bus to a Link station (that is much faster to access than Northgate) while those in between those cross streets access Link via 185th or Roosevelt Station.

Robust Proposal

With the “robust” map, there are a couple additional modifications:

  • 46 — Northwest Hospital is still connected to Northgate, but via 5th Avenue NE, which means a faster connection from the hospital to Link.
  • 76 — Extended to Four Freedoms.

Several routes are combined for good headways along major corridors, while increasing coverage. The 65 and 76 combine for 7.5 minute headways along 125th/Roosevelt/130th corridor, similar to how the 344/346 and 348 combine along 185th.

Likewise, the 46 and 346 would run every half hour (opposite each other) for combined 15 minute headways along 5th Avenue NE. They would then combine with the 61 (running every 15 minutes) for 7.5 minute headways between 5th Avenue NE & Northgate Way to the station.

As with the previous proposal, there are a lot of options, and I would like to hear what people think in the comments.

61 Replies to “Seattle Bus Restructure for Lynnwood Link”

  1. Routing the 348 to the U-District would nicely replace the 73, which will be discontinued, but I believe it should wait until the 130th St station is open. Otherwise, those of us in Pinehurst would have no direct bus routes to Link for a year or longer. Having to transfer would make no sense as it’s a very short trip.

    1. Just to clear, folks in Pinehurst (and that include me!) would have a direct connection to Link at Roosevelt. It really doesn’t take much longer. Right now, if I’m headed to say, downtown, I go to my local bus stop (close to the Pinehurst Pub) and catch the first bus that arrives. Sometimes that is the 73, but usually it is the 347/348.

      Once the 130th station gets here, I’ll walk north instead, and catch a bus on 125th. That will be a lot faster.

      But you raise a very good point. All of this assumes that 130th station is done. This goes for the previous maps as well. From what I can tell, Metro is taking the same approach. Their initial plans imagine 130th to be done. I don’t know if there has been much discussion as to what to do between when Lynnwood Link opens and 130th opens. There are three possibilities as I see it.

      1) Implement the plan as if 130th is done. This might mean some temporary pain (like you suggest).

      2) Don’t do anything (or maybe do very little). No major restructure, just a few minor tweaks here or there.

      3) Create some sort of hybrid implementation. I’m not sure how that would work, but I could definitely see it. The 65, for example, would not go to Bitter Lake. It could instead follow the path of the 75 (which took over that section from the 41). It would turn on 5th and go to Northgate. Other routes might change, then change again in a few years (like the 65). Meanwhile, a bus like the 75 would change sooner (with its northern end at Lake City).

      I’m not sure what they’ll do. I’m not sure what the best option is. On the one hand, you want the best system at every moment. On the other hand, you don’t want too much churn. A lot depends on how long of a gap there is between 130th Station and the rest of Lynnwood Link. Hopefully that is minimized.

      1. Thanks for your insight, Ross. If you’re headed south, transferring to Link at Roosevelt would make sense. However, that would be a long way if your destination is on the north side, such as the Alderwood Mall (via Lynnwood station). But I agree with you that a lot of the plan hinges on the timing at which Metro intends to inroduce these changes, and how much time there will be between the Lynnwood Link opening and the 130th St station opening.

      2. @ Daigoro Toyama, if it’s on the north side, then you could take the 348 north and transfer at 185th Station

      3. @WIlliam C, yes I could, but that’d be another long way – certainly much longer than the 10 or less minutes it takes from Pinehurst to the Northgate station.

      4. It is pretty good either direction. That’s really the point. Northgate has more twists and turns than getting to the other stations. Going up to 185th is quite reasonable if you are headed to Lynnwood, just as going to Roosevelt is quite reasonable if you are headed to downtown. Either way you head the direction you want to go. This means no backtracking. People like that.

        Just for perspective, Google puts the travel time from Pinehurst Pub to the station at around 15 minutes; from the pub to Northgate Transit Center is 7 minutes. Train time between Northgate and 185th is 6 minutes. So there is a penalty, but it is tiny.

        Remember, this only affects a small subset of people. Those close to 185th will use that station. Those close to 145th, 125th or Northgate Way will take another bus. So a small subset of people will lose a tiny bit of time, while the savings are considerable. Imagine if the bus runs every ten minutes — or one of the other buses runs every ten minutes. That is a much bigger deal.

        Meanwhile, plenty of people have a one-seat ride to the second biggest destination in the city. Overall, that is a really good trade-off in my book.

    2. Oh, and I think it is also worth noting that traffic around Northgate will likely get a lot worse once the mall is done. Even now there are issues with the 347/348 around rush hour. I’ve sat through two cycles as the bus makes the left turn from eastbound Northgate Way to northbound Roosevelt Way. It isn’t easy to fix that, just like it isn’t easy to fix the congestion around Northgate (which also involves a lot of turns). My point is, the time difference between going to Roosevelt station versus Northgate station will probably shrink.

  2. re RossB 76: serving Lake City Way NE is great. The map shows it on the segment of 30th Avenue NE between NE 125th Street and SR-522 going past Dick’s. This has never had service; the pavement is in poor condition; it is not transit classified by SDOT. Route 76 may justify articulated coaches; that is probably incompatible with Four Freedoms. The layover next to Tri Cort on North 143rd Street can and has handled articulated coaches.

    1. I assume you are talking about the 76 for the “robust” map. It is definitely a new routing. It basically merges an east-west line serving Four Freedoms with the 76. If it doesn’t work, then you simply end the 76 at the Lake City Fred Meyer (as with the “austere” map) and run a line from Four Freedoms to the Fred Meyer.

      I combined them mainly to save a little money, and because they are compatible from a frequency standpoint. If there are other issues (like running on that new section, or running big buses into Four Freedoms) then two routes would work fine.

  3. There are many elements to Route planning. Things like senior centers, clinics, middle schools, services for special needs people merit consideration.

    It’s noble to keep refining a vision, but ultimately the process has to be opened up.

    Plus, lots depends on who wants and needs to go directly to a destination at particular times of day.

    It’s clear that Metro is going to approach restructuring incrementally and that’s probably best. How about we let Metro propose the routes and frequencies next?

      1. Just to confirm – you are implying that the things listed by Al S, including “senior centers, clinics, middle schools, services for special needs people” are ‘special interest lobbying’, correct?

        I just want to make sure that I understand your point correctly, and you do not believe that the elderly, the children, or the disabled deserve special accommodations.

        Thank you very much in advance for your clarification.

      2. I took it to mean that simply staying out of it, and trusting the process is not enough. Look, I don’t want to criticize the people doing the work, but if you were to interview the department, you would find plenty of people who disagree with some of the choices made here. There are always trade-offs, but some of the choices here are very controversial. There is a significant reduction in coverage. The very things Al said we need to cover aren’t being covered. Yet this isn’t translating into a major increase in frequency. In fact, it is the opposite, as the 75 is seeing a decrease.

        I’ve written about the obvious explanation for this. Too many routes are redundantly covering other routes. Too many routes are making turns, and covering areas that are much faster to cover with straighter routes.

        More to the point — this is the process. The process is not to simply look at what Metro suggests and say “Sounds good”, but to critique it. Every professional knows this is part of the job. It is essential to being a professional. You take criticism, consider it, and advance the project. That is whole point of all of this.

      3. But I think there have been at least two prior articles recently written by RossB already discussing a Lynnwood Link restructuring.

        It’s great to see ideas — but this post is starting to feel a little unneeded annd redundant until Metro staff rolls out a new proposal.

      4. The current Metro proposal eliminates almost all service to the King County District Court at Cromwell Park in Shoreline. Based on the article some years back by Erica Barnett, this is where people get sent if they have a fare citation to dispute.

        So, if that is the case, a fine levied by a transit agency will require a visit to a place that no longer has transit service, except from Swift, which won’t stop there.

        So, I’m not sure I’d trust the process to just work itself out. Metro needs to hear what people want. If a need exists, Metro needs to hear about it.

      5. But I think there have been at least two prior articles recently written by RossB already discussing a Lynnwood Link restructuring.

        Yes, it is a series. Each one is different. This is the first one dealing with an overall restructure for Seattle. Metro is still collecting comments; the deadline is March 10th. I will summarize my suggestions before the deadline.

        But you are right — I have written a lot about the subject. You are welcome.

      6. I will say this: I appreciate Ross’s articles. They are detailed and must take a lot of time to draft and write. I don’t think articles that are thorough can be redundant on a blog too often needing content.

        I personally think feeder buses will make or break Link. There is very little to talk about Link: a 90 mile spine through mostly undense areas hostile to transit not near population centers, now with construction issues. What could go wrong?

        I have always thought Link will live and die on two issues: a vibrant downtown Seattle, and good feeder buses or park and rides. Folks are not going to move next to I-5 to walk to Link.

        Granted I also think future budget deficits are going to make Ross’s job harder, but at least he is trying.

        Unfortunately for Ross these articles about transit restructures are in north Seattle. He is going to have his work cut out for him when considering restructures in S. King and Pierce Counties.

        So I will say thank you because the task looks sometimes impossible. Good content in this age is rare and hard to find.

      7. I live in North Seattle, so I know it well. I tend to write about it more than other areas. I grew up going to school in the Central Area, and it is a relatively small area, so I know that well, too. I used to work on the East Side (and have some friends that live there) but the area is huge. It is much more challenging to suggest changes there. I have friends and family in other parts of Seattle, but none in the southern suburbs, and I have spent very little time there. I have relatives in Tacoma, my mom went to college there, but haven’t spent enough time in the city to say I know it well.

        Anyway, this is all in case people are interested in knowing why I focus on some areas more than others.

    2. How about we let Metro propose the routes and frequencies next?

      I’m not sure I follow you. Metro has made an initial proposal and asked for feedback. This is feedback (or it will lead to feedback). It is the whole point of these posts — to try and provide feedback, so Metro can make the routes better.
      Everything here is based on what they came up with (this is not a “blank slate” approach).

      As for “things like senior centers, clinics, middle schools, services for special needs people merit consideration” I completely agree. I actually talk to former metro planners when I come up with these maps. We go back and forth mentioning important destinations, destinations that are important, even if they don’t have really high ridership. From a coverage standpoint, Metro’s proposal is quite similar to my “austere” map, while my “robust” map covers a lot more in the way of schools, senior centers, etc. Yet their proposal manages to reduce coverage without a big increase in frequency (likely because so many buses go back and forth, stuck making turns).

      If there are particular places that you feel should have coverage or more frequency, please name them. Like I said, I have looked at that, and looked at existing ridership data. For example, the robust 336 gets you close to two schools and three senior centers, yet the ridership isn’t great. Metro doesn’t cover these places with their proposal. I don’t have a strong opinion either way — but you might.

      1. Ross,

        Since you mentioned you talk with previous planners – I am actually really curious what they said when you asked about the reason for all the turns. Is it that they believe this will somehow drive ridership (even if that does not happen)? Is it due to legal requirements (e.g. some state or city rule stating how far from certain destination transit stops can be, if they are there at all)? Is it to obtain funding from certain sources? Is it the road network conditions dictating certain direction changes? Is it carelessness? etc.

        I see this particular topic (“coverage routes take too many turns”) come up a lot, and people obviously feel very strongly about it, but it seems like it’s a topic which we have never heard about from actual route planner employees or past employees, so we’re all just talking in the abstract. If you’ve never asked about it, would you be willing to do so in the future? Presumably current planners may not want to speak on record but perhaps past ones might.

        Thanks in advance.

      2. Just to be clear, I haven’t talked to the planners who actually wrote this. I’ve talked to retired planners who have the same criticism as me when it comes to many of these routes. So any defense of it is second hand. My understanding is that they are really focused on going east-west. This is laudable. People have been pushing for this for years. But in their zeal to do that, they went overboard (in my opinion). One of the big issues with going east-west on streets like 145th and 175th is that you end up making lots of twists and turns to connect to Link on one end, and provide any coverage on the other. That is how you end up with a lot of it.

        For example, consider the western part of the 334. Starting from the 185th Station, the goal is to cross at 175th. As a result, it makes a turn. Then it goes across and runs into Aurora. It could keep going, and serve that back route to Shoreline CC, but that is already covered. So it turns on Aurora, in an attempt to pick up more riders. That sounds good, but I think it will fail, miserably, in doing so (for reasons mentioned before). I just don’t see that many riders on that section of the route, despite taking a while to complete.

        But wait, there is more. Remember how the 334 was heading straight down 5th (from the station) and then turned west? That leaves a coverage hole on 5th. Now the 336 (which started at Echo Lake and took a roundabout route to North City) swings back to 5th so that it can make another turn to head south.

        Most routes of this nature are based on either coverage, or the desire to serve a high-ridership area that isn’t on the way. Current service to Four Freedoms is a great example of the latter. In this case, there is another goal — going east west on streets like 145th and 175th. Doing that makes it very difficult to also provide coverage, while avoiding turns. Anyway, these are all reasonable choices, but I think they are misguided. People definitely want more east-west routes, but I think they also want the east-west routes to be frequent. You can’t do that unless you consolidate on some corridors, and the obvious set of corridors are those that are close to Link stations, and not freeway ramps — 130th, 155th, 185th.

        It would be useful to get planners (past and present) to write something here. But avoiding twists and turns is supported by our own experience, as well as studies. For example, this: https://humantransit.org/2013/08/translink-high-and-low-performing-routes.html. To quote Jarrett Walker:

        All other things being equal, long, straight routes perform better than short, squiggly and looping ones. The reasons are obvious to most transit riders (and are laid out in detail in Chapters 4 and 14 of my book) …

        To be fair, there are times when twists and turns are inevitable. I have that on my proposal. Many of my choices are based on what Metro had, but many of them are exactly what I would do. For example, the bus goes from Shoreline Community College and makes a dogleg to run by the station at 155th. I agree completely (we just differ on which bus). The point being that sometimes there is no choice. We live in that kind of city.

        But a lot of these squiggly, loopy routes can be avoided.

      3. Thank you for the answer. To summarize what I think you are saying:

        1. You believe that in the balance between coverage and frequency, the current routes are going too far in the direction of coverage;
        2. (At least some) previous transit planners agree with you that the balance is unnecessarily skewed towards coverage;
        3. It is a reasonable position to skew towards coverage, just not the one you (and they) would have adopted because it tends to depress ridership.

        However, none of this answers the “why”. Why is there a push towards coverage over frequency? I could further elaborate on this with other questions, like: is this a new mandate? Would the planners you have talked to done it differently in the 80s or 90s or whenever they were at Metro? (Asking because, given what Mike Orr has said about Eastside routes, back then, they were very coverage oriented, too). What is making the current planners err on the side of coverage over frequency in this area? How have other recent restructures gone – have they also erred on the side of coverage over frequency?

        The reason I am asking these questions is purely pragmatic. If there is an issue (and at least some here think that there is), it pays off to understand why – because that will dictate how to advocate for a change. If the reason is “this is the only way to get access to this pool of federal money” (and I’m not saying that’s the case, maybe it’s a preposterous idea), then the way to fix it is different than “there’s a new mandate from Metro leadership that we try to cover these locations which have high minority ridership for equity purposes”. From the outside we just see the effects, though, and we get an imperfect view of the effects, at that.

      4. @Anonymouse
        > However, none of this answers the “why”. Why is there a push towards coverage over frequency? I could further elaborate on this with other questions, like: is this a new mandate? Would the planners you have talked to done it differently in the 80s or 90s or whenever they were at Metro? (Asking because, given what Mike Orr has said about Eastside routes, back then, they were very coverage oriented, too). What is making the current planners err on the side of coverage over frequency in this area? How have other recent restructures gone – have they also erred on the side of coverage over frequency?

        It is larger than just Seattle/Seattle Metro area but in the 70s/80s/90s for American cities there was a large trend of busses adding stops and becoming more circuitous to cover everyone. It was politically easy to say ‘your neighborhood is now covered by a bus’ but this unfortunately led busses to run slower and with the routes all spread out led to even lower frequency.

        Currently there have been steps to rein it in, aka bus stop balancing in cities and a lot of times even the brt-lite proposals are really more about straightening out routes and bus stop balancing. https://humantransit.org/2018/02/basics-the-ridership-coverage-tradeoff.html talks about it and for Miami talks about more ridership focuses versus coverage as well https://humantransit.org/2021/09/miami-a-revised-new-network.html.

      5. WL,

        Thank you for your reply. However, I am not asking in the abstract. I am asking how we can find out about this specific decision at this specific time, taken by these specific planners who have presumably read the same resources you and Ross have posted. Is it just that they have not read those resources, is it that they have and believe that their solution adheres to those principles, is it that they have specific requirements imposed by management, is it that they need to do it this way to get access to funds, etc.

        It seems to me that people assume lack of knowledge on their part. I am trying to find a way to verify that assumption. Ross seems to have contacts so I am hoping that he can follow up on this with them :)

      6. 1. You believe that in the balance between coverage and frequency, the current routes are going too far in the direction of coverage;
        2. (At least some) previous transit planners agree with you that the balance is unnecessarily skewed towards coverage;
        3. It is a reasonable position to skew towards coverage, just not the one you (and they) would have adopted because it tends to depress ridership.

        Sorry, but no. That isn’t it at all. Several of the routes on my “robust” map provide much better coverage than the Metro proposal, for example. I would say my “austere” map is roughly the same in terms of coverage. The problem I have with the Metro proposal is that:

        1) The routes overlap in places where it doesn’t help improve frequency. To a certain extent, any overlap helps. But running a 30 minute bus on the same corridor as a 7.5 minute bus is just overlap.

        2) Too many twists and turns.

        As to why, I think there are a few reasons:

        1) Inertia. It is tough to completely get rid of a route, so they are often reduced in frequency, and eventually just go away.

        2) An aversion to transfers. Avoiding transfers is great, but not at the expense of overall frequency.

        3) The desire to check off the “east-west” box that came from the outreach (see previous comment).

        The 324 is an example of 1 and 2. The 46 north of 130th, as well as various parts of the 333, 334, and 336 are examples of 2 and 3.

    4. The problem with the Al S. way of thinking is that there trips are diffuse, and there is no one destination that is the destination of enough trips, all by itself, to amount to more than a tiny fraction of the combined trips to all those other places.

      That’s why, making transit destination oriented, rather than corridor oriented inevitably prioritizes the needs of people going to a few very specific places at the expense of the time of everybody else. I get why it happens – the benefits to the few are concentrated and noticeable, while the costs to everyone else are more diffuse (e.g. a few minutes extra of waiting for the bus or sitting through a detour), but such costs are still real.

      I am personally very skeptical of destination oriented transit because I almost never travel to a place that qualifies as one of Metro’s “preferred destination”, and virtually every transit trip I make requires far more walking than destination oriented transit is designed to prevent (e.g. a walk from the E line stop on 115th/Aurora or the #40 stop at Northgate/Meridian to Northwest Hospital).

      To which people inevitably reply “but some people can’t walk as far as you can”. To which I reply that, if they can’t, how are they getting to the bus at the other end? And how do get to all those other places that aren’t on Metro’s preferred destination list?

      If I were really and truly unable to walk more than 100 feet, I’d almost certainly be driving everywhere and not riding Metro at all. But, that’s not an issue that’s Metro’s fault per say, it’s a matter that if my walking ability were really that limited, a bus system that serves my needs would become prohibitively expensive to operate, while also serving everybody else’s needs the same way. And to demand bus service that prioritizes a shorter walk to my home and my destinations, at the expense of everybody else would be selfish and unreasonable.

      1. Once you, too, qualify as a child, elderly, or disabled, you will find that

        1. you are likely not being listened to; for example, it is well known that the disabled are in this situation – you can do your own research, which I encourage you to do, but here is an example of it in the media – exactly the sort of environment we are in: https://nbcuacademy.com/disabilities-media/

        2. you have bigger issues in your life than advocate for yourself at public meetings, etc. (and getting to them is difficult, for some of the reasons you mentioned)

        3. you would benefit from someone to advocate on your behalf, because so many people who are of young adult-to-middle age, able bodied, take exactly the stance you take, that those categories do not deserve special considerations.

        Those of us who speak out try to even the odds on their behalf a little bit. No matter how often what we say falls on deaf ears.

        I hope that you will join us in advocating for those who cannot do so, and I look forward to it happening.

      2. Again, a transit route that’s supposed to be about the elderly or disabled is really about the tiny subset of the elderly or disabled traveling to one specific destination from one of a narrow set of origin points that happens to fall along the same bus route. For instance, a detour into the Northwest Hospital parking lot does absolutely nothing to help an elderly or disabled person get anywhere except Northwest Hospital. And, even among people who are elderly or disabled, the vast majority of their trips is probably to places other than the hospital. The only people form whom most of their trips are actually to the hospital are the hospital employees, the vast majority of whom are able bodied, and don’t need door to door service.

        That’s not to say that elderly and disabled don’t need some form of special attention, I’m just not sure transit is the right mechanism for it. Simply giving people in need cash, and letting them spend it how they wish might be more useful. For example, they could spend it on rent, medical bills, car payments, or Uber rides – things that get them anywhere they want to go, not just to one specific place.

        To the extent that the hospital does need a door to door route from a major transit hub, it should be a shuttle van funded and operated by the hospital itself. It should not be a general-purpose bus route delaying everybody on the bus to detour into the hospital parking lot. The transit agency can and should allow the hospital shuttle to load and unload passengers right next to the Link station, along side the Metro buses, but the shuttle should not be paid for out of budget to keep the buses on the road, nor should its service delay bus riders who are simply trying to get where they’re going.

      3. This gets to the idea of being “on the way” that Jarrett Walker talks about: https://humantransit.org/2009/04/be-on-the-way.html. Ideally those places are all on major corridors. Unfortunately, a lot aren’t. When he talks about “short, squiggly routes” performing worse than straight long ones (https://humantransit.org/2013/08/translink-high-and-low-performing-routes.html) he again mentions being “on the way”. Sometimes the bus is detouring off of the main road to serve a particular destination.

        There is always a trade-off with a detour. The trade-off goes away if that destination is at the end of the line. For example, Brent wrote about the F Line detouring to serve Link (https://seattletransitblog.com/2019/10/05/requiem-for-a-streamline-buses-return-to-the-tibs-loop-today/). Obviously this is a major destination. But his point is that the detour was unnecessary and hurt through-riders. But if the bus actually ends there, that problem goes away. This is why, for example, on both my maps, buses end at the hospital. This does save some walking, not only for patients, but staff too. After a long shift, a nurse who has been on their feet all day may welcome a shorter walk to the bus. My proposal for Four Freedoms is similar. The tricky part with both is fitting it into the rest of the network. I really wanted a Four Freedoms tail on my austere map, but couldn’t figure out an option that made sense.

    5. “Things like senior centers, clinics, middle schools, services for special needs people merit consideration.”

      For 40 years, TriMet diverted route 34 into two wealthy senior living communities. Ridership numbered in the several per week range, but the diversions continued up until around 2018 when construction projects blocked all access.

      Meanwhile, the largest senior center in Milwaukie remains a half hour walk from the nearest transit route. However, the people that go there don’t have the money to advocate like the two wealthy senior communities.

      So even if you are willing to divert routes specifically for the communities you name, the loudest and wealthiest of those voices rather than the numerous lesser well-heeled that are disadvantaged among those communities.

      Everyone you mention doesn’t just need access to the facilities mentioned. Eg, elderly and disabled people need to go grocery shopping as well, but improved access to grocery stores isn’t something mentioned here. But which grocery stores should get that improved access?

      Improving pedestrian access (and the resulting improved access for all the groups mentioned) along Aurora would go a long way to helping the groups mentioned due to the sheer number and variety of businesses located on that corridor. People with companion animals need to visit an animal clinic too, but I don’t see anyone diverting a bus route to better serve the Veterinary Cancer Specialist in Edmonds. Better pedestrian access on 15 would help people get to the Safeway or the Animal Medical Center though.

      So I’m not sure how well diverting routes really works for serving the needs of specific groups. It might help in certain specific cases (Eg, the Senior Center now community center in Milwaukie that is surrounded by busy roads and is distant from any transit) but you can’t divert every single route to serve the parking lot of every single potential location people in North Seattle would need to go.

      2. I think I may have been too generic in the original post. I was specifically thinking about services for the blind on Route 50. Over time, blind users chose apartments that they could reach directly. So if Route 50 gets restructured east of I-5, it’s potentially very disruptive to housing geared to blind citizens.

        I don’t know far North Seattle and Shoreline well enough to know if there are unique destinations like this. I doubt that anyone other than regular riders or drivers (and other staff) on a route are fully aware of these places. That’s the origin of that comment.

      3. Thanks for the clarification. That makes sense.

        In my experience, north Seattle and Shoreline suffer from a lack of pedestrian infrastructure. This is an impediment to even fully able bodied people, let alone anyone else. It’s probably going to play an outsized role in the coverage nature of some of these routes.

  4. A robust restructure will help boost Lynnwood Link. A rising tide raises all boats or whatever you want to call it

    Most of the main cities, even the not very dense ones, people point to as light rail and/or rapid transit success stories have a tool up their sleeves that does not get a lot of attention. Frequent bus grids and/or feeder routes.

    If you look at a 30 minute or greater bus map of Toronto for instance it basically looks like grid arterial map. Bus coverage everywhere even in the suburbs. That is how you connect people to your higher capacity transit lines

    Same goes to Calgary somewhat as well. Heavy bus feeder routes that snake around light rail lines in the median of highways/arterial mean that even the most remote station has surprisingly high ridership.

    Basically we got to make sure to improve connections as much as possible around here, improve frequencies where we can, and expand coverage in a logical route design that people will use.

    2. I agree. A classic example is Vancouver, with its “almost perfect grid” (https://humantransit.org/2010/02/vancouver-the-almost-perfect-grid.html).

      The tricky part is making it happen. It helps if you have a good street grid. We don’t. The freeway eliminates many crossing. Many of the other crossing have a lot of traffic (because they feed the freeway). Meanwhile, we don’t have a Link station every half mile, forming a nice potential grid. Even some of the crossing that do exist don’t have stations. For example, Northgate Way doesn’t have a station, even though it could potentially serve a lot of people from the east and west.

      Then there is the cost. There is only so much money to spend on transit. That is what I get at with the “austere versus robust” map. To a certain extent it is ridership versus coverage. It gets more complicated, because the robust map combines service along high ridership areas, at the cost of being brittle. But it is the same idea. Ideally a lot of the buses on the “robust” map would run every ten to fifteen minutes, but I just don’t see that happening. Compromises will be made, it is just a matter of where.

      1. Most old cities (certainly all the large European cities I’ve ever been to, like London, Berlin, Stockholm, Rome, etc.) do not have a perfect grid, either.

        What is the solution in these cases?

      2. Yeah our grid was severed a fare bit. In regard to Northgate I like the ped bridge to get to the college but bus access is less than ideal simply because the station doesn’t lie next to any east west bridge to get across i5

        I’ve also noticed a two things. The further out from Seattle you get the more the grid gets chopped up and spaghettied. A byproduct of course of later suburban culdesac road network standards which are just terrible to navigate. And the other thing I’ve noticed is how grids will be very disrupted and begin to be more spaghetti-like once a hilly environment is approached

        I always just assumed that the hill problem happened everywhere but after visiting Vancouver a couple of years ago I can confidently say that the topography in the Seattle area just sucks. It can be worked around with time but nonetheless is still a pain to deal with

      3. Most old cities (certainly all the large European cities I’ve ever been to, like London, Berlin, Stockholm, Rome, etc.) do not have a perfect grid, either.

        What is the solution in these cases?

        Build a really good subway :)

        Seriously though, let me just back up here. One of the key advantages of a grid is its efficiency. Walker explains this idea quite well here: https://humantransit.org/2010/02/the-power-and-pleasure-of-grids.html. So a grid gets you the most frequency for the money. This is why, for example, David wrote this marvelous proposal a while back: https://seattletransitblog.com/2013/08/19/your-bus-much-more-often-no-more-money-really/. Metro has slowly been moving towards that.

        A lot of old cities lack the possibility of such grids, which means their surface transit options are less efficient. Typically, they more than make up for it by being more compact, with very good biking and walking infrastructure. This means their transit systems tend to be more efficient (and popular) in other ways. A city like Stockholm, for example, probably doesn’t need a grid. They can have good frequency on all the buses and trams. But a city like Seattle needs all the help it can get.

    2. @RossB,

      The only Metro restructure proposal that we should be discussing right now is the one proposed by Metro. Because some permutation of that plan is the one that will eventually get implemented.

      But, if you go to the Lynnwood Link Connections page where Metro actually introduces their restructure plan, you will find that Metro is quick to directly discuss both ST and CT buses and restructures.

      Why is Metro so quick to mention and include the other transit agencies?

      Because Metro gets it. Metro understands that there isn’t a “Big Beautiful Wall” at the county line. And Metro understands that you can’t just disappear thousands of transit ridership who are traveling to and thru your county every day simply by declaring them “out of scope”.

      There is a lot of inter agency coordination that goes on behind the scenes in developing real restructure plans. Which is why these plans are often so slow to develop. But if you want a truly functional, integrated plan, you have to coordinate. Metro and the other agencies get this, and are doing this.

      This is also why the delays of East Link and Lynnwood Link are causing so much chaos right now. Because none of these transit plans exist in a vacuum, and if one piece gets delayed, everything can change very quickly. For all the agencies.

    3. The only Metro restructure proposal that we should be discussing right now is the one proposed by Metro. Because some permutation of that plan is the one that will eventually get implemented.

      Yes, and this the focus of this post. I wrote that in the intro — maybe I wasn’t clear. This, along with several similar posts, are all about this: https://kingcounty.gov/depts/transportation/metro/programs-projects/fares-routes-and-service/lynnwood-link-connections.aspx. This is not an open thread. This is not a general discussion of what buses will look like after Lynnwood Link. This is 100% geared towards that process, and this is part of it.

      Because Metro gets it. Metro understands that there isn’t a “Big Beautiful Wall” at the county line. And Metro understands that you can’t just disappear thousands of transit ridership who are traveling to and thru your county every day simply by declaring them “out of scope”.

      OK, but that is not the focus of this post. It is actually the focus of this post: https://seattletransitblog.com/2022/01/18/intercounty-routes-for-lynnwood-link/

      You seem to think that every post has to be about everything. That’s not the way it works. Look, routes that go over the county line *are* important. I have been pushing for Swift to follow Aurora instead of Meridian. I’m with you on that one. Read that post (that I also wrote).

      But guess what? That isn’t Seattle! There is not a single CT bus that will go into Seattle. So that definitely is not part of the discussion on this post. Bring up your CT issues on either that post, or this one, geared towards north King County: https://seattletransitblog.com/2023/02/03/north-end-modifications-to-the-lynnwood-link-connections-plan/

      You are taking an unnecessarily confrontational approach towards this subject, as if I totally forgot about Community Transit. That simply isn’t the case. It is just that we are focusing on other things right now, like what the buses will look like in Seattle after Lynnwood Link.

    4. “None of the CT buses will run into Seattle after Lynnwood Link. That is a given.”

      No, it is not a given. If ST opens Lynnwood at half the expected service level,. CT will have to keep buses downtown for awhile. This blog has neither covered nor examined that issue.

      https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/lynnwood-or-bellevue-which-city-should-get-light-rail-service-first/

      Lazarus makes a good point. The blog should cover the totality of bus re-structures being considered to integrate with Lynnwood Link. eddiew posted the link to CT’s proposal below. It should be part of this discussion for all sorts of reasons, the chief two of which are:

      1. It represents a major increase in frequency and coverage for local service within Snohomish County (which will not be possible without the Link system operating at full capacity), and

      2. The bulk of light rail users in the Lynnwood segment will access the system via CT service. In the near term this poses overcrowding challenges for the King County stations down the line if ST opens with partial service. Longer term, it also affects how and where KCM service can best feed the system.

      Aside from the near term uncertainty about rail frequency, longer term CT will serve three of the four stations in the segment, including with the Swift Blue line at 185th (which this map characterizes inaccurately).

      KCM and CT services will co-mingle at MLT and 185th stations, creating scheduling coordination and layover challenges. The agencies are working together, along with ST, to sort these out, and their decision-making is mutually interdependent.

      Showing a map of only one-half of the Lynnwood Link re-restructures present too narrow a view of what’s really going on.

      Nor has this blog covered WSDOT’s Revive I-5 project and its implications for all of the foregoing. They are planning a major reconstruction of the freeway between downtown and 130th starting late this year, which will involve extended multi-lane closures in both directions. The transit networks are going to be hammered by this project, and are being planned with major construction-related congestion throughout the corridor in mind. You might want to look into it, Ross (and Martin D and Frank, and anyone else who stills pays attention to content here).

    5. There have already been general articles about the Lynnwood Link restructures, and links to Community Transit’s plan, and at least comments about it. This series is RossB looking at individual aspects of Metro’s restructure. Most ST authors and regular commentators live in King County so have less experience with Snohomish County and can’t have as detailed an opinion on CT’s restructure. Snohomish County is also different: CT has a lower budget, and the land use is less walkable, so there are less opportunities to make the network good and so less to say. If anyone with extensive experience in Snohomish County has a specific opionion on CT’s proposal and wants to write an article about it, by all means do so.

    6. Lazarus makes a good point. The blog should cover the totality of bus re-structures being considered to integrate with Lynnwood Link.

      No, he does not. I’m not sure how many times I have to write this: This is not a general discussion of buses after Lynnwood Link.

      I made that very clear from the opening paragraph. This, like the previous posts I linked to, are geared towards this particular project: https://kingcounty.gov/depts/transportation/metro/programs-projects/fares-routes-and-service/lynnwood-link-connections.aspx. The whole point is to get folks to comment on that Metro proposal. The place to comment on the CT proposal is completely different.

      The blog should cover the totality of bus re-structures being considered to integrate with Lynnwood Link.

      OK, I assume you are volunteering. Get a hold of us, and you can write up something on Page 2. Until then, feel free to comment on an open thread. Several of us have done so in the past. The Urbanist has a couple of good write-ups.

    7. @RossB,

      My comments were actually very complementary of Metro and the process they, and their partner agencies, have gone through in developing an integrated restructure proposal for Lynnwood Link. This is a good thing, and I think we should recognize work well done. I don’t think that is a bad thing.

      But our focus should really be on the Metro plan and how we can make it better, because that is really the only plan effecting “Seattle” that is currently on the table.

      I was told many years ago (more than I would care to admit), that “If you want to affect the process, you should start with the process that is being proposed.”

      I agree with that.

      The only proposal that is on the table right now is the Metro proposal. We should be focused on how to make that proposal better, no matter if our focus is a narrow part of just Seattle, or the entire region.

    8. @Railcan,

      I concur. The combination of the delays in East Link and potentially Lynnwood Link, and the additional chaos coming from the Revive I-5 project, have the potential to create chaos across this entire restructure process.

      I don’t think delaying the CT restructure proposal would be very effective for a variety of reasons. Delaying the Metro restructure might make more sense, but it still isn’t a good solution.

      The best solution would be to open Lynnwood Link when it is ready and with the required capacity to satisfy rider demand at the key chock points.

      Doing so might involve a short 2-Link overlay between IDS and NGS to provide extra capacity across the choke point, but doing so would allow Lynnwood Link and all the associated Lynnwood Link partner restructures to progress on schedule and as planned.

      This would be a good thing.

    9. I mentioned several times that this was off topic. There is an open thread, and other posts that are more appropriate for this type of discussion. I really don’t like deleting comments, but it is clear that simply asking people to move the conversation there didn’t work. It is a pain to manually move it, or I would.

      I should mention that one of the more recent comments was definitely on topic. It got thrown out with the bathwater, so to speak. My apologies. Lazurus wrote:

      But our focus should really be on the Metro plan and how we can make it better, because that is really the only plan effecting “Seattle” that is currently on the table.

      I was told many years ago (more than I would care to admit), that “If you want to affect the process, you should start with the process that is being proposed.”

      I agree with that.

      I agree with that too, Lazarus. We have until March 10th to comment. I will have a summary of my recommendations before then. Thanks.

      The only proposal that is on the table right now is the Metro proposal. We should be focused on how to make that proposal better, no matter if our focus is a narrow part of just Seattle, or the entire region.

    1. I have noticed a significant decline in the neighborhoods immediately next to Link stations such as UDistrict and Capitol Hill. It’s very noticeable with the vandalism, graffiti and trash in the area. Pioneer Sq and CID station at nightfall is like the zombie apocalypse. Granted those areas were rough before the stations, but the station has not brought increased vibrancy to the area and instead only more loiters.

      Hope they fix East Link connection soon. We got to spread that wealth.

  8. For the 76, the live loop could be on 66th instead of 65th to eliminate street crossings for Link riders.

  9. So 145th between Aurora and I-5 shouldn’t have service? Wouldn’t it make sense for a route to cover at least between Greenwood/145th to I-5/145th, providing easy access to the 148th station for those who live West of I-5?

    1. So 145th between Aurora and I-5 shouldn’t have service?

      No service running along 145th, correct. But there would be north-south service.

      Wouldn’t it make sense for a route to cover at least between Greenwood/145th to I-5/145th, providing easy access to the 148th station for those who live West of I-5?

      Not really, no. It just isn’t worth it. If we had a lot more money, then maybe, but we don’t.

      The problem with such routes is that they end up being neither here nor there. Metro proposed routes that run every half hour. Half-hour routes can’t compete with 15 minute routes (like the 65, 75, etc.) or 7.5 minute routes (like the E). They have trouble competing with cars. The only place where a half hour route makes sense is to cover an area that would otherwise not have service. This is true for Meridian (thus the 333). So to your point, consider the areas west of I-5, along 145th (from the station, heading west):

      1) Close to the station: Just walk to it.
      2) Close to Meridian: Catch the 333 down Meridian.
      3) Close to Aurora. Walk to Linden and catch the 65. Another alternative is to catch the E, then catch the 65.
      4) West of Aurora: Catch the 65.

      The only place that would likely benefit are the people close to Meridian (essentially the people who are between the station and Linden). This is a low density area. Not that many people are hurt by this, and even then, they still have a one-seat connection to Link, it just goes to a station a bit further away.

      Meanwhile, you’ve extended coverage to more places AND reduced the cost. In other words, more people at least have a bus within walking distance, and yet the system is actually less costly to run. This is because the 333 doesn’t overlap other routes, and make a bunch of turns (like the 46).

      I want to add that I should give Metro a lot of credit for the tail of the 65. At first I didn’t get it. I thought it make more sense to go to Shoreline Community College. Now I realize this extends the 65 into the heart of a very dense part of Aurora. Sure, the bus “wraps around”, but that’s a relatively small matter. A lot of people will walk to the bus stop at its end on Linden.

      In a traditional grid, you would have buses going north-south and east-west about a half mile from each other. We more or less have that going north-south, but it is very difficult to achieve east-west. It would be silly to run a bus on 165th, for example. It makes sense for the main east-west transit corridors (185th, 155th, 130th) to be covered, but otherwise it is much cheaper and better to run the buses north-south, then cut over. The 65 does exactly that for Greenwood. My 333 does that for Meridian.

      It is only Aurora that has gaps. Thus I could see a bus like so: https://goo.gl/maps/v1ZCD4RM6tuDvp2CA. This fills in the gaps between 130th and 205th. This would fill in the gaps while keeping the bus fairly straight. I’m not sure where you would get the money, but if it ran every 15 minutes, I’m sure it would be reasonably popular (especially if it ran opposite the 65).

      The thing is, the gaps are actually pretty small. That is because the east-west buses extend a bit farther. The bus on 155th also covers 160th. The bus on 130th also loops around to cover 145th. If you look at folks on Aurora without a direct but to Link the numbers are pretty small. Throw in the fact that they have very frequent bus service on Aurora, and things aren’t that bad. It just makes more sense to run the east-west buses more often.

Comments are closed.