Metro Updates Lynnwood Link Restructure Plans

100 Replies to “Metro Updates Lynnwood Link Restructure Plans”

1. Because the improvements are not happening all at once, Metro should have produced individual maps for each step — Lynnwood Link opening, 2 Line opening on the west side of Lake Washington, 130th St opening and Stride 3 opening.

   It makes it hard to give feedback with all of these phasing caveats. Maybe this is intentional on Metro’s part. It’s at the very least confusing.

   1. It is kinda confusing. I got the feeling in talking to some Metro people that they aren’t sure exactly how everything will be implemented. At this point this is still a draft, but even if this is the final map, I don’t think Metro knows exactly when they will phase in the 77.

   2. @Al.S,

      “ Maybe this is intentional on Metro’s part”

      LOL. I sort of had the same thought.

      But personally I don’t believe in any Deep Metro conspiracy theories, so I suspect that this confused presentation is more a reflection of the current state of affairs at Metro and not some nefarious plot. After all, Metro hasn’t exactly been firing on all cylinders of late.

      And it doesn’t help that the KC website appears to be down at the moment.

      That said, I’m with you. The Link openings will be phased, and it would seem that Metro’s restructure plans could be pretty clearly aligned with those phases. It seems straightforward, so I’m not sure why they made this so confusing.

      But hey, at least Link will be open! Progress. Can’t wait.

      1. The Link openings will be phased, and it would seem that Metro’s restructure plans could be pretty clearly aligned with those phases.

         They are. I don’t find it too confusing. Here it is in a nutshell:

         522: Current route until East Link is operational across the water. Then it goes to 145th.

         77: Phased in based on the 522 and Lynnwood Link.

         That’s it. Again, that assumes that this is the final network. Everything is in flux, as it should be. This is significantly different than the last proposal, and in my opinion, they still have a lot of work to do. The phases are very easy to understand — if anything, that is the great advantage of this approach. There is very little “churn”. Of course it would be simpler if 130th opened with the rest of Lynnwood Link (and the 522 was sent to 145th on opening day) but that won’t happen. We really don’t know the exact timing of anything, really — the dates for Lynnwood Link, East Link, and 130th Station are still pretty vague, and a lot of things can happen.

         Once it was made clear that this is the final network, everything is fairly easy to understand. That isn’t the problem. The problem is that the eventual network just isn’t very good. If anything, the desire to make things simple — to avoid churn — has made the eventual network worse. The two halves of the 77 are not a natural pairing — there are clear flaws — but it makes dealing with the phases very easy. I have more to say about the weakness of the 77, but I’ll leave to that to another comment.

   3. It makes it hard to give feedback with all of these phasing caveats.

      I don’t feel that way at all. I really don’t think it makes much difference. This was always going to be a challenge — (dealing with the 2-phase nature of Lynnwood Link). Now there are three phases. But in terms of feedback, it is still fairly simple. My approach is just to ignore the period before full implementation. Treat this as the proposal and make comments accordingly.

      You are also welcome to comment on what things will look like before Lynnwood Link. This is basically the exact same network, except for the 522 going to Roosevelt, and no 77. They could make a map, but it is pretty easy to imagine it.

      If anything, they seem to be bending over backwards to make it simple. There are now three phases, but only two buses are effected (the 77 and 522). It is very easy to understand — so there is that. The problem is that the 77 is a poor route (the previous 65 was much better). It seems that in the interest of keeping things simple (i. e. reducing the number of routes that are changed) they made the network worse. The weirdest part is that they are keeping the 75 *after* Link gets to 130th. This is a really strange decision, in my opinion, especially since they are still sending the 348 to Northgate. The different phases are very simple, but the finished network is redundant in various places, which contributes to the poor frequency.

      1. As I understand things then, there is one path change (522) and one added route (77), right?

         Then the next question is whether the phasing entails changing schedules on other routes. Will buses and drivers move to the 77 or will the 77 buses and drivers all be “new”?

         Then what happens to 322 when Stride opens? What about other routes?

         And will Route 303 ever go away? And when?

         And if 77 is “phased” does that mean that Metro will turn around the bus somewhere (and where) or does that means that the route frequency will be increased?

         Having witnessed MLK go from Route 8 to Route 48 to Route 106 over a span of just a few years, I can attest about how fluctuations in routes can lead to rider confusion.

      2. “Having witnessed MLK go from Route 8 to Route 48 to Route 106 over a span of just a few years”

         Oh dear, the entire arc of changes is even more than that. My experience only goes back to 1979, but since then on various parts of MLK there’s been 42/142, 42, 48, 8, 38, and 106.

      3. Then the next question is whether the phasing entails changing schedules on other routes.

         I could be wrong, but small schedule changes happen all the time. It has been a long time since things are “normal”, but Autumn service changes are pretty common, even before a pandemic, driver shortage, etc.

         Will buses and drivers move to the 77 or will the 77 buses and drivers all be “new”?

         It is probably treated like any other change. There is bound to be some shuffling around.

         Then what happens to 322 when Stride opens? What about other routes?

         I don’t think there are any plans to change it. But it is also quite possible it doesn’t perform well, and they eliminate it (along with the last remaining express, the 303). Otherwise, what is shown on the map is the plan.

         And if 77 is “phased” does that mean that Metro will turn around the bus somewhere (and where) or does that means that the route frequency will be increased?

         If the 522 goes to 145th before 130th Station opens, I would imagine the 77 backfills that by running from Lake City (Fred Meyer) to the UW. As for frequency, this is the section that likely warrants less frequency than the other piece (although still more than what they have planned).

         But again, that is what they have planned. Last time the plan was to do something different. Hopefully in this case, they go back to what they had planned earlier, because it was quite popular. Running the 65 to Bitter Lake was universally lauded (on this blog and elsewhere). Now it seems they are making other plans that simply don’t look as good.

2. And worth nothing – do not assume that routes which are marked as “frequent” in the service map shown on the restructure page are anything resembling frequent on evening or weekend hours – even if the route in question is frequent during these times today.

   For example, the 65 currently runs on evenings and weekends every 15 minutes. Metro’s proposal downgrades it to every 20. The 75 also currently runs on evenings and weekends every 15 minutes. Metro’s proposal downgrades it to every 30. A trip from Roosevelt to Lake City on an evening or weekend currently sees a #522 bus every 10-20 minutes, depending on the direction and time of day. The 77 that would replace the 522 would downgrade such service to every 30 minutes (it’s frequent only on weekends during the daytime). Similarly, since the proposed 77 is also the Lake City->Bitter Lake bus, the 130th St. corridor is also proposed to be limited on weekends to 30-minutes service as well.

   For anyone who lives along route 65 or 75, you are essentially getting the short end of the stick, being asked to wait longer for your bus to come so that other people further north – at least those who travel on weekdays during the middle of the day – can wait less. If you don’t like it, be sure to notice and comment.

   1. Yes, very good point. Sometime next week I hope to put together a chart showing the various headways. Several routes have very weak evening and weekend service.

      It is a bit tricky to see what current (or previous) headways were. It isn’t clear what “baseline” is anymore. There have been so many changes. The pandemic, the funding cutbacks by the city, and now the driver shortage. David Lawson did an excellent job of detailing the reduction in service from the first two: https://seattletransitblog.com/2020/09/01/two-axes-to-swing-for-metro-in-september/. I will probably use the original values as the baseline if I focus on reductions. Mainly though, I want to focus on the fact that headways just aren’t very good, across the board. The network isn’t very efficient — it is stretched too thin.

      I also think there are big mismatches. For example the 72 is slated to run every 10 minutes peak and midday, and 15 minutes evening and weekends. In contrast, the 77 will run 15 minutes peak and midday, and 30 minutes evening and weekends. For service along Lake City Way, the buses are similar. Both connect to Link (by going south) and both go to the UW. But the 77 actually gets to both places faster. The 72 also connects to 148th station, but so does the 522 (eventually). The 72 has unique coverage along Lake City Way, but then so does the 77. The 72 directly connects to U-Village, but the 77 connects to Roosevelt (which is much bigger). Overall, that segment of the 77 looks like it would have more riders per hour than the 72, while the other half of the 77 would have a lot more.

      But again, I think the biggest problem is just lack of good headways across the board. The 72 should not stand out as being exceptionally good; a lot of other buses should be at that level.

      1. “the biggest problem is just lack of good headways across the board.”

         The biggest problem is lack of service hours, drivers, and functioning buses. I’m confident these will be gradually improved over the next several years and frequency will gradually increase. That’s what’s happened in all the ups and downs since 2000. Metro’s metrics list several corridors as underserved, and I’m sure it recognizes others like Lake City Way. It just doesn’t have the resources to fill all of them, but it will when it can. When the 8 has 20-minute evenings and the 49 had 12-minute daytime, I interpreted that as “We wanted 15 minutes and 10 minutes but couldn’t, but we will when we can.”

      2. That is definitely part of it, but there are also plenty of inefficiencies in the network. When buses overlap, or make out-and-back detours, it means you can’t run them as often. There are always going to be trade-offs, but I think this network doesn’t focus enough on increasing frequency. I would say that is true of the network in general — not just this part.

3. It is curious how Metro is having to plan around uncertain opening days of multiple ST projects.

   Holding back until 2 Line for Route 522 change seems to be a silly trigger to me — especially since ST staff have not presented a thorough analysis of the feared overcrowding with just the 1 Line to Lynnwood. I think that either they should move 522 on Lynnwood opening day or — possibly even better — just wait until Stride 3 is fully open and the route disappears.

   When 522 moves off of Lake City Way south of 145th it reduces lots of bus service through Lake City — implying the need for replacement like Route 77 which is implied to be a route that I won’t be running on Lynnwood Link opening day. Plus is seems that 130th opens before Stride 3 so when 522 moves Route 77 should already be operational as an alternative way to get to Link from Lake City. Will there be a service deficiency in Lake City after 522 moves but before Route 77 is operating?

   A final broad comment on this is that the restructuring is major enough and Lynnwood Link opening is major enough for Metro to “get everything right” anyway — paths, frequencies, hours of service. Tweaking will likely happen based on how rider demand responds to the new route structure. Rather than try to second guess everything after Lynnwood Link opens, I think Metro should just anticipate having to restructure again when Stride opens (after 130th opens) and put this effort mainly focused on Lynnwood Link opening day.

   1. Will there be a service deficiency in Lake City after 522 moves but before Route 77 is operating?

      In talking with Metro, they won’t let that happen. The 77 (or some other bus) will cover Lake City Way when the 522 moves. It is definitely weird that this isn’t happening at the same time as either Lynnwood Link, 130th, or even Stride, since in all those cases there would be less churn. If it was up to me, I would do the change with 130th, just because it is a lot simpler:

      1) When Lynnwood Link opens, implement this plan as shown, but without the 77 (and with the 522 going to Roosevelt).

      2) When 130th is added, send the 522 to 145th. Have a new route (the 77) run from Lake City (Fred Meyer) to the UW. Send the 65 to Bitter Lake. Move the (infrequent coverage) northern-tail of the 65 to the 77.

      Even given ST’s decision to delay their move, I would still do that. It just means an extra step:

      1) Same as above.
      2) When East Link opens, the 522 goes to 145th. Have a new route (the 77) run from Lake City (Fred Meyer) to the UW.
      3) Send the 65 to Bitter Lake. Move the (infrequent coverage) northern-tail of the 65 to the 77.

4. I’m not happy at all with the 77. As noted above, the frequency is poor in the evenings and weekends. The route from Bitter Lake (including the tail) to Lake City is primed to be one of the strongest corridors in the north end. Other than the extremely fast north-south routes (the 5 and RapidRide E) this will likely have more riders per service-hour than anything north of the 44. It is the fastest connection to Link for a lot of people — Bitter Lake, Ingraham, Pinehurst and Lake City. Not only that, but it connects those riders to each other, as well as to the E and 5. The 61 will do some of that as well but it will take a lot longer, and overshoot some of the destinations. The 77 should have much better frequency.

   But there are other flaws. As I wrote in the post, it takes a very screwy route from Lake City to Bitter Lake. It will be much harder for Lake City riders to get to the bus stop. Through-riders will be delayed significantly. Even the basic geometry makes through-riding worse. The bus essentially makes a hairpin turn. It is not terrible (it isn’t like the streetcar route) but it isn’t nearly as good as the 65 pairing, which involves a more broad turn. This matters in terms of potential trip combinations. You don’t want to be on the bus and feel like you haven’t actually gone very far, even though the bus has been going a while. For example, consider a trip like this: https://goo.gl/maps/vdRzRE4KSdjV1s7TA. A kid leaves school (Jane Addams or Nathan Hale) walks up to Lake City Way and takes the bus heading home. As the crow flies, the distance between the stops is well less than a mile. Yet it will take the bus a really long time to get there. In contrast, consider this trip: https://goo.gl/maps/wqx28qTyw9sRYxhQA. The bus stops are quite a bit farther away, and yet it took less time to get there. This is what you want. There are a lot more potential trip combinations. To quote Jarrett Walker: All other things being equal, long, straight routes perform better than short, squiggly and looping ones.

   The previous proposal (for the 65) is just better in that regard. Sending the 65 to Bitter Lake creates a lot more one-seat ride. The primary destinations on Lake City Way (other than Lake City) are Roosevelt and the UW (areas served by Link). Someone who is going from Bitter Lake to Roosevelt or the UW is better off using Link, rather than waiting for the bus to loop all the way around. In contrast, the 65 serves Nathan Hale, Children’s Hospital, U-Village and the other side of campus from Link. It would mean connecting the two north-end high schools (Nathan Hale and Ingraham) as well as a lot of other combinations.

   For that matter, it increases the number of two-seat rides for those on the 65. The current plan has the 65 running infrequently as it goes north, making a bunch of turns and loops, eventually ending at the 145th station. For those trying to get to the corridor from the north, this is infrequent and very time consuming. In contrast, the previous 65 not only had a much faster connection to Link, but a connection to the 5 and RapidRide E. It isn’t just places to the north, either. From Northwest Hospital it makes sense to go north and then across, rather than down and around to Northgate. Likewise places along Aurora and Greenwood, south of 130th. There is really no fast way to get from those corridors to places east (or even Link) between 130th and 45th. 125th/130th is a fast east-west corridor with a lot of destinations — it makes sense to maximize it by combining it with a popular route to the southeast, just as it makes sense to send it northwest, towards Linden.

   A bit about that. Like a lot of people, I assumed they would send the bus to Shoreline Community College. I still see value in that. But I also see value in the tail that serves Linden. This is where the people are. While Aurora has a few apartments here and there, it is nothing like the collection centered at about 143rd and Linden. A lot the homes have low income residents, which tend to ride transit at higher numbers.

   The route from the northern tail to Lake City is solid; the bus should then continue, following the path of the 65 (and run as often as the 65, if not better).

   1. Agree, those extra turns are awkward, time consuming, and unnecessary. And thanks for bringing this to my attention, as I did not initially notice. Sending the 65 down 130th instead of the 77 solves this problem rather elegantly.

   2. Couple more thoughts on the 77:

      1) The turn the 77 will make from Lake City Way to 125th/127th is bad for people trying to use the 77 to get groceries at Fred Meyer. I’m not sure where the stops will be exactly, but the proposed 77 will no longer stop at Fred Meyer (130th) like the 522 did, and it looks like it’s going to be a really long walk with groceries.

      2) During the intervening period when the 73 has been cut but the 77 hasn’t yet been launched, southern Lake City Way loses its bus to the U District. Bummer. Deleting the 73 before launching the 77 represents a pretty huge service grab from North Seattle to give to Shoreline. This will be missed on the widely ridden southern part of the 73 around the U District as well.

      1. 1) Good point. To be fair, the 61 and 72 will go there. The 65 will on rare occasions. But this is a good example of why I don’t like the 77. The stop in Lake City are poor. If it just went the the Fred Meyer you add coverage. Likewise, if it just keeps going along 125th (and becomes the 65) you add coverage.

         2) Another good point. The 522 doesn’t have enough stops along Lake City Way. Eventually this will be fixed with the 77, but until then, it is not good.

5. I have some local concerns about how Metro and Sound Transit’s proposals will drastically reduce bus service for my neighborhood. I live just east of the intersection of Lake City Way and 145th street – 2 state highways. Because of how that intersection is being redesigned for Stride, the stop on westbound 145th will close completely. And the stop on northbound LCW will only serve the 322 (and since that’s a rush hour route, it means that 90% of the time, that stop is closed).

   So for people in my neighborhood who want to get to Link, they will have to walk ~10 minutes to reach the 522/72 stop at 145th/30th Ave. And for people who want to travel north along 522, they will have to walk over 10 minutes to 153rd street. I’ve already heard from neighbors who won’t walk that far, and say that they will start driving to Link.

   It also severs the 522 corridor. People who want to travel from Lake City to Kenmore would take the 72, make a left turn at 145th, go through another light to 30th, cross the street, catch the 522 and make another left turn to get back onto northbound 522. So that’s 2 left turns and a transfer, just to continue going straight.

   1. Agree, if I lived there, I would have very similar concerns. But, hey, at least 145th St. station has huge parking so those impacted who have cars can drive to the train as a workaround. All for only $150k or so per parking space.

   2. It is one of the more challenging aspects of the system after ST sends the bus to 145th. Metro has a couple choices, as I see it:

      1) Overlap with a bus that goes to Roosevelt. If there was a way for a bus to turn around further north (e. g. 165th) it would be ideal, but I just don’t see it. The problem is, there is no good place to turn around for miles. Making matters worse, there just aren’t that many riders along Bothell Way until you get to Kenmore. So that means a lot of overlap, and not that many riders. We just can’t afford that.

      2) Have the 72 use 30th northbound, and Lake City Way southbound. This allows it to use all of the existing bus stops. The bus still has to turn left from 30th, but since 30th is only one lane each direction, it doesn’t skip a stop. Likewise, southbound the 72 makes all the stop on Lake City Way south of 145th. The only major drawback is congestion on 30th in the evening.

      1. Yeah, the next bus-suitable arterial further north is SR 104, and there probably isn’t enough justification to send a frequent bus up Bothell Way and Ballinger Way to Mountlake Terrace. This is why Stride should be using 125th instead of 145th, but in lieu of that Metro and ST should at least be making transfers at Lake City Way and 145th work instead of eliminating them entirely.

      2. This is why Stride should be using 125th instead of 145th

         Yeah, that would probably be the best approach. I was always a bit hesitant with that idea, as there is a bit of a demand disconnect. Way more people ride in Seattle than in Lake Forest Park/Kenmore/Bothell. But with the current plans, Metro is struggling to provide adequate service on the key corridors (like 125th/130th) let alone providing really good service. A bus that went from UW Bothell to Shoreline Community College (SCC) would get plenty of riders — enough to justify good frequency all day, even if most of the riders are in the middle. The suburbs north of the lake have grown, which also helps.

         Mostly it would make for a very good network. Send the 72 all the way across, via 148th Station, 155th/160th and SCC. Send the 65 to Northgate (via Northgate Way) and continue as per the plans for the 61 (ending at Greenwood). Run the 348 to Roosevelt and the UW; the 77 goes from Lake City Fred Meyer to the UW via Lake City Way. That is about as close to a grid as possible. You can get pretty much anywhere in the north end with a one or two seat trip. Licton Springs to Kenmore. Shorewood High School to Lake City or U-Village. Trips along the same corridor become simple same stop transfers. Yes, that would be nice.

         Too bad that isn’t happening.

6. Ideally the 522 would head to 130th instead of 145th, and then the 77 could continue to 145th, but ST may not consider 125th/130th suitable for BRT, or they just got too far along in the planning process with 145th. In lieu of that, I would:
   *Switch the tails of the 65 and 77.
   *Extend the 65 to Shoreline Community College. Have it jog to Aurora between 130th and 145th. If Linden were a more suitable transit path I’d have it make the jog there, serving Four Freedoms House so the 345 doesn’t have to. Admittedly this might involve using more service hours Metro doesn’t have, but the 72 can be truncated to Lake City to free up some service.
   *Keep the 333 using the current 330 route. Optionally, if the service hours are available, extend it to Lake City along 145th (effectively moving the 72/333 transfer point from 145th station to Lake City).

   1. >> Switch the tails of the 65 and 77.

      Agreed.

      >> Keep the 333 using the current 330 route.

      I would have the northern part of the 333 end at the college. The college is a logical terminus — it doesn’t have many through-riders because it is so far west, and a major destination.

      I would extend the 72 to Shoreline Community College, using the 330 route (5th/155th/Aurora/160th). That is the fastest way to get from the college to Link. It also provides a one-seat ride from Link to Lake City. The 330 gets surprisingly good numbers for a bus that only runs a few times every day.

      >> Extend the 65 to Shoreline Community College. Have it jog to Aurora between 130th and 145th. If Linden were a more suitable transit path I’d have it make the jog there, serving Four Freedoms House so the 345 doesn’t have to.

      Intriguing. If you could use Linden as a way to get to Shoreline CC, that would be great. As it is though, I’ve warmed to the northern tail of that route. That part of Greenwood has plenty of people. There is a nice two-seat connection at Greenwood & 130th (e. g. up Greenwood, over 130th to Lake City). Aurora and Linden has plenty of people, but the loopy turn on 143rd covers almost everyone, while not hurting any through-riders (since it is the end of the line). As crazy as it sounds, I would consider having the bus turn south on 143rd, and go down to Four Freedoms (and layover there). The folks that are OK with walking will shortcut the route and just walk to 130th. The folks that are mobility challenged (and there are plenty in that area) will have a frequent bus connecting them to Link, even if it loops around to get there. Still a lot faster than the existing 345. That would cost very little in terms of extra service. If people “vote with their feet” and just ignore the looping tail, it could be truncated.

      But that is unrealistic at this point. I tend to work with what Metro has proposed, instead of starting from a blank slate. The most important thing to me is to go back to the previous plan for the 65. Western Shoreline remains a big challenge. I would send the 345 to Shoreline CC (ending there) and then send the 365 up Meridian to 185th, and ending at the station. Good coverage and good tails on both those routes.

      Other than the section between North City and Mountlake Terrace (which is obvious) I’m not thrilled with any part of the 333. The college is a good destination, but I don’t think North City is big enough to generate sufficient ridership there (and there is very little along the way). But I don’t want to fight the tide, and I’ll probably live with it in my next proposal. I would run a different bus (344?) from 185th, down 5th to 148th, then backtrack slightly to 155th, and follow the 330 path to Lake City (taking over the tail of the 65). It would be coverage in nature (as those segments are

      Oh, and of course I would send the 348 to the U-District (replacing the 67). Since Metro wants to keep the 75 (mainly for coverage along 5th there) there is an even stronger argument for having the 348 just keep going straight. Those that want to go to Northgate have another option. Service along the really busy part of 5th (close to the station) increases. You save money, and give a lot of people a one-seat ride to Roosevelt and the UW. I’m getting way ahead of myself here — I will probably propose something in the next couple weeks.

   2. Ideally, the SR-522 bus would not only use 130th rather than 145th, it would continue west, past the Link Station, connecting the Bothell Way and Aurora corridors together. If done this way, not only do Bothell and Kenmore get a two-seat ride to everywhere Link goes, they also get a two-seat ride to everywhere the E-line goes. And, the best does double duty connecting Lake City and Bitter Lake both to Link and to each other, avoiding the need for Metro to do this by extending the 65 or 77.

      But, of course, doing it this way would require Seattle representatives to have a seat at table during the SR-522 BRT planning process. However, ST service along the SR-522 corridor is charged to the East King subarea, not North King, so Bothell and Kenmore got to call all the shots while Seattle was shut out of the discussions. From the narrow perspective of Bothell and Kenmore in isolation, the teeny tiniest travel time savings by using 145th over 130th outweighs all potential ridership in the Lake City area from Seattle residents.

      1. Asdf2, your idea to run the 522 along 130th and continue it to Aurora is a very interesting idea. However, probably very few residents from Bothell and Kenmore would take the 522 to Aurora and use the E-Line, and that is apparent in the routing Bothell and Kenmore came up with. I think Bothell and Kenmore see the 522 as peak commuter transit, and that means downtown Seattle, and getting to Link as soon as possible, and I suppose the E KC subarea wants to spend as little time in N KC as possible on its nickel.

         The other issue you note is that the eastside subarea pays 100% of the 522, which really makes little sense to me because it really is a less expensive form of Link which is shared among the subareas Link passes through. With out any contribution from N KC E KC will spend as little time, or stops, in N KC on the way to Link as possible. You get what you pay for.

         With Metro’s issues, it would make sense for N KC to contribute to the 522 commensurate with the cost (at least operations if not capital which would be the cost of the buses) of the part of the route in Seattle to Aurora with E KC paying its share for travel in E KC, although it may have to be along 145 to Link unless there really is no time difference between 145th and 130th getting to Link, which is the prime purpose of the 522, and the prime concern of Bothell and Kenmore. N KC could offer to pay its share of the 522 but Bothell and Kenmore could also say E KC has plenty of money so the 522 will take 145 to Link, and after that N KC can do what it wants in N KC on its nickel.

      2. Ideally, the SR-522 bus would not only use 130th rather than 145th, it would continue west, past the Link Station, connecting the Bothell Way and Aurora corridors together.

         Yes, I agree. It is so obvious l tend to omit it. It is all about the geometry, and enabling good one and two seat rides. Build a grid, and all that.

         But, of course, doing it this way would require Seattle representatives to have a seat at table during the SR-522 BRT planning process. However, ST service along the SR-522 corridor is charged to the East King subarea, not North King, so Bothell and Kenmore got to call all the shots while Seattle was shut out of the discussions.

         Right, but it clear that those folks also screwed the pooch. There are plenty of people *in those communities* who will be forced to take three-seat rides simply because this doesn’t connect to the E or 5. Then there are people visiting them, who will be forced to take three-seat rides as well. Put it this way: Imagine a big town hall, where people are asked where they go in Seattle. You end up with thousands of different answers, and a lot of them are west of I-5. Yet *every one* of those trips will require an extra, unnecessary transfer (sometimes two). It is just a really bad design, created by clear amateurs. Holy cow, they had the opportunity to connect UW Bothell with Shoreline Community College, and simply blew it. Clearly those folks didn’t know what they were doing, and Metro is stuck trying to work around it.

   3. So, make the Wick suggestion to ST: shift Stride to NE 125th/30th Street. Has the construction on NE 145th Street begun? That cost could be saved. The Stride charging station could be shifted to the WSDOT lot west of 5th Avenue NE at NE 133rd Street and Stride could lay at the NE 130th Street. Stride3 would serve Lake City and all its transit and retail connections. The Stride3 capital is delayed. Note that when ST3 was developed, the NE 130th Street had not yet been decided.

      1. I don’t see ST budging on moving from 145th. The only way I could see that happening is if some wealthy land owner or developer convinced certain Board members that either 145th construction is an intolerable impact, or that moving it would encourage high value redevelopment. I don’t see either one of these situations happening.

         The recent history of ST project development suggests that the only way the ST Board will change what’s in ST3 is for these reasons. Rider benefit? They don’t care. More riders? They don’t care. Better productivity? They don’t care. Bad cost estimates? They don’t care. Additional costs? They don’t care. Use ST funds to help a vocal, wealthy person get richer by changing the project while making Link harder and less likely to use and less productive? They care — and would be wildly supportive.

         I may sound like a cynic, but one can’t help but look at WSBLE and come to that conclusion.

      2. Eddie, as asdf2 notes the decision is by E KC since they are paying for it, which means the cities served, which are Bothell and Kenmore. Why would they move Stride 3 to 130th? It doesn’t matter that 130th wasn’t formally a station. The question for Bothell and Kenmore is 130th or 145th faster and more convenient.

         I agree with Al. Basic ST inertia means it stays on 145th unless there is some benefit to E KC and Bothell and Kenmore to switch to 130th. What do they care about serving Lake City Way? If Lake City Way needs more service, or service to Aurora, there is Metro and Seattle’s transit levy or Move Seattle, or N KC subarea can fund bus service within N KC.

         I think a mistake some make is thinking ST makes these decisions. The Board does, which means politics, which means each subarea makes the decision for its money, which means the cities within the subarea. The only eastside cities affected are Bothell and Kenmore (and Lake Forest Park), they have a rep. on the Board, that rep. will ask Bothell and Kenmore what they want, and the rest of the Board will defer.

         Stride 3 will already serve a chunk of N KC on the eastside’s nickel. https://www.soundtransit.org/system-expansion/stride-s3-line#:~:text=The%20S3%20Stride%20Line%20will%20serve%20the%20growing,S2%20line%20in%20Bothell%2C%20the%20area%E2%80%99s%20eastern%20end. The 522 today serves even more of Seattle on the eastside’s nickel. https://www.soundtransit.org/ride-with-us/routes-schedules/522?direction=0&at=1689836400000&view=table&route_tab=schedule&stops_0=1_23561%2C1_75992&stops_1=1_75995%2C1_23421 My guess is fewer and fewer eastsiders at taking the tail part of the 522 in Seattle. Stride is not supposed to be a milk run bus route.

         The solution really is to use Metro to serve the areas south of 145th that Morgan and asdf2 think should be served (and the 522 serves today) including from 145th to 130th, along Lake City Way and to Aurora. ST simply won’t see that route within the mandate for Stride, and neither will E KC.

      3. P.S. I think Shoreline would also object moving Stride 3 to 130th.

      4. This is a moot point. ST has already published their 90% design for Stride S3. It is not moving off of 145th. And if Stride is on 145th, the 522 will be on 145th as an interim measure. Metro has flexibility, but needs to work around this fact.

      5. Larry, ST also said they didn’t want a station at 130th. A Seattle politician told them to put one there. ST obeyed. The same thing could happen again, but with a bus route. ST may want it to go up 145th, but maybe someone with a little power will tell them to run it up 130th, and they will again do as they are told.

      6. Sam, who was the Seattle politician who forced ST to build a station at 130th? I thought a station at 130th was part of the “realignment”.

         Who is the politician who would/could force “ST” to move Stride 3 from 145th to 130th?

         What is the benefit of moving S3 to 130th? Who benefits?

         Who is paying for S3 and the station at 145th?

         Why would Shoreline want S3 to go to 130th?

      7. Daniel,

         CM Juarez and Mayor Durkan asked ST to re-add the NE 130th station back in 2020.

         I don’t know how much Shoreline would benefit from Stride on 145th, given that there’s very few cross-streets between 522 and I-5, and the development on the Shoreline side is all SFH and park land. I imagine they’re more excited about the Link stations and Metro-operated frequent routes than Stride, which benefits Kenmore, Lake Forest Park, and Bothell.

         If the intent is to serve the most people rather than just drawing a line on a map, 125th/130th makes so much more sense that I hope ST makes the decision just based on the merits rather than any politics.

      8. “who was the Seattle politician who forced ST to build a station at 130th?”

         Deborah Juarez, city councilmember in distict 5. It’s not like she threw her Wonder Woman tiara and ST cowered in its wake. During Lynnwood Link planning the second-biggest public feedback was to add 130th Station. (The biggest feedback — a petition with several hundred signatures — was against a Lynnwood Station alternative.) ST ignored it and left 130th out. Later in the run-up to ST3, the public pleaded again, and this time they had a city council ally. Juarez called ST’s CEO every day for a year asking if there was any progress on 130th, according to an anecdote by Rogoff. Finally ST put in 130th.

      9. Am I incorrect in believing that back in early 2016 the 130th station wasn’t a sure thing, but the Seattle District 5 councilperson, whose district the 130th infill station was in, was upset that the station was only considered provisional or unfunded, and unless ST committed to the station, support for ST3 by the councilperson would be withheld? I’m pretty sure without them fighting hard for the station, the station wouldn’t have happened. Am I not remembering how all that went down correctly?

      10. The representative alignment in the ballot measure had Link on I-5 with stations at 145th and 185th. Later the Alternatives Analysis considered five alternatives: I-5, Aurora, Lake City Way, and 15th Ave NE, and BRT. The Aurora alternative had an extra station on 130th. When ST reaffirmed I-5 and rejected all the others, transit activists realized that if there was an extra station in one alternative, there could be an extra station in the other, and that would give Lake City better access to Link, which we thought was a lost cause. So there was a public campaign to add 130th Station, or to have 130th and 155th but not 145th. ST rejected those and stuck with 145th only. Later in the run-up to ST3, there was another public campaign to add 130th, and Juarez participated in that, and we finally got it.

          In the 1980s route 307 ran from downtown on I-5 to Northgate to 125th, Lake City, Bothell, and Woodinville. The 522 inherited the part from Lake City on north. But East King paid for it, and maybe North King paid a bit for Lake Forest Park, but Seattle was not its primary market. Seattle already had ST service planned in the form of Link; the 522 was for cities that didn’t have other ST service. Later when Metro deleted the 72 in the U-Link restructure in 2016, it asked ST to add a 522 stop at 85th to mitigate it. ST was reluctant to, but it finally did. Stride 3 was designed to go to 145th. Bothell, Kenmore, and Lake Forest Park wanted to go to downtown Seattle, and didn’t care about Lake City or Aurora or east-west service in a denser area. We asked ST to send Stride 3 to Aurora or 130th or Roosevelt but it wouldn’t consider it.

          RossB says over half the 522’s ridership is from Lake City on south. So while Northshore may be its primary market, they’re not stepping up with mega ridership like Seattle is.

      11. Thank you for the history of the station at 130th. I originally supported the station when added in the “realignment” although I was not sure N KC could afford the 130th station and WSBLE (with the original proposed number of stations), but the current capital costs for the 130th station had they been honestly estimated lead me to oppose the station. I think it is fair to say the cost of the station at 130th came out of the budget for WSBLE, which was stressed to begin with. Is a station at 130th a better use of subarea funds than a station in Midtown or SLU or 4th Ave. S.? Who knows.

          The questions I still have for S3 are:

          1. What are the benefits of moving S3 from 145th to 130th? I don’t see any.

          2. Who benefits.

          3. Who pays?

          4. Who would decide this decision considering I think SnoCo and E KC would object.

          I am not saying places like Lake City Way, or from LCW to Aurora, would not benefit from more transit service. I am saying Stride is not the appropriate mode for such an inter-city route, and Metro or ST buses are, at the cost of Seattle or N KC.

          I agree with others who have posted the chance the Board will switch S3 to 130th at this late date are virtually zero, but even if the possibility is 0.000001% someone has to identify the benefit of moving S3 to 130th, who benefits, and who pays.

      12. DT et al,
          Yes, there is very little chance that ST will revise the Stride pathway. It is just an STB aside. The ST2 and ST3 choices have all been flawed: I-5 alignment, stations in freeway interchanges, BRT on congested arterials.
          The main objective of transit is to extend the range of pedestrians. Link is handling the radial markets with paid parking. Link is providing a fast reliable transit pathway.

          Why ST might want to shift Stride3? To save capital funds as using the congested NE 145th Street is costly. To help Northshore (East subarea) riders reach the retail vibrancy and transit connections of Lake City. Lake City has a there. Northshore is a collection of related towns: Lake City, LFP, Kenmore, Bothell, and Woodinville. Stride3 could connect all of them with Link. There is no there at NE 145th Street or NE 130th Street at I-5. The only reason riders want to go to/from those interchanges is Link.

          Shoreline is searching for the lemonade recipe to improve pedestrian and bicycle flow in the NE 145th Street interchange. but it will always be a car sewer.

      13. I don’t agree with the characterization that 130th was a public campaign which Juarez participated in. I believe Juarez was the campaign. No Juarez, no 130th.

      14. No Juarez, no 130th.

          Then she deserves a medal. Alas, it wasn’t just her. It started as a community effort, really. It was clear to anyone who knew how to read a map why the station made sense; but let’s face it, ST has made stupider decisions (e. g. First Hill). So basically the community forced ST to do what it should have done in the first place, and put a station at 130th.

          Not to take anything away from Juarez. She was basically the voice for all of the sensible transit advocates as well as people in her community. It isn’t easy being a voice for the people. But advocating for something that if freakin’ obvious to anyone with any sense is a lot easier than advocating for something stupid. Dow is an amazing politician, when you consider what he has convinced the region to build. Juarez was just sensible.

          Anyway, the station will be built. Metro will take advantage of it, hopefully to a greater extent than what is shown here. The problem with the future Stride route is not really about 130th, it is about 145th. If they simply kept the current routing of the 522 it would be better. Notice that Metro is forced to backfill service along Lake City Way, while still running a bus along 145th. They have created *more* redundancy, while there are *fewer* connections, and *fewer* one-seat destinations. Yes, the bus gets to 148th station a little bit faster than it gets to Roosevelt Station. But the overall network is much worse. I’m not saying the current route is best. Maybe the 522 should go to 130th, and across to Greenwood Avenue. Maybe it should go to Northgate Way, and then to Greenwood (taking over the 61). There are all sorts of options, but having the bus head to 145th creates challenging network problems that are more expensive to solve for an agency that can’t afford it (Metro).

          In short, it looks like we are stuck with it. The thing to do know is ask Metro to work with it. That means sending the 72 *on the exact same path* as the future Stride line, simply because there is no other way for a bus between 125th and 145th to connect to Link. But at least we can ask Metro to send the 72 *across to the college* to make up for the fact that the Stride line won’t.

      15. Debora Juarez plays chicken with transit leaders – and wins.

          “This (no 130th station), Juarez has said publicly, is unacceptable. And so, she has set a date, Thursday, May 19, and begun to draft a statement: If the station’s not added, she will oppose Sound Transit 3.”

          “But despite all the lobbying from the community, the station was still in danger of being left off.”

          https://crosscut.com/2016/06/debora-juarez-plays-chicken-with-transit-leaders-and-wins

      16. I couldn’t find it for the longest time, but the above linked article is the original article that made me think Juarez had a lot to do with 130th station happening. Is the article overstating her role? I have no way of knowing. But, if it’s accurate, it certainly paints a picture that the station exists largely because of her efforts.

      17. Didn’t Juarez vote for CID N/S?

          Granted the CBD isn’t her district. But DSTT2 does affect Link more than just the CBD. At least if you are from the south.

          Maybe Juarez sees what others on this blog don’t. Or maybe the station at 130th which is in her district was good old fashion subarea pork like Issaquah Link, and like Balducci all she cares about is her voters get DSTT1.

          Maybe someday Keel and Somers will learn how the game is played. If Balducci and Juarez are schooling you your subarea has problems.

      18. Juarez had a lot to do with 130th station happening

          Absolutely. But the point I’m making is that anyone in that position would have done the same thing. One of the big reasons she was elected is because she was such a strong advocate for the station. Just a little background here:

          A station at 130th was obvious to transit nerds fairly early on (see previous blog posts). If ST was run by transit experts, 130th would have been part of the original plans — it just doesn’t make sense to run a train to Lynnwood and not include it. But as we’ve seen, transit nerds only have so much power. The people in charge of ST are not transit experts, and don’t defer to expert planners — they basically just wing it.

          As with most issues, strength lies when ordinary citizens (not transit nerds) speak up. But informing ordinary citizens about these issues is not easy. They all have other important things to worry about. They assume the folks in charge know what they are doing, just like they assume the folks in charge of our our water system know what they are doing. Thus it is up to community organizers to reach out to people, explain the issues, and get support.

          Enter Renee Station. She is the one who did precisely that. I really don’t think this would have happened without her. Instead you would have had people on the transit blogs constantly harping on how they should have added a station, in the same way we constantly complain about the lack of a First Hill station. But Ms. Staton reached out the community, and got a lot of people to support the plans. Once folks understood the importance of the station, there was widespread support. We held several meetings and more and more people attended.

          At the same time, there was a city council race in the district. Several candidates attended and spoke at one of the larger meetings. All of the candidates spoke in favor of the station. They basically all said the same thing. But Juarez got the crowd going. I actually didn’t hear the speech (I was by the door, greeting latecomers) but I heard people come out being very excited about her. Some people are just great orators — when they are passionate about a subject, you can really feel it. (I heard Norm Rice speak back in the day — same thing.) The point being, people picked her in large part because we knew she was going to fight hard for the station. But every one of the candidates was going to fight for it as well. We figured we would get other members of the board to go along, once they understood the geography. As it turned out, it took more work than it should have, but Juarez was up to the task.

          So basically, without Renee Staton, I don’t think there is a station. In contrast, Juarez was specifically chosen by the people of her district in large part because we knew she would fight for it. If she wasn’t going to do that, we would have picked someone else.

          In contrast, consider West Seattle Link. I don’t think this happens without Dow Constantine. Or consider the second tunnel, or the new stations downtown (“CID North” and “CID South”). This is all Dow. Oh, I’m sure there were plenty of people in West Seattle who wanted light rail, but Dow just coincidentally being from there and being head of the county was key. I suppose the same sort of thing could have happened in West Seattle (a community organizer fights for West Seattle Link and they elect a city council member that serves on the board) but I really doubt there would be a second tunnel (and the other stations) without Constantine. No one really wants that. Even now, when people question it, the response is basically “it is settled” as opposed to “we need it”, or “it would be better”. It is settled because Dow said so. Not the community, not the transit nerds — Dow Constantine.

      19. I wish D2 was represented by someone with the interest to get the Graham Link station going like Juarez — at least to get the station somewhat designed and to get land assembled. Surely that station will generate more riders than 130th St will. It’s only a matter of time before the area gets redeveloped (adding even more riders) and the costs of adding the station to buy the needed strips of land will soar. It’s especially ironic since Harrell was once the D2 council person.

          Morales doesn’t appear to show any initiative to get this going.

          I get how it’s timely to create a station at 130th while construction is occurring — but the clock is ticking on MLK real estate too.

      20. Ross, 148th station will have a parking garage. Northgate station has a parking garage. 130th station won’t have a parking garage. I’m curious, after 130th station opens, which station will you use most? This isn’t a trick question, so don’t be defensive. I’m sincerely curious. What’s more appealing to you, driving to a nearby Link station’s parking garage, or catching a bus in Pinehurst that goes to 130th station?

      21. “I wish D2 was represented by someone with the interest to get the Graham Link station going like Juarez”
          My gut feeling says that Graham is a low priority for Seattle for both the biggest fish to fry that politically people want done (Ballard to West Seattle) and hash out the details of that. But also I wouldn’t be surprised if some people want to advocate for Graham but also fix the MLK section along with it so the money isn’t wasted fixing it in the future.

7. Boy, this looks like the opposite of a Frequent Network approach.

   Pretty much nothing along the 15th Ave. segment of the proposed Route 333, and the segment along 175th near the freeway–not enough riders to be worth fighting the freeway car traffic. Have it go north on Meridian, east on 185th to connect to the station, then south on 15th to close the loop instead. That would be a useful frequent route.

8. RossB,
   Perhaps the STB should ask ST about the Route 522 phasing and what is behind it; are they considering turnback variants on Link so that Roosevelt would have more trips than South Shoreline? Why? When will ST decide? The ST committees have had presentations in spring 2023. Why is ST headed toward four-car trains and eight-minute headway?
   Note that Meridian Avenue North has no service between North 145th and 185th streets; that segment has Evergreen School, North Base, Meridian Park, and the Shoreline District Court.
   Did you confirm the intended Route 77 inbound pathway via 30th Avenue NE? The pavement is in very poor condition.

   1. Note that Meridian Avenue North has no service between North 145th and 185th streets; that segment has Evergreen School, North Base, Meridian Park, and the Shoreline District Court.

      Agreed. It is a new coverage hole. I would send the 365 up Meridian, and then over to layover at 185th. Send the 345 to Shoreline CC. Each takes roughly the same amount of time.

      Did you confirm the intended Route 77 inbound pathway via 30th Avenue NE?

      Yes. It is rather messy, but not that surprising. The pairing is just poor (as I wrote up above). It is difficult to even make the turn, and even if it was easy it wouldn’t be ideal (for the reasons mentioned in my other comment above). My biggest priority is to try and get Metro to revert back to the previous proposal for the 65 (sending it to Bitter Lake).

9. While we won’t know how much ridership will grow with the opening of Lynnwood Link, we will have some idea what service patterns will be possible when simulated service testing is conducted, with the storage capacity immediately put to the test.

   Given the high likelihood of short-run trains between CIDS and Lynnwood, we’ll get to see how long it takes to cajole everyone off the short-run southbound trains at CIDS before Lynnwood opens. Indeed, ST could start practicing that now by letting trains going back to base from Northgate be in service until CIDS.

   Regardless, the Metro restructure certainly does not contemplate timed transfers, with all these routes on which 15-minute headway is considered “frequent”.

   We won’t know how soon the 5-minute headway kicks in north of CIDS until testing demonstrates it, and then it could at least partially kick in even before Lynnwood opens.

10. Why does the 77 have that weird loop in the first place? The intersection of 30th Ave and Lake City Wy has a light that allows for turns both ways. That seems like a much more logical solution, and considering the two streets are only a block apart at 125th, it probably wouldn’t affect riders too badly.

    Also is it just me, or does it feel like the 75 overlaps the 77 way too much? 125th isn’t very dense, so I don’t think it needs service on two super frequent routes. The 75 doesn’t even go to 130th Station.

    1. “Why does the 77 have that weird loop in the first place?”

       RossB and I wondered that too, and the best we can come up with is Metro doesn’t want to make the sharp left turn, or SDOT doesn’t want it to. An articulated bus has a wide turning radius. Turning left precludes right-side stops for at least a block, and Metro has recently been making the distance longer on other routes. For instance, when buses turn left from Pine to 3rd, they often skip the 4th & Pine stop. This was a problem in the 2010s when I was transferring to a northbound route at 3rd & Pine: I had to ask the driver whether they’ll stop at 4th, so I could get off at 5th if they didn’t. Otherwise I’d end up a couple blocks further south on 3rd. On Lake City Way a bus would be even more reluctant to make a right-side stop and cross several high-speed highway lanes to turn left. If there’s a northbound stop on 30th, that’s only a half-block from Lake City Way.

       1. please look at the intersection signage. SDOT does not allow a north to west left turn. it is sharper than 90 degrees.

          does ST have to delay the Route 522 shift?

          RossB is correct, routes 65 and 75 can go straight through the intersection to reach the NE 130th Street Link station. route design should avoid loop-de-loops.

          A Route 77 or its equivalent is necessary; it is not a great pairing with the NE 125th/130th Street crosstown.

       2. Yeah, what eddie said. It is two lanes northbound, no turns (https://goo.gl/maps/prFTmJSuJSXghVEw6). The city could allow buses to turn, but the buses would be stuck in traffic. They could add a left turn signal, but that has all sorts of issues. You would only want to trigger the light for buses. It would delay the travel of lots of other buses (the light cycle is long enough as is). It just sounds very difficult.

          The alternative is to turn on 30th (both directions). This has other issues. For one, the bus has to leave the BAT lane, and cut across. You also skip bus stops at the heart of the community.

          And for what? An awkward pairing. Even if this pairing was easy, it wouldn’t be good. The bus makes a hairpin turn, which is very bad for through-riders. It ends up mainly serving Link destinations, even though it already crossed a Link station. This means you don’t have good one-seat rides. It means the two seat-rides are redundant. I see very few people staying on the bus as it passes through Lake City.

          In contrast, pairing with the 65 (as was the previous suggestion) solves all those problems. There is no issue with the hairpin turn. Of course people ride through Lake City. For example, Ingraham to Nathan Hale or Bitter Lake to U-Village. Or how about a two-seat ride: Wedgwood to Northwest Hospital (at Haller Lake). That requires “rounding the horn”, but still very straightforward. Or how about Wedgwood to Shoreline CC? Again, a two seat ride, but you are following more or less the exact same path you would if you drove. Same goes for the entire 35th NE corridor. You are connected to Link, the E and the 5 — three of the fastest, most frequent transit services in our system. In contrast, the latest plan connects riders to Link, but only after a lot of time spent making turns, and even then, only once in a while. The previous plans for the 65 are just better than the current plans for the 77.

       3. I see, hopefully when the new proposals come out, the issues with the 77 will be somehow solved. And hopefully, the 346 or something along Meridian is restored, deleting that service is something I’ve been opposed to since seeing the first proposal.

    2. If it’s doing the loop I think it will be doing, it looks like in one direction they are doing it so they don’t miss the westbound bus stop in 125th in between LCW and 30th. In the other direction it would be too difficult to turn from eastbound 125th to southbound LCW and serve the bus stop just around the corner.

       1. I think you are right. Southbound the bus will serve the following:

          1) 125th, between 28th and 30th.
          2) Lake City Way, just south of 120th.

          This is really pushing it in terms of stop spacing, especially for Lake City (one of the more urban parts of this line). If you go along 30th the other way though, it gets a lot worse. The bus could stop at:

          1) 113th and Lake City Way
          2) North of 120th.
          3) 125th, west of 28th.

          The problem is the second stop. It isn’t clear if the bus could even serve it as it needs to quickly get over to the left lane, to turn on 30th. If you don’t serve that stop spacing is huge — you basically have a big gap in Lake City. You could potentially add stops on 30th, but even if you did, this wouldn’t be very good. You are still barely skirting part of Lake City, even though this is the fastest way for anyone in the neighborhood to get to Link. Of course they could also take the bus to Roosevelt, except it is the same bus with the same problem. You end up pushing people to take the bus to Northgate, which is the slowest option. Even then it doesn’t serve the folks to the east very well. It has so many problems, not the least of which that it doesn’t serve Lake City well at all (even if they add a bunch of stops and manage to go northbound on 30th).

    3. Also is it just me, or does it feel like the 75 overlaps the 77 way too much?

       It isn’t just you. I specifically asked about the 75, because I figured that part of it might go away once the 77 was implemented. This was the response from Metro:

       The Route 75 pathway would continue even after Route 77 is implemented. During Phase 2 engagement we received a high amount of community feedback around maintaining service on 5th Ave NE north of Northgate Way, as well as maintaining a connection to Northgate for Route 75 riders. While this does provide some redundancy on NE 125th, the two routes do serve different distinct destinations aside from Link that were a high priority for riders we heard from.

       The problem I have with decisions like this is you end up trying to please everyone and then please no one. By itself, running a bus from Lake City to Northgate (via Pinehurst) isn’t too bad. But the northern part of the 65 is similar, in that it basically overlaps the 72. Then there is the 348 going to Northgate, while the 67 loops around and overlaps it (instead of the 348 just going south to the UW). There are a bunch of similar, wasteful routes in Shoreline as well.

       The end result is bad frequency. I understand why you want a one-seat ride to your destination, but if you do that over the entire network, you end up with terrible headways. At some point you need to ask people to transfer or just walk a few blocks.

       For example, consider the before and after pictures for Houston’s network shown here: https://humantransit.org/2014/05/houston-a-transit-network-reimagined.html. It is striking. There are a lot more frequent buses, despite them not spending any more money. I feel like we could do the same thing by taking the same approach.

       As for now, I think we have to work with what they are proposing. I’m not sure what to do with Shoreline — it was always challenging. But for Seattle, I see a few improvements that retain much of what they propose:

       1) Go back to the previous proposal for the 65. It was much better, for many reasons.

       2) Have the 77 cover the proposed northern part of the 65. I’m not sure that is even necessary (just ending at the Fred Meyer seems adequate) but at least this is a better pairing.

       3) Send the 348 to the UW (via the 67 pathway). Get rid of the 67.

       4) Send the 72 to Shoreline Community College; truncate the 333 at Shoreline Community College.

       Most of these are revenue neutral changes (just moving pieces around) while the third option saves money, which can go into running buses more frequently. Riders get a one-seat ride to Roosevelt and the UW instead of yet another one-seat ride to Northgate.

       1. “Riders get a one-seat ride to Roosevelt and the UW instead of yet another one-seat ride to Northgate.”

          The problem is, given the answer you were offered, it sounds like people complained about not having that one-seat ride to Northgate. It’s entirely possible that the people who would use the one-seat ride to UW (mostly students) will be okay with the two-seat ride, or can walk a few blocks longer, or just don’t engage with these sort of surveys. You said yourself in another post, a big part of making a good decision about the NE 130th St. was the community organizer taking an active role in informing and mobilizing the community. It sounds to me like the student population doesn’t have that. Will you step up on their behalf? Can you think of anyone in your circle who would be willing to do it?

          This is not a facetious question. If you feel that strongly about it being the right thing, that’s what it sounds like (to me) that needs to happen. I am not particularly plugged in to the UW student community right now, but perhaps you are, or know people who are and can do that work.

       2. These proposals are great, hopefully Metro does this along with restoring the 346.

11. I think one of the things people generally argue for is the status quo. Notice that the 65 is very similar to what it is now (instead of the previous proposal). I’m sure there are lots of people who want to keep the 73 as well. The problem is, the 73 performs poorly, so it is easy for Metro to get rid of it. If Metro sends the 348 to Roosevelt and the UW, this largely (but not entirely*) replaces the 73. But it is much harder to argue for something new, rather than retaining the existing network (especially if something new is not actually an official proposal).

    I don’t think it is just students who would benefit from that proposal. I find myself going to Roosevelt and the UW a lot more than I go to Northgate. There is just a lot more there. The UW has a lot more cultural activities (sports, plays, music, dance, etc.). There are bound to be people on the 67 who like the current route as well. At worst though, those folks can always walk five minutes and catch the same bus. The main advantage of sending the 348 to the UW is not that riders come out ahead (although I think they do) it is that we save money. Convincing people of the advantage of that is not easy. People think of frequency of entirely the result of money (and hiring enough drivers). That is a big part of it, the efficiency of the network makes a big difference.

    I do what I can, but I’m no community organizer. I write these essays and make recommendations. I’ll then share these ideas with community groups I’ve been involved with, but that is about it. I like your idea of reaching out to UW; I’ll see if I can find an organization there that would appreciate running the 348 to the north.

    * Some people will still want service on 15th NE, even if the 348 is sent to the UW.

    1. For whatever it’s worth, I always found Northgate annoying to get to before Link, when I lived in the Ravenna area, to the point where I would wish there were a good way to get there. The 68, when it ran, was just… slow, and round-about, and not convenient for getting to Target or other stores on the North side of Northgate. On the other hand, I never really had much need to get to places near UW, other than QFC in the Village, and a couple of restaurants on the Ave. All of which to say, I hear your anecdote and substitute my own :)

       As someone more prone to going out for essentials, rather than entertainment, I think that Northgate is a better destination, basically. And certainly not one to be discounted.

       1. I’m not discounting Northgate, but it is in the same league as Roosevelt. In contrast, the U-District simply has a lot more going on, by a very big margin. More jobs, more people living there, more places to visit. This isn’t just anecdotal; you can see it in the census data (via onthemap). The U-District shows up a major employer. Most of those jobs are in education (of course) but there are a lot of people in retail — roughly double those of Northgate. Unless you count Target, Northgate doesn’t have a grocery store (the QFC on Northgate Way would be on the bus either way). In contrast, Roosevelt has Safeway and Whole Foods, while the U-District has about a half dozen groceries (including a Target Grocery). This is all before they fill those skyscrapers. That will add a lot more people, and people visit people. People concentrated in one place leads to a lot more amenities nearby. Again, Northgate has seen a huge increase because of that, but it is nowhere near what exists in the U-District, let alone the full Maple Leaf/Roosevelt/U-District corridor.

          But even if they were comparable, it makes sense to just follow the grid. A hub and spoke system with Northgate as the hub is bound to be wasteful. It is just a lot more efficient to ask people to transfer (or walk a few blocks) and keep the buses going the same direction.

       2. I haven’t been to Roosevelt in a while but, as I recall, there wasn’t much there, really, other than the Whole Foods itself, and a few other shops. I know that Mike points out other attractions, like the audiophile shops – I’ve hung out in those, too, actually, with a grand total of like six people including the staff. They’re just not a big attraction. I’ve literally had to walk past more people on the stairs between Target and Best Buy than I’ve seen in one of those stores.

          I agree that the “type” of activities are similar, but I would not call the two areas similar in and of themselves.

          Re: U District, yes, I don’t discount that it’s a center of employment, residence, etc. I’m just pointing out that Northgate is not meaningless, either. However, the other aspect is – where are people from the Lake City area more likely to go, and where are the locations where easy transfers are important? I might argue that it’s more important to make the transfers easy from locations where you are likely to ferry a bunch of heavy stuff – i.e. shopping districts such as Northgate. It’s possible that people from Lake City will go to U Village to shop, too, of course, and the Ave has a few stores of its own. I’ve personally found it more useful to minimize transfers/walking going to/from Northgate, though.

       3. Northgate mall could be a game changer. It has Link, parking, will be safe, will be new, and will be truly walkable. I think a lot of folks from the south and north of Northgate will make that their primary shopping and dining destination.

          U District is all about the UW. The Ave. is dirty, not very safe at night, and the retail is not very attractive IMO (although it has an eclectic collection of hole in the wall restaurants.

          I lived for several years on Ravenna by 12th. I was in Roosevelt recently. There are more apartments but the retail was not much changed. I don’t see why anyone along Link would make Roosevelt their primary destination if they didn’t live there, and that will be more true when Northgate Mall opens.

          Germinating good retail density is part luck, part safety, and part we don’t know. What we do know is there is only so much retail an area can support and if zoning disperses it you don’t get density. A hi fi store (although that is one of my oldest hobbies) is a sign your retail is suck.

          Link follows vibrancy, or should. Folks can only walk around 1/4 mile if carrying anything. U Dist. SHOULD be world class retail but instead it is too dirty and unsafe despite a university that has shifted its spending east. If you want retail you need to attract the demographic that buys everything. Women. They go to U Village, not the Ave or Roosevelt, but will probably go to Northgate.

       4. I haven’t been to Roosevelt in a while but, as I recall, there wasn’t much there, really, other than the Whole Foods itself, and a few other shops. I know that Mike points out other attractions, like the audiophile shops

          You can tell us old-timers, because when we think about Roosevelt, we think of stereo shops. There are still a handful there, but they represent a tiny portion of the retail in the neighborhood. It is like Northgate. Back in the day, Northgate was nothing but a mall (which means basically nothing). But as apartment after apartment has been added, other things came with it. Shops, restaurants, even a movie theater. Same with Roosevelt (except no movie theater). Anyway, again, you can look at the numbers (via OnTheMap). In terms of retail employment, it is practically identical. This isn’t exactly the same as retail customers, but it is a very good proxy. When I think of Northgate, I think of the clinics, but as it turns out, there are more medical people employed around Roosevelt. It is worth nothing that from Roosevelt you can walk to Green Lake, which again has a bunch of retail near by. I have to be clear here: By “Roosevelt” I mean the area along the corridor (not just right by the station). To make an apples and oranges test, you compare the corridors. This means that a bus going straight includes Maple Leaf, which doesn’t have a lot of attractions, but still has some. If you think of attractions on the two corridors, it is likely that the Roosevelt Avenue route passes the route to Northgate TC somewhere around 65th, or at worst a few blocks later.

          The big attraction to Northgate — the big difference maker, if you will — is North Seattle College. But guess what? The other corridor contains a much bigger university! The other corridor just has way more in the way of people and attractions.

          The chief attraction at Northgate has always been the transit center. It has always offered a very fast way to get downtown. The 41 would get you there very quickly, and now Link does. But so does Roosevelt Station. For riders a long the corridor, the trip to Northgate is a couple minutes faster. But for many of the potential riders of the 348, that doesn’t matter. If you are within walking distance to 145th, you take the bus(es) that go across. If you are within walking distance to 130th, you take the bus across. If you are close to Northgate Way, you take the 61 (to Northgate). If you are far enough north, you just go north, and ride up to 185th. There are only a small subset that would actually take that bus to get to Link, which means the time savings to Link is unimportant compared to what a straight route to the UW gives you (which includes better overall frequency).

       5. U Dist. SHOULD be world class retail but instead it is too dirty and unsafe despite a university that has shifted its spending east.

          No offense, but your comments are clearly out of date. You sound like someone who lives in the suburbs and only occasionally visits the city, sticking to the sanitized malls because you heard the city was just too dirty.

          Alas, Daniel, your opinions on the various areas are even more outdated than those that focus on the stereo shops on Roosevelt. Sad news for you: Magnolia Hi-Fi is no longer in Magnolia, and it turns out, they are gone for good. Likewise, there are very few old record stores on The Ave, and it isn’t as grungy as you may remember. It is extremely vibrant, with a huge number of people. The shops have changed — more Asian — but there is definitely unique shopping available (that I would consider “world class”). In contrast, U-Village is your typical mall. It looks like just about any mall in the world. People drive to it, park and then shop. It makes sense for some buses to pass by it. People work there, and a few people ride the bus to shop there. But way more people go to the U-District for what it has to offer, and a much higher percentage take transit.

          But again, it isn’t just retail. It is the whole cultural experience. Folks don’t go to Capitol Hill only to buy clothes. They might buy clothes, but they go for dozens of reasons. There are bars, clubs, restaurants, concerts and poetry readings (to name just a few activities). The same goes for the UW. There are four playhouses, and four movie theaters. Hec Edmundson Pavilion hosts men’s and women’s basketball, volleyball, gymnastics as well as occasional concerts. There is a major medical center. You can see the extremely high employment density by looking at the data. There is just a lot more going on every day at the UW, even if you have no interest in attending a class.

       6. Northgate is in the process of change. Simon is a fairly astute developer and already renamed their investment as “Northgate Station” and released a denser mixed-use development site plan.

          The plan already includes two new hotels and more housing. Simon is not a “retail only” developer and will be running the numbers to maximize their opportunity to create a more safe, profitable and active station area. With the ride to either UW station less than a 10 minute Link ride, I expect the area to have a strong symbiotic relationship with the campus and be popular with UW in-state alumni that drive to Seattle for events there.

          So frankly I don’t know if I’ll be more or less likely to take Link to Northgate versus other stations by 2030. Outside of the U District/UW and Capitol Hill and maybe Lynnwood, I see Northgate as ultimately having the largest station area near Link’s north segment that would become regional destinations. It’s just going to take the development a few years to fully evolve so I wouldn’t proclaim its relevance based on what’s there today.

          https://business.simon.com/leasing/northgate-station#/

       7. Ross, you have a bad habit of resorting to ad hominem attacks when several of us point out you are wrong. Your grasp of transit is strong. Your grasp of retail is badly flawed. You have no experience in retail and are part of the demographic retailers and advertises hate because you buy nothing.

          You compare retail statistics for Northgate when the mall is closed. . I wonder who understands more about retail? You or Simon Properties? You are the only person I know who thinks 3rd in Seattle and U Ave are vibrant retail areas. Emmert when he was UW President wanted to buy to the west of the Ave to clean it up. The UW knows the Ave is a real detriment in attracting out of state undergraduates even if you don’t.

          Yes, the high end hi fi stores all moved to the Eastside. I spent many years drooling over hi fi gear in shops along Roosevelt, but a broke graduate student isn’t a demographic retailers like either.

          Like I said above. If you want to understand retail look at the TS concert goers.

          And get out of the house more. My son just graduated from UW so yes I have been to the Ave — during the day — many times over the last few years, and get first hand reports from my son who lived right by. No one thinks the Ave is the kind of retail a major university should have, I bet you can’t name a store or restaurant on the Ave you have been to in years.

          One of the real problems Harrell is dealing with is denial. Seattle has a certain segment of class progressives who have a nostalgia for a kind of 1970’s urban decay (especially when they live in a Seattle suburb). Some were foolish enough to vote for Thomas for City Attorney and the council that has an 8% approval rating. You are part of that 8%. Remember that.

       8. Yes, the mall is being rebuilt, to be more like other modern malls. They will add housing as well. Meanwhile, at the UW, they are adding skyscrapers! It is like a high-school sprinter trying to catch Usain Bolt at the second half of the 200 meters. You are way behind kid, and his lead is getting bigger.

          If you look at those plans for Northgate, there will be lots of green space (54,000 SF) which is nice, but not bound to attract anyone. There is a ton of parking, including surface parking. From a transit perspective, this is not good. Not only does it mean that space that would otherwise attract riders is being wasted, but it means that people are more likely to drive there. I’ve heard various people talk about the UW, Capitol Hill and now Ballard the same way. They mention how hard it is to park. These are inevitably older folks (my age) that miss the days you could easily find parking. What has happened is pretty simple: lots more people go there. So many that you can’t find free parking (and the paid parking has become more expensive). And yet these places are busier than ever. This is what you want. Transit ridership to these places is inevitably high.

          I’m no different. I’ve had several medical appointments at Northgate. I’ve walked or driven. It’s not that the bus is bad (quite the opposite, it is quite good) but the clinics all have free parking. You can see it from the air (https://goo.gl/maps/UCB9edbg778Tx2uK8). There is just a huge amount of space for parking. Some of that is park-and-ride for the train. Some of it is space that may eventually be redeveloped as part of the mall. But a lot of it is just free parking (offered by local businesses).

          Roosevelt actually has less of that (https://goo.gl/maps/rGD562G9btsuUg1M6). Roosevelt is fast becoming like all the other areas I mentioned (places where parking is hard to find). Like Northgate, the Roosevelt neighborhood is in transition. There is a ton of construction going on, and that means churn. Old restaurants are kicked out (only to reappear down the street). Just about all of those new buildings have ground-floor retail, which will eventually be filled. When the dust settles, it would not surprise me if Roosevelt is as big a destination as Northgate.

          But again, the U-District is just a much bigger destination, in every respect. They do have parking (most of it costing money). But they also just have a lot more development, and that will continue long after the Northgate Mall reinvents itself. It is both wider and longer. Things are centered at the Ave, but it clearly goes all the way from the campus to the freeway. There is development from Campus Parkway all the way past the Roosevelt Station, finally petering out around the Safeway.

          I have no qualms with what Simon is doing at Northgate, but it simply isn’t the kind of dense use that comes from more organic development. It reminds me of how Charles Marohn writes about downtown development, versus auto-oriented development. Often times, the big box store or mall seems like it is much better for the city than a messy downtown. But when you actually run the numbers, the downtown area — even if is not thriving — is just a lot more valuable. What is true from that perspective is true from a transit perspective. Even fairly good malls are just malls. They are clearly designed with the automobile in mind, and as a result, too much space is wasted. It is not efficient.

          There is also another aspect of this that will be challenging. Traffic will increase as the mall reopens. This won’t matter to those that take Link, but for those who ride the bus to the area (to catch Link) it will. The 348 is routinely stuck in traffic now. I’ve sat as the bus has gone through a full light cycle to make a left turn. Things will get a lot worse when they add all of that parking for the mall (and its residents). There isn’t that much the city can do, either. They could add BAT lanes on 5th, but lots of people are turning anyway. In contrast, the Roosevelt Couplet offers great opportunity for BAT lanes. You could even have contraflow lanes if you wanted to get fancy (although there are issues with that).

          I don’t want to imply that no one will take a bus to the mall. Of course they will. But I’m saying it will be similar to Roosevelt, and tiny compared to the UW. I honestly find it baffling that anyone would think that the Northgate area would come close to the Roosevelt/UW corridor in any respect. It is like arguing that South Lake Union doesn’t have anyone anymore, or that Capitol Hill isn’t as attractive as U-Village. Maybe it isn’t if you are planning on driving somewhere to buy a new dress, but for the vast majority of trips people take by transit, Capitol Hill is way more attractive (and you can clearly see that in the transit numbers).

       9. Ross, you have a bad habit of resorting to ad hominem attacks when several of us point out you are wrong. Your grasp of transit is strong. Your grasp of retail is badly flawed. You have no experience in retail and are part of the demographic retailers and advertises hate because you buy nothing.

          Somehow I made ad hominem attack, but you won’t tell me where. In contrast, your ad hominem attack is clear, and you are simply completely wrong:

          You have no experience in retail

          My son owned a brewpub and I was actively involved. I think I know a thing or two about retail.

          you are part of the demographic retailers and advertises hate because you buy nothing.

          Compete nonsense. I routinely go out to dinner, and buy plenty of things other than food. You make baseless claims about the Ave dying that are clearly out of date to anyone who walks by, and sees all the busy shops — even during a pandemic! Holy cow, they shut down the campus, no one wanted to go inside to eat, and within months the place was bustling again. I go there regularly, and believe me, it is not the hell hole you describe. It is in way better shape than it was in the 80s, when it seemed like a bunch of chain stores would take over, losing the very character that made it unique and attractive.

          Your comments on The Ave just read like someone who loves malls. You prefer high-end chain-stores, with lots of parking, to attract those who have no interest in taking transit.

          I wonder who understands more about retail? You or Simon Properties?

          I never said Simon Properties doesn’t know retail. But they are a property management company, not a major retailer. Guess who knows more than Simon about retail? Walmart. Of course they do. But that doesn’t mean that Walmart has a high *concentration* of retail at their stores. It is the same thing. Lots of land for parking, and relatively little for retail.

          But my point is not about *the business* of retail, it is about the *economics of retail”. It is about retail density. Again, I reference Charles Marohn, and the research he has done on the subject. You simply get higher concentrations of retail when you have a large mix of owners, and growth happens organically. Simon can’t let that happen. Simon can’t allow companies to come and go, and build as they please, because it would mean a lot of the companies go out of business. So they play it safe, by building lots of parking, and limiting the number of places that can operate. They have grown and diversified, adding more places to live as well as office space. Not as many as the neighborhoods to the south, but still a lot more than they used to have.

          But again, I have no qualms about Simon, or what they are building. I am simply saying if that land was laid out in a grid and owned by dozens of different people, you would have a higher concentration of … well, everything. A higher concentration of retail. A higher concentration of housing. A higher concentration of offices. That is just the nature of economics. Capitalism works best when you have more people involved at every aspect.

          You compare retail statistics for Northgate when the mall is closed.

          You can look back to when it was open. Go ahead, I’ll wait. You will never find a time when there was more retail employment at Northgate than at the U-District right now. Again, it is about density. All those little shops on the Ave employ people. Street after street of retail. In contrast, the mall is a fairly small area, surrounded by acres of parking.

          The data is clear, and you can look at it from various angles. Look at bus ridership. It is pretty clear that the UW is much bigger *destination* than Northgate. Without the station (or going back, without the 41 express to downtown) Northgate would have only a handful of riders. A typical bus that runs on the Ave has plenty of riders for the entire stretch. In contrast, buses like the 348 (which sparked this discussion) simply don’t operate that way. Very few people get off the bus (or got off the bus) before it reached the transit center (where they would then transfer to a different bus). Now, of course, they often transfer to the train, or walk across to the college.

          Again, I don’t want to dismiss Northgate, before or after Simon redoes the mall. But the U-District is basically another downtown, and Northgate is not.

       10. Since I’m the one who brought up Northgate in the first place :) My argument has been that Northgate (in particular Northgate North or whatever that big store block is where Target, Best Buy, etc. are) is a popular destination with a group of people who are likely to use transit. I can’t think of any specific destination like that at Roosevelt. I don’t dispute that there’s better diversity of shopping in the U District, but I think the local stores tend to appeal more to the local population. Maybe there are people who specifically go to some store on the Ave (e.g. the used bookstores); but I think their numbers are smaller than those who explicitly go to Target. I may well be wrong.

           I am also not disputing that the food services diversity is higher in the U District.

           I may go, however, as far as not including Green Lake area in the “Roosevelt” neighborhood. Yes, it’s walkable from one to the other (I’ve done it a number of times myself). But the neighborhood doesn’t feel “cohesive” in quite the same way as crossing Northgate Way to go from the Link station to NGN. For the same reason, I wouldn’t include the medical facilities at Northgate & Meridian in the “walking envelope” of Northgate. I tend to find the freeway itself to be a natural boundary of sorts. I get that others may feel otherwise, of course, just my personal anecdote of how I think of my own travels (and, as I said, I’ve broken that barrier in the past – but my plans acknowledge it as a barrier).

           All of which is a long way of answering Ross’s “I honestly find it baffling that anyone would think that the Northgate area would come close to the Roosevelt/UW corridor in any respect.” with “I honestly find it baffling that Ross would find it baffling that people have opinions different from his own” :) Sorry, Ross – Whole Foods + restaurants just aren’t as useful to me as Target and Best Buy, them’s the breaks.

       11. https://www.washington.edu/safety/2022/10/07/additional-actions-improve-u-district-safety/

           Here is a release from the UW about addressing safety on The Ave after four people were shot last fall. My son’s good friend actually witnessed the shootings but fortunately was not hurt.

           In other cities the university district is one of the most vibrant. Nike should be moving its flagship store from downtown — another dangerous area — to The Ave, not Factoria, but not if women won’t shop there.

           To state Simon Properties is a property management company and so doesn’t understand retail makes no sense. Simon Properties has millions of retail sf under lease and is probably one of the most knowledgeable about where retail thrives, and why. Whether it is Simon or Freeman you don’t make billions because you don’t understand retail.

           I agree with Al that Northgate Mall will be a big hit (before housing increases) and end up taking shoppers and diners from U District and downtown. Roosevelt doesn’t have enough out of neighborhood shoppers to steal. It is a shame this kind of retail development has to go to Northgate and not the Ave, but there is U Village on the Eastside which has been the main beneficiary of the demise of The Ave. It is pretty hard to screw up retail two blocks from a major university but they did it.

           Urbanists believe that urbanism requires housing density and transit. That may be true, except it isn’t true for vibrant retail density.

           Look at downtown and Belltown. Probably the highest density (housing and commercial) but terrible retail vibrancy.

           If 90% of regional discretionary trips are by car that means 90% of shoppers are going to arrive by car. U Village, Issaquah, Bell Sq, even Factoria have better retail density than Seattle but little transit. Although I do think Link will benefit Northgate Mall. Folks don’t mind driving to retail. Especially if they plan on buying more than a baguette.

           Seattle decided long ago to disperse retail into the neighborhoods. So you get little pockets of retail, which makes it difficult to shop by transit, but no urban retail core. . The Eastside did a better job of condensing retail in town centers, but mostly by accident because the SFH zones prohibit retail, although the town centers can be huge due to big Box stores and large surface parking lots because women don’t like underground lots, which is why restaurants are often condensed somewhere else like Old Front Street and Old Main St.

           The reality is the Eastside has much better retail vibrancy and retail density, in part because of zoning (density) and vibrancy (safety), which Freeman calls the greatest gift Seattle could have ever given him. Seattle made Freeman a billionaire.

       12. “The reality is the Eastside has much better retail vibrancy and retail density, in part because of zoning (density) and vibrancy (safety), which Freeman calls the greatest gift Seattle could have ever given him. Seattle made Freeman a billionaire.”

           You forgot about the part where my gas tax dollars get funneled into a Mega-project on the Eastside, to make driving so convenient.
           I rarely drive on I-405.
           I pay for it, but I certainly don’t get any benefit.

       13. My argument has been that Northgate (in particular Northgate North or whatever that big store block is where Target, Best Buy, etc. are) is a popular destination with a group of people who are likely to use transit. I can’t think of any specific destination like that at Roosevelt.

           Me neither. But in the grand scheme of things, I don’t think it matters. The stores there are definitely popular (I shop there). But I don’t shop there that often, and I don’t think that many people do. In contrast, people go to grocery stores all the time. I believe the only grocery store along the corridor is the Target. There is a Target Grocery Store in the U-District now too. That means that not only are there are lot more grocery stores if the bus goes straight (to Roosevelt and the U-District) but that there are no unique grocery stores if the bus goes to Northgate instead. People also visit restaurants a lot more than they shop for stuff. This is where Roosevelt does well.

           I want to be clear. I’m not saying that Roosevelt is a bigger destination than Northgate. I’m saying it is in the same league. In contrast, neither is in the same league as the U-District. If the U-District is a ten in terms of attractions, Roosevelt and Northgate are about a five. If Roosevelt is actually four, and Northgate six, it really doesn’t matter. Oh, and Maple Leaf is probably a two. The main point being if you look at the entire corridor, it isn’t even close — way more people visit the places along the other corridor.

           Keep in mind, when it comes to measuring the success of bus routes, Metro has two categories: urban and suburban. Suburban buses are assumed to have lower ridership. What is the definition? Urban is a bus that goes to Downtown Seattle or the UW. Suburban is a bus that doesn’t. UW is such a big destination that Metro considers it on par with downtown Seattle.

           If you look at ridership data, you can definitely see a bump at the bus stop you mentioned (Northgate Way & 5th). But you can also see lots of riders getting off buses just north of 45th. These are riders who aren’t going to class (since it would make sense to get on the bus later). For the 67, there are more riders using the bus stops on Roosevelt between Ravenna and 45th than are using the stops on 5th. There are more riders on the 73 on the Ave than on 5th with the 348. Or consider Maple Leaf, an area both of would consider pretty minor when it comes to being a destination (no offense to Judy Fu). Most of the ridership likely comes from people who live there. Way more people head south, then head north. Northgate is attractive, but not like Roosevelt/UW.

           Again, even if Northgate was all that — even if it was what I’m saying the UW is — it still wouldn’t warrant having a trunk and branch system with it as the center. People can transfer. The 61 will be frequent. A lot of the riders will have other ways to get to Northgate. It is like the 62 — it doesn’t detour to the UW and back, it keeps going across, to Wallingford, Stone Way, etc. The biggest reason I want to send the 348 to Maple Leaf, Roosevelt and the UW is that it saves a lot of service hours. The fact that is also gives people a one-seat ride to an area that most would consider head and shoulders above greater-Northgate is just a bonus.

           I may go, however, as far as not including Green Lake area in the “Roosevelt” neighborhood. Yes, it’s walkable from one to the other (I’ve done it a number of times myself). But the neighborhood doesn’t feel “cohesive” in quite the same way as crossing Northgate Way to go from the Link station to NGN. For the same reason, I wouldn’t include the medical facilities at Northgate & Meridian in the “walking envelope” of Northgate. I tend to find the freeway itself to be a natural boundary of sorts.

           Fair enough. But if you are walking around the lake itself (and many people do that) the extra distance isn’t much. The lake itself is a significant destination, and the fact that there is nearby restaurants is a great side benefit. Keep in mind, the areas to the north don’t have particularly good parks. Jackson Park would be great, but it is a golf course. Hamlin Park is nice, but considerably smaller, and lacks nearby restaurants. The point being, I could definitely see someone along the whole corridor being attracted to Green Lake. Throw in the fact that someone might meet them there, and it is especially attractive.

       14. [Off Topic. I don’t know when folks drifted off of the subject at hand (this restructure) but it is clearly off topic now.]

       15. Oh yeah, I don’t disagree that Green Lake is a destination in itself. Not just the park but also some of the other commercial entities in the area. There are some good restaurants, some grocery stores (PCC, the pharmacy whose name escapes me), some specialty shops (Super Jack and Jill’s), etc.

           I see also what you mean about the frequency of travel to different destinations – I guess I’m enough of a homebody that I’m actually “more” likely to go to a place like Target than even all the restaurants on the Ave in aggregate. I’m just boring, I know :) but I think that there are more people like me than you might give credit, perhaps (from my experience, a lot of people with small kids are likely to be more like me in that sense).

           And totally agree on the relative importance of UW vs. the others, of course, as I mentioned. In fact, I don’t actually think we’re disagreeing in aggregate – the reason I’ve been pursuing this topic as long as I have is mostly to add diversity of interests and views on the topic. But I don’t actually think your opinion is wrong, overall – if they do what you suggested to the 348, I would probably think it a fine choice.

           I don’t recall how the 348 differs from what the old 373 was, other than that the latter was peak-only. Do you have a sense of how they compare? I used to ride the 373 at times but it was very much of an opportunistic thing (when I did want to go towards Whole Foods at Roosevelt and it came first, for example).

       16. [Off Topic. I don’t know when folks drifted off of the subject at hand (this restructure) but it is clearly off topic now.]

       17. “You make baseless claims about the Ave dying that are clearly out of date to anyone who walks by, and sees all the busy shops — even during a pandemic!”

           For a while in 2021, when I visited my friend who then lived in Shoreline, Google maps had me take Link to the UW and transfer to a 373(?) that wandered northward through all that, making many twists and turns dsa it wound up through Ravenna Park, and eventually wound up going west on 185th.

           Even in 2021, the only place that seemed dead in terms of retail was a very short ½ block section just south of the bridge over Ravenna Park.

           In December 2022, I walked from Roosevelt Station to Green Lake in the snow. Even in the adverse weather, even that area seemed to be doing ok.

       18. [Off Topic. I don’t know when folks drifted off of the subject at hand (this restructure) but it is clearly off topic now.]

       19. I don’t recall how the 348 differs from what the old 373 was, other than that the latter was peak-only. Do you have a sense of how they compare?

           It is a long and fairly complicated history. I’m going to start at 2015, since that is when Oran made his first map of our system — this one: https://seattletransitmap.com/version/1512d1/SeattleTransitMap_v1512d1_web.pdf. You can see the whole history here: https://seattletransitmap.com/index8.html. I think the maps are really cool, and I think it is really cool that you can see the old ones. It would be fun to have some sort of time lapse of the various changes, but I digress.

           Anyway, as you can see from that map, the 73 went up to 145th, while the 373 kept going. The 73 made all the stops, while the 373 was more of an express. It still managed to make a lot of stops though — I always felt like the stop spacing was just right for the 373, and excessive for the 73, but I never did a thorough analysis, and I can’t even remember the differences now.

           At least in Seattle, the 348 was identical to what it is now. The 345/346/347/348 haven’t changed much over the years. The biggest change was the other buses on Maple Leaf. The 68 followed the current 67 path, except it cut over to 25th. The 66 and 67 ran on 5th.

           In March of 2016, things changed fairly dramatically (https://seattletransitmap.com/version/1603d1/SeattleTransitMap_v1603d1_web.pdf) as Link got to the UW. For Maple Leaf and Pinehurst, it begins to look a lot like today. There is no service on 5th, while the 67 does the button-hook connecting Northgate to Roosevelt and the UW. The 73/373 is still there. There was talk of eliminating that route, but folks pushed back. It was a combination of those that want a one-seat ride (from Pinehurst to Roosevelt/UW) as well as folks who wanted service on 15th. So they left the 73 and 373. The 373 was frequent, but only ran during peak; the 73 was infrequent. The 67, in contrast, was quite frequent. In my opinion, this was the end of the 73/373. For much of its route, it is very similar to the 67, just less frequent.

           Nothing much changed until Link got to Northgate (https://seattletransitmap.com/version/2203/SeattleTransitMap_v2203_web.pdf). For this neck of the woods, it is the same as today. The express buses (like the 77 and 41) are gone, but the biggest change for this area is that they got rid of the 373 (it is all just the 73). With the loss of express service, they ran the 345/346/347/348 more often during peak. That is about it now (other than the loss of frequency due to the pandemic, cutbacks in Seattle, and now the driver shortage).

           In terms of ridership, prior to the pandemic, the 73/373 did significantly better than the 348 in ridership per hour. The 77 still ran, and I’m sure took a lot of potential ridership (from both routes). But it only ran during peak. The 73/373 still performed better in the middle of the day.

           The stop data provides some insight into where people were coming and going. I’ll describe trips going south. For the 348, most of the riders (over 3/4) would board in Shoreline. Most of the riders (about 3/5) would alight in Seattle. Of those alighting in Seattle, about a third got off north of Northgate Way (or at Northgate Way & Roosevelt), a little more than a third got off at the transit center, and a little less than a third got off on 5th.

           I don’t have data for the 373, but have the 73 instead. Boardings were pretty spread out everywhere, but noticeably weak on Maple Leaf (likely in part due to people switching to the 67, but also just because it is a weaker corridor). Alightings were dominated by the Ave/Pacific. Seven stops made up about 90% of the alightings. Of those, the last stop (the connection to Link) was only a relatively small part (basically a typical stop for that stretch, and not the biggest).

           There are also a few shared stops. Both buses served the bus stop on 15th, between 143rd and 120th (inclusively). The 73 had about 25% more riders. It is worth nothing that the 347 also serves these riders. Combined, the 347/348 had more riders, but not a lot more, considering it ran twice as often. Since the 347/348 data includes peak (and the 73 data does not) it is reasonable to assume that more people along that stretch were headed to the U-District. It is clear that more people *per bus* definitely were.

           It is tough to say how things stand right now. I don’t have recent stop data, and even if I did, ridership keeps going up on both routes. It is quite possible that the 348 has been significantly boosted because of the increased peak frequency, and the (slightly) faster connection to Link. Not much has happened to the 73 (other than planned and unplanned reductions in service).

           Based on all the data I have, I firmly believe that the U-District is a significantly bigger destination than Northgate. The main thing Northgate has is a connection to Link. While sending those riders to Roosevelt makes that connection a bit slower, it is well worth it in my opinion.

       20. Neat, thank you very much! Very cool to see the history as well as some of the analysis about stop usage etc.

12. The current 45/75 interlining has become immensely popular with UW students and staff, since it lets the 45 travel through campus instead of terminating at UW Station. Looks like fewer and fewer routes go through campus these days–why?

    1. Going through campus is substantially slower, even with fewer bus routes going through. I remember being on a 31/32 going through campus pre-COVID and we were stuck at the turn from Steven’s Way northbound to Steven’s Way westbound for several minutes just waiting for folks to cross the street (it probably was around the end of a class period).

    2. Thanks for bringing up this topic. Mike and I talked about it, and if one of us has the energy, we’ll explore it in more details. It gets complicated.

       The first thing it brings up is the advantage for riders. It basically makes routes longer. All other things being equal, the longer a route, the better it is for riders. There are more one-seat trip combinations. But a really long route tends to get more delays. The 31/32 used to be paired with the 75. On the one hand, this was great for riders, as folks from Fremont could get a one-seat ride to U-Village or Children’s Hospital. But the 75 was routinely delayed because of a Fremont Bridge opening. Bus delays tend to escalate, as more riders get the bus that is late. This is how bus bunching occurs. You basically want a route to be long, but not too long (especially if it encounters delays).

       Then there are the logistics. A bunch of short routes tends to be more expensive than longer routes. You typically have overlap (which adds to total driver time). But with longer routes, there is a risk that it exceeds the time a driver is supposed to spend driving. Even it was possible, you can’t have the driver operating the vehicle for three hours straight (they need a break). So again, you want the route long, but not too long. Finally, you have layover space. The UW is a major destination and transit hub. It is quite reasonable for buses to end there. The problem is, there is only so much space to put them. Through-riding helps mitigate the problem. Finally you have more independence for each section (or route). It might make sense to have one route have more frequency than the other.

       I’m not really sure why the 45/75 pairing has gone away. It may have simply been too long. It is also possible that they wanted to give the 45 better frequency than the 75. The plan for the 45 is to give it 30 minute frequency late at night, but 15 minute frequency the rest of the time. That is actually the same pattern for the 61. Presumably they will run opposite each other, for great combined headways along 85th (nicely done, Metro!). In contrast, the 75 rarely runs every 15 minutes — only peak and midday on weekdays. They would have had to find the money to boost frequency on the 75, or cut back frequency on those routes if the 45/75 through-routed.

       I have spent time considering through-routing of various routes, but tend to not propose any changes. I feel like these are technical issues that are best handled by the folks who know more about the logistical issues. I also feel like they should be a consideration, but are best left as an afterthought.

       For example, there are a few changes I feel are very important:

       1) Go back to the previous plan for the 65 (sending it to Bitter Lake).
       2) Have the 77 end in Lake City, or take over the proposed northern tail of the 65.
       3) Send the 348 to the UW, replacing the 67.

       This would be a big change in through-routing. There are some possible pairings, like:

       1) Pair the 45 with the new 65. I don’t believe this is too long, and the headways are almost identical. You would need to boost frequency on the 45 just a bit. The savings from ending the 67 would more than pay for this.

       2) Pair the 77 with the 65 or 75.

       We could do both (45/65 paired, and 77/75 paired). There might be various issues (of the type mentioned) with any of these pairings. Even if they ended up splitting all the routes, and having them all layover separately, I believe the changes would be worth it.

    3. In addition to Ross’s very in-depth explanation of the tradeoffs, I will add one more anecdote related to through-routing vs. terminating routes on campus. More than a decade ago, there were two routes from Ravenna to campus: the 372 (which was very long but ended on campus), and the 68 (through-routed with the 31, at least for a while). As a rider, I found that going __to__ campus I almost always preferred the 68 (it was coming from Northgate, generally hit little traffic or congestion along the way, thus predictably arrived on time, and was much more reliable than the 372, which consistently got bunched up in Lake City); however, heading back from campus, I almost always took the 372 because the 68 was impossible to time; not so much the campus stops themselves but the connection to the 31 made it unreliable as all that, given the mess that driving in Fremont is. The other (at the time) through-routed pair was the 65/67, and those were a little more consistent, though I have less of a feel for them (I rode them more rarely); I remember that the 67 sometimes started late because the 65 was slow getting past the Montlake/25th St. area (the 68/372 often seemed to have an easier time with this, presumably as making a right onto Pend Oreille is easier), and the 65 sometimes started late too but I’m not sure where the 67 got backed up (I’d guess around the U District, maybe along Roosevelt). The 75 wasn’t through-routed at the time and it was pretty reliable, too.

       My conclusion, again as a rider, is that if I were going on campus regularly, I would want my route to terminate on campus and do the Stevens Loop, but not be through-routed.

       1. UW/U District is a tough nut to crack because it’s a decently large geographic area that can’t all be served at the same time. It would be like saying a bus to downtown has to choose between serving the Westlake tourist area, or the Pioneer Square business district area, but can’t do both.

          If you terminate all buses at U District or UW station, you’re missing out on central campus. From Drumheller fountain, it’s a 13 minute walk to U District station and an 8 minute walk to UW Station compared with 3 minutes from Stevens Way. On the other hand, asking a bunch of buses that would have terminated at U District station to then travel through campus adds a considerable amount of time. So not having any buses traveling through campus is problematic, especially for UW employees who aren’t as mobile as students. And once you commit to running a few routes through campus, it becomes attractive to through-route them. Having half of the local routes through-routed seems like a good compromise. Looking at proposed frequency, the 65/67 and 75/77 match up pairwise. So I’m assuming Metro is planning to through-route those 2 pairs, and have the 45 and 72 run as single routes.

       2. Yeah, I get that. I think I advocated for something similar in the past, too – when people were arguing against the 372 traveling through campus, and I pointed out that it was heavily enough used by people going to campus (as opposed to to Link) that it made sense to keep it.

          There is precedent in the 65/67 being through-routed; I think that that pairing still makes sense, yes. In the past, the 65 and 75 being through-routed with the 31 and (I think?) 30 was that they provided better connectivity to Children’s Hospital from NW Seattle. Not sure that they would want to sever all that through-routing, though (as Sam and I mentioned) there are issues with through-routing with Fremont routes when the Fremont (or Ballard) bridges are up, or there is other congestion.

       3. My conclusion, again as a rider, is that if I were going on campus regularly, I would want my route to terminate on campus and do the Stevens Loop, but not be through-routed.

          Yes, absolutely. This is ideal for a rider. It also means that buses overlap. This again is good for a rider. It is like downtown, where north end buses layover at the south end, and south end buses layover at the north end. This benefits riders coming or going to downtown, but it also benefits those in downtown, as the buses combine for very high frequency. We have long since reached the saturation point downtown, but if there were a lot fewer buses, this would be a big benefit. In the case of the U-District, we haven’t reached saturation point, so there is definitely a benefit. The question is whether it is worth it (in service hours). Assuming you can layover more buses at Children’s Hospital, that is how you would it. Right now the 67 and 45 would lay over there. The 75 and 65 would lay over at 45th (or just north of it). Most likely, you would split the difference, with one bus paired with another (through-routing) and the other two overlapping. The 372 overlaps as well, so that is still a lot of buses through campus, and arguably overkill.

       4. Looking at proposed frequency, the 65/67 and 75/77 match up pairwise. So I’m assuming Metro is planning to through-route those 2 pairs, and have the 45 and 72 run as single routes.

          Yes, I was explicitly told by Metro representatives that that was the plan. I think it is basically OK — the pairing is really the least of my worries. I don’t like the 65, 67 or 77, so any pairing starts with the assumption that those routes are changed. So just to repeat myself here:

          1) Go back to the previous plan for the 65 (sending it to Bitter Lake).
          2) Have the 77 end in Lake City, or take over the proposed northern tail of the 65.
          3) Send the 348 to the UW, replacing the 67.
          4) Extend the 72 to Shoreline Community College (replacing that part of the 333).

          The 348 is too long to pair, so it lays over at either Campus Parkway or the triangle (where they are planning on sending the 45). At that point, I really don’t have a strong preference. A lot depends on data that isn’t that easy to get. But I think I would likely pair the 77 and 75. The combination doesn’t seem too long, and as of right now, the routes have the exact same frequency. I’m not sure where the buses encounter congestion. For the most part, it only matters if they encounter it heading to the UW. Off hand, I don’t know of any big problem areas. With those buses paired, that would mean the 65 lays over next to the 72 (at the U-District Station).

          Eventually the J goes up Roosevelt to at least 67th. At that point, there is no reason to send the 348 (or 67) on Roosevelt. The bus can join the other buses on The Ave, or it could just layover at Green Lake (saving service money).

    4. Getting hung-up a few minutes through campus was nothing. PM rush hour eastbound routes 31’s and 32’s pre-covid would routinely get stuck behind northbound Ballard bridge backups, then once again get stuck in eastbound congestion on Pacific, before turning left onto Brooklyn. That congestion would routinely make the routes 15-30 minutes late as they changed into the route 75. Campus traffic and pedestrians wasn’t in the top ten of reasons those routes were late.

       1. Yeah, good point. The 31/32 get delayed by both bridges. I would imagine things are worse for the 31. Things back up past the overpass (technically part of Nickerson) and onto Emerson, and there is nothing a bus can do. In contrast, a 32 exits at Dravus, and at least can hug the right side, since that lane goes towards SPU. This is just one of many areas where SDOT could improve things if they put in the effort. Buses shouldn’t be stuck in traffic at a regular basis. This just shouldn’t happen.

       2. Yeah, the Fremont bridge is still a big issue for both routes, especially in the summer when the yachting types like to assert their privilege. Not going through campus does speed the routes up substantially, though, and fills in a big gap in the transit network on 45th between 15th and 25th.

          I suspect it also evens out passenger load, where the routes are busier than they were before (ridership dashboard for the last month shows more ridership in 2023 than the combined routes had in 2019) but spread out better. This Metro doesn’t have to run 60′ coaches at all anymore, when they had to add a few at peak times in the pre-COVID routing. The 45/75 is busy enough where it makes sense to run a mix of 40′ and 60′ coaches all day.

          I do miss the days of more buses running through campus but maybe UW should run a circulator of some kind? They already sort of have that with the Health Sciences shuttles (though these run mostly off-campus), and NightRide.

       3. “maybe UW should run a circulator of some kind” – if this went all the way to the major dorm/housing areas off-campus, like Nordheim, wouldn’t it essentially preempt a lot of the value of having the ORCA system for students? I mean, yes, students do travel farther out, of course, but a lot of the value is the daily “commute” to and from campus for those living in dorms and the like.

       4. Anonymouse ,

          Running the circulator might reduce the value of the fully-subsidized U-PASS but there’s lots of students who use it to travel on the Ave, or get out to Fremont/Ballard. There’s also a large number of students who don’t live on campus and commute who would still benefit. I’d see it as complementary rather than a replacement for Metro. One solution would be to still charge fare by ORCA card too.

       5. Yeah, not saying there’s not still “value” – but it becomes a question of how good a rate UW can negotiate, too, at that point, right? If say 60% of the undergrad population no longer needs it, it would become harder to justify the cost, so that would make it optional rather than mandatory (if it’s mandatory now, I forget) and/or reduce the cost to students which reduces the revenue to Metro, etc.

          These were some of the debates going on at my old undergrad university when I was there, anyway, when we were talking about putting in a similar system. I was not associated with UW when ORCA or UPass were established, but I assume the same sort of discussions were happening then, too, and a major change like that would potentially re-open them. So it’s worth thinking about the implications before advocating for it, is all I am saying. It sounds like __you__ already have, of course – if you also know of any official findings from UW itself, that would be interesting to read.

Comments are closed.