East Link Restructure Final Proposal

113 Replies to “East Link Restructure Final Proposal”

1. The 269 getting weekend service is going to be helpful for transit hiking. There’s stops at the north and south ends of Lake Sammamish with good trail access, along with Evans Creek Preserve with stops right at the park. Complemented with Metro Flex, it’ll be faster to get to Soaring Eagle as well.

2. What route will travel east on Northup/20th from 120th? The route 249 will no longer do so.

   1. Nothing, but Bel-Red Station is in walking distance from the removed stops.

3. Is the proposed route for Seattle->Factoria to get out 2 line at S Bellevue and take the 203 to Factoria? I would have sworn earlier plans had Factoria bound riders transferring at Mercer Island.

4. I do see one mistake.

   Route 630 cannot stop at Judkins Park Station even though Metro says that it will. That’s because both ramps do not end until about two blocks north of the station entrance. I guess someone could use stops at S Charles St but the stop is 1000 feet from the Link station entrance (more effort needed to get to the platform)..

   In the grand scene of things, it’s no big deal. The route is intended to serve Mercer Island residents who commute at peak times to First Hill, and runs just a few times each day — and it passes near Mercer Island station too.

   But I think it’s misleading for Metro to say that it stops at Judkins Park Ststion when it physically can’t! .

5. Some of the route diagrams say “Symphony (University St)”!

   I also notice that it’s just “Spring District” and “BelRed” with no mention of the crossing numbered streets (120th; 130th).!

   1. Yes, the names are “Spring District” and “BelRed”. Bel-Red looks odd without its hyphen. Shoreline is the only city that wanted street numbers in their station names (“Shoreline South/148th” and “Shoreline North/185th”).

6. I’m glad the 219 is coming back as the 215! The 219 was crush loaded at peak pre-COVID. Bus service that has to slog through the valley floor is essential for transit within Issaquah but noncompetitive with driving from the Highlands to Bellevue or Seattle, while an I90 express route is straight up faster than driving because of the HOV lanes and probably cheaper than commuting purely on cost of gas. The non-single family part of Highlands is walkable and will be reasonable dense once built out; given that neighborhood a strong 1-seat ride to Link (even if infequent outside of peak) makes living in the Highlands car-light or car-free very possible.

   Merging the 219 and the 208 is smart. That would have been too long of a route when the 219 went into downtown Seattle. Taking the 219+208 was doable but catching the bus transfer in the Highland could be a long wait if missed. Giving Sno/NB a one-seat ride to Link is really nice; as a 2-seat ride into Seattle or Bellevue/Redmond, that’s the length of trip that’s challenging for daily riding but very reasonable for someone traveling once a week.

   1. I find it interesting how significantly service to Issaquah Highlands is proposed to increase relative to today.

      Since the driver shortage related cuts, Metro has been running a grand total of 5 buses during each of the morning and evening peaks between Seattle and Issaquah Highlands. Under this plan, Metro will be running buses for 14 hours on weekdays and 12 hours to weekends between Issaquah Highlands and Mercer Island station.

      Pre-covid, the Issaquah Highlands express buses to Seattle (216, 218 and 219) were amongst the highest ridership expresses in the system. Hopefully Metro can hire enough drivers and ridership will return with the proposed frequency and span of service.

      1. Isn’t the restructure bus hour neutral? I don’t think Metro needs to hire more drivers to support these added routes; instead they are funded by all the bus hours going away, notably I90 buses no longer crossing the lake into Seattle.

      2. It may be bus hour neutral, although I expect that it would have to be relative to pre-covid hours. There’s no way that the existing handful of 218 runs could balance against all day service, even without the replacements going into Seattle.

      3. I think it is revenue neutral but assumes no driver shortage. A lot of current cutbacks are because of the latter.

      4. It will take a few dozen operators to extend the 2 Line all the way to Lynnwood. They will be needed before full-service testing starts, which will be a couple months before the restructure frees up operators.

      5. It will take a few dozen operators to extend the 2 Line all the way to Lynnwood.

         I don’t think a lot of people switch back and forth between operating a train and driving a bus. Really two different things.

   2. The Issaquah Highlands is an impressive new urbanist neighborhood. It has a good mixture of housing types and a compact stature. I’d like to see a wider variety of retail, and a less isolated location, but it’s better than most developments in the region. So it’s an important place for frequent transit.

      1. West of 9th there should be a few more retail parcels, so the variety will increase slightly.

   3. I like this kind of overlapping service pattern. Makes sense to have the Sammamish/North Bend neighborhood routes be branches on a frequent core of routes connecting to Link, since that is where most people will end up transferring. Reminds me of this concept for I-405 BRT, which is based on the recognition that riders in the corridor come from all over the place (e.g. 532, 535, 560, 566). Still bummed that this isn’t what ended up happening:
      https://i0.wp.com/seattletransitblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/201410_STCentralEastHCT_CorridorReport_I405-21.png?ssl=1

      Also kind of a bummer that they couldn’t muster up a 30 minute headway North Bend segment. Guess 45-90 is better than two hours but still.

      Also, I wonder if they are going to renumber short 215 trips as 218, because they seem to be exactly the same. I’m curious if there’s a difference I’m not noticing, or if it is the case that they are proposing a peak-only 218 and short-run 215 trips that are identical except the number.

      1. I agree about the overlapping pattern. That is a great approach along the freeway. Very rarely are there significant destinations along the freeway, at best you have park and ride lots. This leaves three options:

         1) A route that leaves the freeway to serve the many destinations along the way. This works, but longer trips take a really long time.

         2) A “spine” that just runs along the freeway. Almost all trips become three-seat rides.

         3) An overlapping set of routes with each route serving a destination on each end. By stopping along the freeway it enables easy transfers (but one transfer, not two).

         Clearly the third is the best option.

      2. Option Three used to have a name that was considered the creme de la creme of freeway bus service: “BlueStreak”

      3. Blue Streak didn’t necessarily have freeway stops though. The addition of freeway stops makes a lot of transfers easy. For example imagine a bus (a Blue Streak if you will) that goes from the main UW campus to UW Bothell via 520 and 405. It makes no stops other than along the freeway. Now imagine another bus that goes from the Lake Washington Institute of Technology (LWIT) to Downtown Bellevue, via 405 (again, very Blue Streak like). Both buses stop at the Totem Lake Freeway stop. That means riders going from UW Bothell to the LWIT have a simple transfer. So do riders from UW to LWIT. So do riders from Downtown Bellevue to UW Bothell.

         The two buses are very express in nature, making only a few stops along the way. Yet because of that stop, there are three additional fast combinations (not just the original two). Strategically placed freeway stations can make a huge difference in creating a regional transit network.

      4. > Reminds me of this concept for I-405 BRT, which is based on the recognition that riders in the corridor come from all over the place (e.g. 532, 535, 560, 566). Still bummed that this isn’t what ended up happening:

         I mean they could still run those variants in the future*. One nice thing about the inline brt stations and direct access ramps is that other express busses can use them as well.

         I guess don’t forget that in the above variant, outside of kirkland to north renton it was going to use general lanes or shoulder lanes. The newer single brt route does have a lot more reliability.

         Unfortunately Woodinville did kind of draw the short straw with that change, but even so with the direct access ramps, they could change the service pattern relatively easily.

         *Of course one complication is how to exit if it’s not a direct access ramp.

      5. “Option Three used to have a name that was considered the creme de la creme of freeway bus service: “BlueStreak””

         I rode the 71/72/73X for three decades and never heard the name “Blue Streak” until STB commentators started talking about it. If I didn’t know about it, most people in Seattle probably don’t know about it either. It’s back there with the Ride Free Area being called “Magic Carpet”. How many Seattlites now know there even was a Ride Free Area? Many never rode transit, or moved here later, or were too young.

         So we don’t necessarily need to revive a forgotten name. Instead we should ask, “Is ‘Blue Streak’ the most relevant name now?” And then you come to Swift, which is Blue Streak-like in having limited stops, and whose buses are blue. So maybe it should be the blue streak.

      6. Ross, that’s right, there were no freeway stops, though the 5 Blue Streak (eventually the 355) exited the freeway at 45th southbound and went down 8th to the Reversible Lane on-ramp. It had two U-District stops “along the way”. The other way it exited the Reversibles and then went up 7th then got on the main lanes to 85th.

         The three three 7 Blue Streaks (which became the 71, 72, and 73) and the 8 Blue Streak which didn’t survive the graduation to two digit numbers also did the same sort of dance around the Reversible lanes. Only the original Blue Streak — the one to Northgate — used the freeway the entire distance, though it had the same problems going south in the afternoon that the 41 did.

         The “shared freeway stub” was Cherry Street to 42nd and from there six routes fanned out. The important thing is that EVERY ONE OF THEM had a collector/distributor element before it got on the freeway, even the “Blue Streak” itself (from 125th and 15th). Everyone is familiar with the 70-series expresses so you all know how it worked. For bus transit it was a smashing success, since it produced excellent local transit in NE Seattle while still connecting five neighborhoods to the U (the Blue Streak skipped 45th since it was already in the Reversibles).

         I get the value of having (at least one) freeway stop(s) in the shared freeway segment, especially if both ends of the trip fan out to different destinations as in your example. But the primary difference between Blue Streak (“Freeway Express Bus”) and STRide 405 is that Stride will serve very few people directly at the “home” end of the ride. Nearly every trip will require a transfer to an infrequent collector/distributor in the going home journey.

         King and Snohomish Counties need to lid the freeways at the STRide North stations and build a lot of housing on the lids. Otherwise they’re not going to see a long-term rise in ridership.

         Nobody on the Eastside will want to transfer to an infrequent bus on a bridge over the un-lidded freeway. They don’t today and they won’t tomorrow. They might be happy to do so if the freeway is (mostly) silenced by being under a lid and there are a few retail things on the first floors of the housing buildings and good pedestrian protection.

         And, yes, I know that the foundations of those buildings would be expensive because they’d have to span the freeway like an overpass. But the truth is that there isn’t much buildable land left, and a place like the stretch of I-405 between the two Totem Lake exits would be a GREAT place for thousands of people to live above the freeway, whether Tacomee approves of “squeezing people into crackerboxes” or not.

      7. “King and Snohomish Counties need to lid the freeways at the STRide North stations and build a lot of housing on the lids.”

         Lids are becoming more popular. Bellevue is planning a downtown lid. 520 Montlake is getting a lid. One of the alternatives for the Convention Center expansion mitigation was a Pike-Pine lid. I think there have been concepts for extending the old Convention Center lid south to the financial or government district, and at 45th and SLU. Just as now there’s a ped bridge bandwagon, hopefully there will be a lid bandwagon.

         But you can’t build tall buildings on a lid, so they’d have to be short 2-story things or such. Still, the right mix of residential and commercial, and the pedestrian/bike paths that would come with it, would really improve the station areas and redeem the freeway stations.

      8. I’m a bit more ambivalent on freeway lids. They’re okay as a freeway mitigation for expansions if it’s using that money.

         But I wouldn’t be using dedicated city/transit funding for them as it is quite expensive.

         > Lids are becoming more popular. Bellevue is planning a downtown lid. 520 Montlake is getting a lid.

         the montlake lid was recently cancelled (indefinitely delayed technically) for cost overruns

         The bellevue lid isn’t actually that realistic. A major problem is that most other freeway lids have the situation where the existing freeway is “sunken” relative to the outside roads. The bellevue proposed section is going to basically be elevated but there’s no real connection to the east or west to walk to or. Or they need to completely demolish both east and west parcels to create a ramp.

         Then there’s 4 ramps, the two general ramps to NE 4th St and the 2 direct access ramps to NE 6th st.

         https://www.theurbanist.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Screenshot-2018-03-14-at-10.00.01-PM.png

         I can go find the bellevue freeway lid concept document but in general it’s just fatally flawed with other design problems. They’re mainly just moving forward with the pedestrian bridge concept instead.

      9. @Tom

         > King and Snohomish Counties need to lid the freeways at the stride North (Stride 2) stations and build a lot of housing on the lids. Otherwise they’re not going to see a long-term rise in ridership.

         I think it’s fine actually. The Stride 2 from lynnwood to Bellevue is relatively decent. Kirkland has their kirkland urban upzoning and fancy 85th interchange. Totem lake freeway station is nearby apartments and “the village at totem lake” as well.

         For the brickyard inline station, I don’t think a freeway lid would make much of a difference either. The 522/i-405 bus base, even if it wasn’t in the middle of a freeway interchange has rivers to the west and south.

         The only one I see maybe benefiting from a lid a bit might be the canyon park one.

      10. Wow! The topic moves to lids!

          Here’s the new US 101 freeway lid in San Francisco’s Presidio that recently opened.

          https://www.parksconservancy.org/video/presidio-tunnel-tops-walkthrough

          It has stunning vistas including the Golden Gate Bridge. It is in the middle of a national recreation area (replacing an historic connection before 101 severed the Presidio in the 1930’s) and adjacent to the visitors center — so it’s an optimum place for a lid.

          And it’s actually two lids with a ventilation gap.

          It’s also mostly maintained by the Presidio and not Caltrans.

          ******

          Every city thinks that they are lid worthy. But are they? A lid in my mind needs to have a strong unique goal rather than merely be a nice noise mitigation or an excuse for random open space. They are expensive to build and then to maintain.

          If noise and pedestrian environment are the issue, I recommend doing what was done on the east side of Mercer Island: Overcrossings that are overly wide (like about 150 feet) with the extra room with vegetation that blocks the road noise and visibility. (Contrast that experience with crossing the new beautiful but deafening John Lewis pedestrian bridge at Northgate.)

          As a taxpayer and potential pedestrian, I would much rather see 5 or 6 wider overcrossings with greenery as opposed to a single larger lid. I also would prefer any pedestrian freeway crossing to be pleasant to use, and not look like a chain link fenced corridor in a prison or sound as loud as a jet engine. Rather than build as cheaply as possible or as grandiose as possible, I think “the middle way” is the best design.

      11. We do have a trunk and branch network on I90 …. but Snoq/North Bend only gets one branch. The frequency at Eastgate freeway station is & will continue to be excellent with the overlay of 554, 215, 218, and 269, which allows for Eastgate TC to be a major transfer node despite no Link or Stride service.

          The tails are
          554: Issaquah valley floor
          218 Snoq/NB via Highlands
          269 Sammamish via Highlands
          215 Highlands

          And then 203 is a “local shadow” for the I90 corridor.

      12. The cities would build the lids; the wouldn’t be transit projects.

          “Every city thinks that they are lid worthy. But are they? A lid in my mind needs to have a strong unique goal rather than merely be a nice noise mitigation or an excuse for random open space. They are expensive to build and then to maintain.”

          There’s another way to look at it. If you don’t build a lid, there’s a gaping hole in your city that nobody wants to be near. That harms the city and is sure to have a negative factor on the economy and jobs. The freeway itself is expensive to maintain. It should have been underground or with a lid in the first place, but sadly lids weren’t in fashion in the 1960s. People didn’t understand until they were built what noise and traffic and no man’s lands and big-box/mini-mart exits the freeways would create. Mitigating the freeways’ impacts may be one of the most important thing cities or the state can do with their money, to help create a better long-term future.

          I’m thinking mainly of segments near city centers and urban neighborhoods like North Seattle. When you get out to Mountlake Terrace or Mukilteo or Redondo or Newport Hills or Juanita, you have to ask whether the surrounding neighborhood is part of the same mistake as the freeway, so just lidding the freeway is only a partial solution. I don’t know whether lids in sprawling neighborhoods are worthwhile, but I do know they’re important in places like downtown Seattle, North Seattle, downtown Bellevue, and close-in Link stations like Shoreline.

      13. “The frequency at Eastgate freeway station is & will continue to be excellent with the overlay of 554, 215, 218, and 269, which allows for Eastgate TC to be a major transfer node despite no Link or Stride service.”

          Current frequency is only in the peak direction. Reverse-peak and off-peak there’s only the 554, which comes every 30 minutes.

          The future plan will be much better: the 554 will be every 15 minutes daytime to central Issaquah, South Bellevue, and downtown Bellevue. The 215 and 269 will overlap for 15-minute daytime service to the Issaquah Highlands and Mercer Island. The 218 will be extra peak service (and may be unidirectional same as now).

      14. @Al S,

          Building freeway lids has to be one of the most ineffectual ways to rebuild lagging transit ridership that I have ever heard proposed. If you want to increase transit ridership the answer is simple, spend your money increasing coverage or improving service. That is how you increase ridership.

          Don’t get me wrong, I like lids. But they aren’t transit projects. If I’m waiting for the bus I’m not exactly expecting it to be reliable or convenient. And giving me some flowers or greenery to look at while I wait isn’t necessarily going to change my view of the transit experience.

          If you want to improve transit ridership, improve transit. If you want to plant a garden, then plant a garden.

          But your example of the lid at the Presidio is a good one. That is a case where building a lid justified the expense. And that justification did not involve transit.

      15. > The cities would build the lids; the wouldn’t be transit projects.

          I mean either way if it’s not from freeway money I wouldn’t be spending this money on extensive freeway lids.

          It’s a very expensive project.

          > It should have been underground or with a lid in the first place, but sadly lids weren’t in fashion in the 1960s. People didn’t understand until they were built what noise and traffic and no man’s lands and big-box/mini-mart exits the freeways would create.

          It’s just not really affordable to build such large and long freeway lids along the entire section. Even the current freeway lids are mainly along the shorter segments of freeways 4~6 lanes. Look if you are going to build such a long line of freeway lids — it’s practically speaking the same as cut-and-covering 4 subway lines worth of track.

          > There’s another way to look at it. If you don’t build a lid, there’s a gaping hole in your city that nobody wants to be near. That harms the city and is sure to have a negative factor on the economy and jobs.

          That’s the trade off with freeways from the very beginning. But I would rather not continually fund more and more money there to fix them with lids if it can be spent elsewhere.

      16. I mean don’t forget, everyone talks about how ‘great’ the big dig in boston was. But “the original Big Dig plan also included the North-South Rail Link, which would have connected North and South Stations (the major passenger train stations in Boston), but this aspect of the project was ultimately dropped by the state transportation administration early in the Dukakis administration. Negotiations with the federal government had led to an agreement to widen some of the lanes in the new harbor tunnel, and accommodating these would require the tunnel to be deeper and mechanically vented”
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig

          Also (simplified) part of the big dig debt was placed on the MBTA as well.
          https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/i-team-big-dig-root-mbta-financial-troubles/

          Lastly, money for such large projects as a freeway lid does not exist in vacuum. When one is talking about hundred of millions or billions of dollars it’s ignorant to pretend it will not compete against funding other transit projects.

      17. We do have a trunk and branch network on I90

          Yes, but it doesn’t quite do the type of thing I mentioned (at least not that I can tell). To be clear, my example wasn’t great, either. What I have in mind is a trunk and branch system with branches on both ends. The freeway stop is there to serve that purpose. Eastgate is an excellent stop, but I wonder how many people actually use it for that. In other words, how many people take a bus that goes on the freeway, then transfer to a bus at Eastgate (which then continues on the freeway). The Eastgate stop mains serves as a way to get to crossing buses (a different but related thing).

          When East Link arrives it will offer same direction transfers, but mainly just as a shortcut. Let’s say you are going from North Bend to Downtown Bellevue. You could take the 215 and transfer in Eastgate to the 554. You could also transfer in Issaquah (although that might involve a longer trip). It is certainly not double-ended, as it doesn’t make sense to transfer from the 554 to a bus headed to Mercer Island (you might as well just transfer to Link).

          SR 520 has better examples, although they too are being replaced by Link. The 255/545 combination theoretically works for same-direction freeway transfers: Downtown to Kirkland, U-District to Redmond.

          My point is that a freeway stop doesn’t have to have a big parking garage next to it. It may not even have crossing bus service. But the ability to change from one freeway bus to another is of benefit by itself. If there is crossing service (like Eastgate and Totem Lake) all the better.

      18. Freeway lids can help spur TOD. Not only on top of the lid, but in surrounding neighborhoods. They improve transit the same way that bridges across the freeway do. Riders don’t have to “go around” to access their bus stop. In urban areas, there is also a subtle way in which they improve transit. They enable much better walking within the area. This in turn leads to more transit use. It’s part of the whole “fifteen minute city” idea. If you walk to work (over a freeway lid) and walk for your regular trips, you are less likely to own a car, and use it to get across town. If they lidded more of downtown, I could definitely see transit use from Capitol Hill increasing.

          It should definitely be part of freeway spending, which is to say it should be higher priority than a lot of freeway projects. Most of the major freeway projects (in this state anyway) are based on expansion, not maintenance. 509/167 for example. Or the ridiculously oversized Columbia Crossing (Interstate Bridge Replacement) project. We should definitely maintain what we have (and add HOV lanes as necessary) but too often we just get carried away.

      19. > Freeway lids can help spur TOD. Not only on top of the lid, but in surrounding neighborhoods.

          I don’t think anyone is arguing against that part. The thing is that they cost a lot of money and bring only a moderate benefit at best. If freeway lids were moderately cheaper to build — I’m sure the next seattle move levy would be talking about placing money to build that instead of any bus improvements. Thankfully it’s too expensive so no one’s considering it.

          Even say for example the bellevue freeway lid if it was more buildable, they are still keeping the freeway off and on ramps. It just provides a slightly better walk across i-405 compared to using the existing NE 4th St.

          > It should definitely be part of freeway spending, which is to say it should be higher priority than a lot of freeway projects. Most of the major freeway projects (in this state anyway) are based on expansion, not maintenance

          Another reason why I said it should be part of freeway expansion mitigations is a construction reason as well.

          If you just try to build a lid by itself WSDOT will most likely make you try to limit closures even more than what they are currently doing and have exponential cost. It’s a lot easier to build them when WSDOT is already planning to close the area for some prolonged time. Basically all the current freeway lids were built while WSDOT were when first building/shortly after the freeway or expanding it. i-90 freeway lids, sr 520 lids on east side etc…

          Or if you guys really just want to focus on freeway reconnections, even just building normal pedestrian bridges and roads we could probably build like a two dozen or at least one dozen freeway bridges for the price of one lid.

      20. “Building freeway lids has to be one of the most ineffectual ways to rebuild lagging transit ridership that I have ever heard proposed.”

          You build lids for basic walkability and aesthetics and more real estate and because noise pollution harms people’s hearing. Increased ridership is a side effect.

      21. “If freeway lids were moderately cheaper to build — I’m sure the next seattle move levy would be talking about placing money to build that instead of any bus improvements. Thankfully it’s too expensive so no one’s considering it.”

          There is a movement to lid more of downtown. It has been mentioned in the Times occasionally and seems to be gaining momentum, but not enough to do it yet. As I said, one of the alternatives for the convention center expansion litigation was to lid Pike-Pine. There have also been calls to lid down to Madison and Spring.

      22. Mike, I agree that there are lots of places where lids would be overkill. But Totem Lake between the two overpasses if a natural. It’s right in the middle of the developed half mile circle so housing there would be in walking distance of lots of interesting retail. I’d even extend the lid across Totem Lake Boulevard to cover the parking lot north of TJ’s.

          I get that it’s expensive to do, but it is the one place in Northeast King County outside Bellevue itself that will have A-1 trunk transit to nearly everywhere. Right now it is dismally un-walkable, a minimum of a quarter mile from the bus stops at 128th to anywhere interesting.

          Sixty years of sprawl domainated suburban development has left us a GIGANTIC bowl of lemons when it comes to transit, so making a bit of Lemonade in Totem Lake makes sense.

          I wouldn’t lid 85th and 405 because the “classic cloverleaf” leaves no way into the development. And, the hill to the west is too steep to expand it that direction. But I would take a bulldozer to everything for a quarter mile east of the freeway and replace it with a Roosevelt clone.

      23. Lazarus, the point of a Totem Lake lid is to get some housing within walkable range of one of the Stride 405 BRT stations. Just ONE out of eleven. Is that too much to ask?

          There might be a couple of places in Snohomish County that it would work as well, though I don’t know the whereabouts there well enough to find one. Certainly there’s an opportunity at Mariner where there are undeveloped parcels in all four quadrants of the interchange into which to spill some of the development, but that wouldn’t be a BRT station. It would be for Link which makes the engineering more difficult, though the housing could surround the Link bridge with perhaps “second floor” bridges across the tracks or “elevated underpasses”.

      24. Yes, it is too much to ask. Anywhere outside of downtown Seattle and perhaps downtown Bellevue, land prices are not high enough to justify the high cost of creating a Lid. If you want more housing, build with the 15 minute walkshed of the station. There is plenty of land much cheaper than the cost of a lid.

          If you want to increase the amount of housing in Totem Lake within easy access of Stride, add a 2nd station at the Eastrail crossing. That is much, much cheaper than a lid.

      25. @AM,

          “ If you want to increase the amount of housing in Totem Lake within easy access of Stride, add a 2nd station at the Eastrail crossing. That is much, much cheaper than a lid”

          Yep, exactly. For the cost of a lid we could have much better transit with more coverage and better frequency.

          Or maybe for the cost of a lid we could actually build transit that is good at attracting TOD, like rail.

          I invite anyone who thinks it’s impossible to get TOD near a roaring freeway without lid’ing it to visit the areas around 148th St Station or 185th St Station. There is lots of TOD going in near those stations and there isn’t a lid in site.

          Why? Because the investment went into the transit first and the transit is attracting the TOD, not the other way around. Build fast, effective, high capacity transit and you will get the TOD. Build a lid and you’ll have a nice park and a couple more residents. Maybe.

      26. This lid topic might make a good post someday. The 10 ten best places for a freeway lid. Except, I’m not sure Totem Lake would make the list. Has anyone here been out there recently? It’s a mess. I had to go to a business east of 405 down 124th. Lots of big apt buildings being built nearby, but the only bus service is the DART 930. Totem Lake is built to get around by car.

      27. I’d much rather see taxpayers pay for an infill station rather than a lid!

          And again I would rather see several wider overcrossings with vegetation to muffle noise and look pretty than a single lid a few blocks long.

      28. > Mike, I agree that there are lots of places where lids would be overkill. But Totem Lake between the two overpasses if a natural. It’s right in the middle of the developed half mile circle so housing there would be in walking distance of lots of interesting retail.

          I mean I guess that is the fundamental problem right now; there’s not really any place I see that even satisfies a couple of good requirements
          1) demand having just dense residents or substantial retail on both sides of the freeway, none outside of Seattle. Bellevue might be the closest.
          2) constructability, the easiest options are when the freeway is sunken and there are few freeway ramps. If you notice a lot of the freeway lids on i-90 can be a lot larger since there are few freeway ramps in the way for the chosen sites.
          3) whether or not it is “useful” in adding new connections

          Even for bellevue freeway lid, what is on the east side of i-405:
          chickfila, hotel 116, autonation ford bellevue? There’s not a single apartment building. I mean I understand maybe it might encourage some development but perhaps bellevue could just start with a simple zoning change that currently only allows offices east of i-405 https://apps.bellevuewa.gov/gisdownload/PDF/Planning/complan2str_b_11x17.pdf. There’s the trader joes and pcc — but notably even after building the freeway lid it doesn’t actually improve the walk there unless one modifies the i-405 off ramp.

          * For Totem Lake, it minorly satisfies the first with the totem lake village and a bit weaker on the west side but still has apartments. The larger flaw is that the freeway there is basically the same elevation as other parallel roads. The section just north of the direct access ramp could have a smaller freeway lid but it doesn’t really add any pedestrian benefits.
          * Maybe brickyard could have a lid, but then there are freeway ramps is one going to remove them to add the lid?
          * Alderwood and Lynnwood have at-grade/elevated freeways so it’s hard to build
          * Overlake village is possible, but I don’t think it’s that useful
          * Redmond would be really nice to have one across sr-520. Unfortunately the freeway is embanked/elevated so not really feasible.

      29. AJ, WHERE “within the fifteen minute walkshed” [e.g. roughly 2/3 of a mile circle for most people] of 128th and I-405 is there any available land? Show me. The northeast quadrant is office buildings. Since “office buildings” around there generally house medical practices, that’s a useful quadrant for ridership. The northwest quadrant is the Park and Ride lot. Obviously, cover that up with apartments because a P’n’R is perfect for having four or five story housing above it. Some of the folks in the apartments or condos will be driving to work, making room for people driving to ride to work.

          The southwest quadrant is filled with what looks to me like a wetland. Let’s not mess with the wetland.

          The southeast quadrant is filled has a big parking lot which, again, could have housing over it, as I mentioned, but doesn’t now.

          You suggested putting an “infill station” at the Eastrail crossing, about a half mile away. Assuming that you could do that — engineering is a wonderful thing, so it probably could be done — where would you put the new housing?????

          https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=247883561706849&set=a.230912470070625

      30. This is just a fundamental problem with I-405 Stride: there’s nowhere that people can access it without riding a bus or walking a stonking long way. That is not how to build “good transit”. Transit has to go where the people are, or the built environment has to be changed to attract people TO the transitway.

      31. The P&R will be redeveloped: https://wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/Kingsgate-Transit-Oriented-Development-Report.pdf

          As to where else to build, I dunno, maybe just zone the immediate area around the station same as Shoreline did with its single family neighborhoods? The full box surrounded by 108th, Edith Mouton park, and 128th street should all be re-zoned for midrise; that’s way more land than any lid. It will require parcel assembly, but Shoreline developers have been well on their way solving that issue in recent years.

          South of 128th, everything east of that greenspace (starting at 108th place) down to 116th can be midrise as well, and there aren’t even any single family zones to mess with. Similar on the east side – there are no single family zones between 132 & 116th; the box bounded by 132 st, 124th Ave, and Totem Lake (the actual lake) is all within the 15 minute walkshed. The new mall added ~600 apartments. I see room to repeat that development 4~6 times and still retail all of the medical space.

          As for the infill station at Eastrail, a 15 minute walk along the trail (a high quality pedestrian experience) gets you easily south of 112th St, so everything in the box bounded by 116th Ave and 405 is within the walkshed.

          And finally, Totem Lake itself is a destination. Riders not just along Stride but those transferring from Link or buses (including two Swift lines) will have good access the medical offices anchored around the Evergreen hospital; that’s ridership for both workers and patients.

      32. These LID suggestions are bizarre. Sr520 in Redmond?? So spend a massive amount of money to create greenspace immediately adjacent to one of the largest urban parks in the region? There are already dedicated pedestrian undercrossing at the river and at the new station, so maybe add a ped bridge at the halfway point (166th Ave-ish), but a lid there is a terrible use of money.

          Even putting up noise walls along freeways is a poor use of money – the increase in property values (a proxy for how much people value the noise wall) is consistently less than the cost of the noise walls. Much of the investment in freeway lids is surplus extraction, whether is is extracting from a transit project or freeway project.
          https://pedestrianobservations.com/2020/11/13/surplus-extraction/
          https://pedestrianobservations.com/2021/07/23/the-leakage-problem/

      33. > Sr520 in Redmond

          I mean outside of Seattle it’s the only one that has both apartments and retail on both sides. Even Bellevue only had offices on the east side.

          But anyways the freeway is elevated there so it’s technically infeasible so didn’t bother investigating / comparing the pros and cons more

      34. This is just a fundamental problem with I-405 Stride: there’s nowhere that people can access it without riding a bus or walking a stonking long way. That is not how to build “good transit”. Transit has to go where the people are, or the built environment has to be changed to attract people TO the transitway.

          I don’t think that is true. It is easy to think of I-405 Stride as some sort of “spine” which runs along the freeway, and enables three-seat rides. But it goes to Downtown Bellevue, by far the biggest destination outside Seattle (and top three in the region). It is much more of a hub and spoke system, with Downtown Bellevue as the hub. The two 405 Stride lines both end in Downtown Bellevue (which I think is a mistake) but that definitely fits the model. Downtown Bellevue is the main destinations, but Burien, Renton and Lynnwood do have people fairly close by. UW Bothell won’t be that far of a walk from the transit hub. I would rather see what Alex suggested (an overlapping set of buses directly serving more destinations) but this does manage to get some of the bigger destinations without causing a huge delay for longer distance riders.

          It also sets the table for better service in the future (if they can swing it). I still think one of the more important regional transit connections that is missing is UW to 405. The only midday service is to Downtown Bellevue or Redmond, but that is a really big detour for a lot of riders. For riders in Totem Lake that means a really long walk (or an infrequent bus ride) to Stride, followed by a bus that reverses direction on 405 to get to the UW. I proposed a direct connection from the Totem Lake neighborhood to the UW, but imagine instead they run a bus from Woodinville to the UW every 15 minutes. This way Woodinville riders would have a one-seat ride to the UW, and a two-seat ride to Downtown Bellevue. Ridership who walked (or caught a bus) to Totem Lake would have a one-seat ride to both destinations.

      35. ” land prices are not high enough to justify the high cost of creating a Lid.”

          What do land prices have to do with it? The issue is:

          * (for a few strategic lids) Which freeway segments have the largest population around them, that’s the most cut in half by the lack of a lid.

          * (for lids everywhere) Mitigating the freeway mistake. It’s like adding sidewalks to the 520 bridge because they were left out originally.

          “If you want more housing, build with the 15 minute walkshed of the station.”

          This is not about maximizing housing or ridership; those are just side effects. It’s about making these areas non-hellholes.

      36. “I’m not sure Totem Lake would make the list. Has anyone here been out there recently? It’s a mess.”

          It’s on my list to visit but I haven’t yet. That’s why I didn’t mention Brickyard as one of the low-density places because I’ve heard it has had some growth, so I want to see it first.

      37. “This is just a fundamental problem with I-405 Stride: there’s nowhere that people can access it without riding a bus or walking a stonking long way.”

          The purpose of Stride is so that people in Bothell, Renton, Totem Lake, east Kirkland, and Burien can get to Bellevue and the other cities quickly, more frequently than the current ST Express (which is pathetic). If you throw out Stride, you throw out transit mobility for all those people. We can’t just leave the Eastside without good north-south transit, even if the 405 exits have limited walk-up ability. I wish the 405 exits had walkable urban villages around them, but we have to go with the region we have, not the region we wish we had. And an area of hundreds of thousands of people needs good north-south transit, even if the station areas are less than ideal. The problem with the station areas goes back to Eastside land use. It’s not fair to punish hundreds of thousands of residents because of poor city planning they can’t control.

      38. “Totem Lake (the actual lake)”

          There is a Totem lake? I always thought it was just the name of the mall.

          P.S. There’s also a Lake Bellevue. You can catch a glimpse of it on the 226 between 116th and 120th on 12th.

      39. “These LID suggestions are bizarre. Sr520 in Redmond?? So spend a massive amount of money to create greenspace immediately adjacent to one of the largest urban parks in the region?”

          Lids aren’t necessarily green spaces. They may just look like regular blocks with concrete and buildings. There would probably be a nice mixed-use path with plantings along the side, because a pedestrian path is one of the primary purposes of the lid.

      40. “the increase in property values (a proxy for how much people value the noise wall) is consistently less than the cost of the noise walls”

          Again that’s apples and oranges. Property values don’t determine whether the wall is worthwhile from a public perspective.

      41. The 10 ten best places for a freeway lid.

          For Puget Sound (if not the state) they would probably all be in Seattle, with most of them downtown. But I guess it depends on how many projects you consider capping downtown would take.

      42. > The 10 ten best places for a freeway lid.

          I think a more interesting article would be 10 best places for a freeway pedestrian/road bridge.

          Especially since there’s already lots of active work by cities to build them in Federal Way, Lynnwood etc…

      43. Off the top of my head, federal way wants to build a road south of the existing s 320th, lynnwood wants to build one extending poplar road. Everett mall talks about an underpass across i-5

      44. I think a more interesting article would be 10 best places for a freeway pedestrian/road bridge.

          Yes, and this goes back to what I wrote. There is only one place (in the area if not the entire state) where capping the freeway is plausible: Downtown Seattle. In contrast, there are lots of places where a bridge over the freeway would help a lot of people. For example, lots of bike riders want a pedestrian/bike bridge over 47th. This would definitely be nice. It would allow 47th to be a major bike path. Then 45th could be a major bus route, and 50th would be for cars.

      45. The value of staggered 216, 550, and 554 service during peak periods on Mercer Island went far beyond MI: It enabled people to use the P&R as a drop-off point for transit passengers and continue their journey to non-downtown destinations. “Blue Streak” motorway-stop service helps people who do not live on the route, too!

7. How does one travel between Issaquah Highlands and downtown Issaquah under the new network, given that most 554 trips will not be serving the highlands. As far as I can tell, this will require a backtrack all the way to Eastgate freeway station and a transfer. That’s a lot to go just a couple miles along a route that’s a straight shot on the 554 today.

   1. Looks like the 203 travels from Highlands to the Issaquah TC, but it loops around by Costco instead of using Sunset or Gilman. I can’t imagine that a transfer from the 203 to the 554 would be required at the Issaquah TC to get from Highlands to the core of Issaquah, but that’s certainly how the maps appear.

      That’s a definite downgrade if it is the case.

      1. Yeah that doesn’t make sense – the 203 connects the “Coscto” area to the Highlands, which is also important but very distinct from connecting the Highland to Olde Town.

   2. Issaquah has Metro Flex in the central part, Highlands, northwest, and into Sammamish.

   3. I will say it seems kinda weird the new 554 doesn’t at least reach issaquah highlands park and ride. Like it reaches sunset boulevard and just ends at i-90 and is less than a mile away from the issaquah highlands P&R.

      https://cdn.kingcounty.gov/-/media/king-county/depts/metro/documents/projects/east-link-connections/routes/554.pdf

      1. I was thinking the same thing. I think there is an error with the map. The more I look at it, the more I am certain of this. First off, the map implies that the bus crosses the freeway and then turns around. Previous renderings also suggested this. This makes no sense. If you cross the freeway, there is no place to turnaround until you reach the Highlands.

         It would also be bad from a network standpoint. Even if it ended in Downtown Issaquah by the library (where the 271 ends) it would not connect to other buses. It is a much better idea to end at Issaquah Highlands, where it would connect to the 269. That way during peak riders just stay on that bus as it goes to Sammamish, while outside of peak people transfer to the 269.

         Then there is the fact that it does that now. Every bus goes to the Highlands. A few of the runs (during peak) continue to Sammamish. I think this is just a mistake by the map maker.

      2. The Highlands is a massive hill climb. There must be some operational benefit with having the turnback closer to downtown Issaquah. I wonder if that’s supposed to free up buses/hours for somewhere else.

      3. I agree Ross, that makes a lot more sense than the 554 ending where the map depicts it as ending.

      4. There must be some operational benefit with having the turnback closer to downtown Issaquah.

         There would be, but I don’t think that is happening. The map doesn’t depict it. The map actually shows it ending much closer to the Highlands Park and Ride (the current terminus when the bus doesn’t go to Sammamish) then it does Downtown Issaquah. Once you cross the freeway you basically have no choice but to connect to the Highlands. In other words, either way the map is wrong. This means either the current routing (going to Highlands) or a brand new terminus that doesn’t show up anywhere in the text. I’m going with the current routing.

         Speaking of maps, look at the map for the eastern part of the restructure: https://cdn.kingcounty.gov/-/media/king-county/depts/metro/documents/projects/east-link-connections/maps/p3-eastsubarearoutes.pdf. Notice the 554 is shown ending at Issaquah Highlands. They don’t even show the occasional extension to Sammamish. What they do show is all of the buses serving Issaquah Highlands, just like today.

      5. > Once you cross the freeway you basically have no choice but to connect to the Highlands. In other words, either way the map is wrong.

         Agreed, like is the bus going to magically do a u-turn in the middle of the freeway service interchange?

         Honestly in general, I noticed there’s more sloppy errors in these bus maps.

         Like the 203 map says “Issaquah Highlands Transit Center” instead of “Issaquah Transit Center”

         https://cdn.kingcounty.gov/-/media/king-county/depts/metro/documents/projects/east-link-connections/routes/203.pdf

         Says the bus 542 goes to redmond, kirkland, seattle — it doesn’t enter kirkland at all. Like maybe when the bus is on 520 but there’s no stop on that section. Closest is Yarrow Point freeway station.

         https://cdn.kingcounty.gov/-/media/king-county/depts/metro/documents/projects/east-link-connections/routes/542.pdf

      6. I too was found it unbelievable and sad that all 554 runs don’t go to the Highlands P&R. It’s essential from an urban planning perspective that all parts of Issaquah are connected to each other by good transit, so that people don’t have to leave the city for things they could find in the other part of only there were transit. I hope Ross is right and sanity will prevail. The Issaquah Highlands is a walkable neighborhood predicated on having access to central Issaquah.

      7. I noticed a few other mistakes on the maps, like two Link stations with the same name. This often happens in restructure maps, and the mistakes are usually small and eventually get corrected. Hopefully Issaquah Highlands is one of those.

      8. Also couldn’t tell if it was an error – does the 269 serve the Highlands via NW Sammamish/Coscto, or directly like the 218? Subarea map shows Coscto routing but the route map doesn’t.

8. I like how many of the routes both begin and end at a Link Station. If bus frequencies are low, it becomes possible to cross the street if you miss your bus (assuming that you determine that one is coming in the other direction soon). It may add travel time from what you thought, but waiting at a station platform can feel safer and more protected than standing by a sign on a deserted highway.

9. I’m curious the operational savings from the B Line staying on 156th rather than deviating to Overlake Village. It’s not a terrible walk (about a third-mile) but I don’t think the shortest connecting path is super clear. It could benefit from good wayfinding/signage.

   1. I think it depends on where you are. No one would purposely get off at the station and then head for the bus. They would get off at the nearby Redmond Tech Station. That way they have a much shorter walk to the bus. They also have more buses they can take to get to destinations along 256th (since the 245 will also go along there).

      For people who live (or work) around there, it depends on where they are. If you are west of the freeway it is probably better to stay on that side. In some cases it would make sense to walk north to 40th rather than cross 36th. For other riders the 223 is an option (if you can time it). On the east side of the freeway it looks like most of the streets go through, but with recent development there it doesn’t show up on Google Maps. Bing is better for that area (nice job mapping their backyard). They show a clear pedestrian pathway straight across on Shen (whereas Google shows you having to go south to Turing). The TF Outdoors layer on CalTopo also shows it. Between Shen and 31st it is a bit hazy (probably because of all of the new development). Google shows a pathway from 52nd to Tagore. From there it looks like you could skirt the backside of that building, or at worst go down to Turing and across which is likely where the nearest bus stop is anyway. As with the other side of the freeway, it may be easier to just try and time the 223.

10. Loopiness: Route 203 has a long slow pathway to/from South Bellevue Link and misses Eastgate; Route 240 ties itself in knots serving Factoria, Eastgate, and South Bellevue Link; Route 111 will encounter severe congestion on the east-to-south ramp to I-405; routes 204 and 630 are DART, so have deviation built in; the loops of routes 230 and 231 in downtown Kirkland are not being fixed.
    Terminals; the outer termini of routes 111 and 222 seem weak; they could extend to real places, Renton and Woodinville, respectively.
    Route 8 is odd; perhaps it should absorb Route 48 and Route 43 restored.
    Worst route: 256; its one-way and duplicates Link and does not integrate with Link; (Route 630 as well). WSDOT reversible ramp is indefinitely delayed; it would have to be on general-purpose lanes.
    Is Route 218 one-way? The Highlands service seems rich.
    The Route 270 map does not show the deviation to 108th Avenue NE via Northup to reach center access ramp.
    The Metro Flex competes with local fixed routes; they should assign Flex to an area that does not have service; how about Bridle Trails; riders could be oriented to the 130th Avenue NE Link to the south and Route 245 to the north.
    Route 250 could serve the Spring District station by using 120th Avenue NE north of NE 12th Street. Route 226 could serve all three Bel-Red stations.
    Route 249 is very weak.

    1. Route 250 also has some bad loopiness going into and out of Bear Creek park and ride.

       1. agreed. that deviation seems unnecessary. the P&R will be served by Route 542. seems like Avondale riders would rather have a more direct trip.

11. The Metro Flex area includes the house I grew up in, but the place I now go is 8 blocks outside it. I wish the southeast part were extended south like it is between 140th and 148th. Even more, I wish the 226 served Overlake Village Station so I wouldn’t have to think about using Flex.

12. What do you think of the format for listing the routes in the article?

13. IA the 255 completely killed? I don’t see it in the list of changes but I also don’t see it on the map. It would mark the end of a long effort by metro metro to ger rid of it.

    1. The 255 is unchanged. There’s a list on the network maps pf unchanged routes that weren’t part of the restructure: 230, 231, 239, 255. They have a thin light blue line in the map. These routes all either stay north of Kirkland TC or go to UW and don’t interact with the Bellevue-Redmond restructure area.

       There were always be a Kirkland-Seattle route, even if it moves to another street in Kirkland if the K takes over Market Street or 108th. Link is too far away to be a reasonable alternative for Kirkland-Seattle trips, and you can’t just leave Kirkland out of the transit network when it’s one of the three largest cities in the central Eastside. (I would say the entire Eastside, but Renton has quietly grown big.)

       ST might even revive the 540 at some point (Kirkland-UW express). It had low ridership the first time around, but it’s a logical long-term goal if a UW-Kirkland Link line is not coming.

       1. The 255 is effectively the same as the 540 anyway. I don’t see a point in running the 540 alongside it, just for the sake of skipping a few stops on 108th and slightly different routing in the U district.

       2. What is needed, however, is for the 255 to get its 15 minute weekday evening frequency back. 30 minute service from 7:30 PM onward is pretty bad.

       3. I agree about the 540 – we occasionally took it to see shows at the Kirkland Performance Center, and its only perk over the 255 was that it was a one-seat ride from campus. Now the 255 is a one-seat ride, so not much benefit. The frequency is a big deal right now, though, especially since Metro promised easy transfers to/from Link in exchange for not running downtown anymore. If nothing else, it would make future restructures easier if Metro doesn’t walk back its promises so quickly.

       4. The frequency is a big deal right now, though, especially since Metro promised easy transfers to/from Link in exchange for not running downtown anymore. If nothing else, it would make future restructures easier if Metro doesn’t walk back its promises so quickly.

          But if they kept that promise they would be breaking some other promise. It isn’t like they are shifting service elsewhere, they are just dealing with a driver shortage that was unexpected (https://seattletransitblog.com/2023/05/11/metro-cuts-in-september/).

       5. Routes 230, 231, and 239 have loopiness and ELC is not being used to straighten them. Routes 225 and 239 have loopiness imposed by parking along 120th Avenue NE.

       6. The commenter who complains the most about loops slowing them down is silent about the Trailhead Direct loop they get off in.

14. If the table is accurate, it looks as though service to Snoqualmie and North Bend is being cut back to weekday only.

    Trailhead Direct, however, does serve North Bend on weekends, at least during the summer. Given that the route, by nature, involves a lot of deadheading buses going into the city in the morning and back out of the city in the afternoon, it would seem that slapping “route 215” signs on some of these deadhead trips would be easy low hanging fruit to offer at least some weekend service to North Bend residents at very little additional cost.

    1. I thought the 208 was weekday only. It keeps changing. I checked the schedule, and it runs Saturday now.

       1. The 208 has had Saturday service for at least a few years – we took it out to Tiger Mountain a couple years ago. I feel like it actually had a bit more service pre-COVID but maybe I’m thinking of a different route.

15. What could an Overlake Village lid be like? Could it improve ped/bike access to the station and put more destinations within walking distance? Or is the geography just not amenable to that, given that the west side of the freeway is office parks and wide, fast, desolate 148th?

    1. It’s just microsoft on both sides. The benefits don’t seem that high. There’s already 2 pedestrian bridges and tree lined NE 36th St bridge.

       > Or is the geography just not amenable to that, given that the west side of the freeway is office parks and wide, fast, desolate 148th?

       If you’re talking about just east of 148, you’d probably have to redo/remove those freeway loops to build one.

       If there was suddenly ~300 million dollars and to spend on this corridor I’d build an infill station at NE 140th station, but I’d probably wait until there’s more development/apartments.

       1. Yeah with new pedestrian bridge I don’t see a lid really doing much to improve access.

16. Mistake missing the note on the 255 not changing.

    Next question: what if anything is up with the 545? I assume it’s considered duplicative to a fully launched 2 line..

    1. The 545 and 550 are both deleted. East Link was predicated on deleting them. The 545 will be replaced with more 542 service to UW, and in the proposal, a peak-only 544 to downtown (terminating at Westlake).

17. What’s the deal with the 270 and the 220? E.g. why is it (the frequent UW->Bellevue College portion of the 271) split into two *different* routes both with 15 minute all-day service?

    I get that the span of service and weekend service are *slightly* different, but if they truly needed to they could always have a few trips that turn back at Bellevue Transit Center (though I would question if even that is necessary). As a rather frequent rider of the 271 there are a good number of folks who go through BTC.

    I just don’t get it from a network design perspective. Yes, shorter routes are more reliable, but now both the 270 and 220 are very short routes. With two endpoints and a basically identical frequency, having this still be a single route seems like a no-brainer.

18. RE: I90 Trunk & Branch (to separate from the freeway lid thread): Ross, there are branches on the west end: 269, 212, and 219 go to Mercer Island while 554 goes to South Bellevue & Bellevue Way. I disagree that someone on the 554 going to Mercer Island would transfer at Link – the same platform, same direction transfer at the Eastgate freeway station is much better than transferring at South Bellevue, where there is a grade change between planforms. And for someone on the 269/212/219 trying to get to somewhere on Bellevue Way, Eastgate will be the best spot to transfer to the 554

    For someone simply trying to get to Link, they probably stay on their bus, but someone at Eastgate might wait for a 554 (knowing it’s a few minutes away) if they are heading to Bellevue/Redmond rather than catch the first 2XX bus.

    The reason there isn’t a dramatically different branch is because Link (MI or S Bellevue station) is such a powerful anchor. The next most compelling destination is Factoria, which would basically mean sending the 240 to Issaquah rather than the Eastgate TC; since the 240 will serve mostly local trips, the same grade connection to the 220, 223, 245, and 226 down at the TC seems more compelling. I could see the 245 extended to Issaquah – the better connection to Bellevue College is probably compelling to some riders, and perhaps the one seat ride to Crossroads – but the branching at Eastgate isn’t as necessary because it is instead a major transfer node, and once a bus heads west of Eastgate on the HOV lane, it literally has only has two options, S Bellevue or Mercer Island.

    It’s like SR 520 if it didn’t have the HOV ramp to I5 – once you’ve gotten to UW, you’ve cover the vast majority of trip pairs, so travel onwards is best done by transfer to the Seattle oriented bus network. So for I90, once you’ve gotten to an East Link station, there really isn’t much to serve that isn’t better done by simply transfering to Link.

    1. the same platform, same direction transfer at the Eastgate freeway station is much better than transferring at South Bellevue

       I suppose, as long as frequency is good. To me the big benefit of Link is the frequency (ten minute midday). I doubt even the combination of buses will match that (but I’m too lazy to investigate). Maybe during peak it would make sense — good point.

       As far as branches, they exist to the west (as you mention) but I think they are largely absent to the east simply because there are few destinations to the east. Sammamish is not a big destination. It barely scrapes by when it comes to transit. It would be hard to justify local service (i. e. Sammamish to Downtown Issaquah) and express service from Sammamish to someplace like Downtown Bellevue or Mercer Island. So they split the difference, and serve either the transit center or the Highlands on the way west.

       Most of the other destinations (like Factoria) lie west of Eastgate. It doesn’t mean there aren’t great transfers at Eastgate (there are and will be) but it doesn’t fit this particular pattern. It also doesn’t mean there can’t be a variation of this pattern which would work well for the area. For example, assume that Crossroads rallies, adds a bunch of apartments and becomes a significant destination. Now run a bus from there to the college and on to Mercer Island. This is actually quite similar to my Totem Lake example. All the transfer combinations work well.

       It’s like SR 520 if it didn’t have the HOV ramp to I5 – once you’ve gotten to UW, you’ve cover the vast majority of trip pairs, so travel onwards is best done by transfer to the Seattle oriented bus network.

       Yeah, but there is an HOV ramp to I-5, and prior to Link it made sense to send some buses to the UW proper, and other buses to downtown. Even now that exists.

       I think the biggest potential for this sort of pattern exists along 405 (as mentioned previously).

       1. 554 is 10~15 min most of the day, 269 is 15 peak 30 otheriwese, and 218 is 15 peak and midday (to Snoq/NB is much lower frequency). So the trunk should have Link-level frequency, while the branches are typical suburban bus frequency.

          “Split the difference” is the branching. The Highlands (and occasionally onwards to Sammamish or North Bend) and the Valley floor are two distinct markets.

       2. Mercer island to Issaquah Highlands is a bit complicated to show. Kinda wish they had a shared map showing the frequencies.

          The new routes are 269, 218 and 215.

          269 is the ‘core’ route on the weekdays from mercer island to issaquah highlands then redmond 15 minutes peak on weekdays and then 30 minutes all other times.
          218 is a peak only weekdays 15 minute between mercer island to issaquah highlands
          215 switches to being the ‘core’ route on the weekends. from mercer island to issaquah highlands to northbend kinda complicated.
          * weekdays It has 15 to 45 minute frequenies peak time. And then drops to 30 to 90 minutes midday and evenings
          * weekends it has higher frequency of 15/20 minutes during peak and midday. (Is this correct, seems a bit weird to have higher frequencies to north bend on the weekend??)

          Note as mike mentioned the above three routes do not enter Issaquah Transit Center nor Issaquah Downtown, you’d need to take the 554 which heads up south bellevue way instead.

          https://cdn.kingcounty.gov/-/media/king-county/depts/metro/documents/projects/east-link-connections/routes/269.pdf
          https://cdn.kingcounty.gov/-/media/king-county/depts/metro/documents/projects/east-link-connections/routes/218.pdf
          https://cdn.kingcounty.gov/-/media/king-county/depts/metro/documents/projects/east-link-connections/routes/215.pdf

       3. Yes, the timetable for the 215 is especially vague. There is a big difference between 30 minutes and 90 minutes. At 30 minutes it can combine with the 269 for 15 minute effective headways. Let’s assume that for a second. That would mean the following, both running every 15 minutes:

          554 — Downtown Bellevue to Issaquah to Issaquah Highlands.
          215/269 — Mercer Island to Issaquah Highlands.

          This means people could transfer like so:

          1) Downtown Bellevue to Issaquah Highlands (554 to 215/269). OK, but why? You might get there sooner, but it probably makes more sense to just stay on the bus. I could see the opposite happening though. From Issaquah Highlands and take the first bus that arrives. You might end up taking the same 554 as you would if you waited — but you might catch up to the previous one. This is very similar to Sam’s example from before.

          2) Mercer Island to (the valley part of) Issaquah 215/269 to 554). This definitely makes sense, although I’m sure some people would rather go Link to 554, since Link will run every ten minutes, and this runs every fifteen. Same is true in reverse.

          3) Seattle to (the valley part of) Issaquah. I think it just makes sense to stay on the train and make one transfer instead of two. Same with the reverse.

          So even if the combination of buses is as good as hoped, at best you have riders going from various places in Issaquah to Mercer Island (which isn’t a big destination). Of course you also have another combination that isn’t frequent, but still useful for some:

          4) Downtown Bellevue to North Bend.

          During rush hour the frequencies increase, but it is the same basic idea. That just doesn’t seem like that many riders. I don’t think that many people will transfer from a freeway bus to another freeway bus along I-90. I stand by my earlier statement. The biggest potential for this sort of thing is with 405.

    2. > I90 Trunk & Branch (to separate from the freeway lid thread)

       I tried sketching out alternatives to the current setup with 554 being the core route from Issaquah to Bellevue, but basically only the existing setup made the most sense. It’s just pretty strong to have it go from issaquah to bellevue and then most seattle bound ones if they want the link can take the south bellevue station.

       One large hiccup is the weaving from the bellevue way i-520 east bound on/exit ramps though to reach the eastgate center ramps. I ‘m not sure if there’s any good way to fix it though.

    3. One large missing thing in Issaquah are the hov ramps that were supposed to be built at sunset interchange.

       As part of sound move 1 they wanted to build direct access ramps there I-90@ Sunset Interchange.

       https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/199605-sound-move-appendix-a-facilities-cost.pdf#page=6

       But it was cancelled a couple years later for hov lanes on sr 900 (also no ramp)

       https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/FinalRecords/1999/Resolution%20R1999-06.pdf

19. One extra interesting thing is seeing all the bus routes in Redmond realigned to the Redmond Link Station from Redmond (bus) transit Center. Obviously the right call as most would prioritize using the light rail, but still interesting to see.

    For instance the 250 going east-west detours slightly north to reach the transit center.
    https://cdn.kingcounty.gov/-/media/king-county/depts/metro/documents/projects/east-link-connections/routes/250.pdf

    I was wondering are they planning to continue using the redmond (bus) transit center or eventually demolish it and just realign most buses to use redmond way?

    https://seattletransitmap.com/eastside/ (current map)
    https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/metro/programs-and-projects/east-link-connections#gallery-2 (new map)

    1. I wondered that too when I saw the distance between the TC and the station. I don’t know how the TC is used. And with a new P&R at Marymoor Village and an (I assume expanded) at Redmond Tech, is the TC still needed?

20. I sent feedback to the haveasay address: (1) all 554 runs should serve Issaquah Highlands P&R, (2) the 226 should serve Overlake Village Station, (3) the south-central part of the Metro Flex area should extend to Main Street like the southwest part does if #2 is not implemented.

21. [spam. Three almost identical messages with lots of emoji.]

22. Actually, could be late summer. If things hold.

    It will be a happy day. That’s for sure.

23. I currently ride the 249, and in the future will ride the 222. The previous proposals were for 20-minute service on weekdays, with (if I remember correctly) 30-minute service on evenings and weekends. This one reduces it to 30-minute weekdays and hourly otherwise. So, that’s a bummer. But the current 249 service is only hourly, so it’s still an upgrade.

    More importantly for me, the current service stops at 7 PM, and the new service will go until midnight. Currently both my wife and I take one commute trip per day on the bus, and take one trip by car, because the bus isn’t running for the other trip. With this new service we would both be able to complete the entire round trip to and from work by bus.

    Neither of us will be using Link, though. Partly because the experience going to downtown Bellevue by bus was so miserable, I stopped going there, and got a new job closer to my house. (Although that’s likely to change soon enough because the job sucks.) Both of us work near Link stations, but these are precisely the stations to be served by the 222.

    I would like to move closer to a Link station, but we can’t afford it. Maybe someday.

Comments are closed.