Federal Way Link Restructure Ideas

102 Replies to “Federal Way Link Restructure Ideas”

1. Interesting. I occasionally use Sounder out of Tacoma to get to Burien. While I agree the F needs to be sped up and straightened, you need some way to go west from Tukwila Station.

   1. I would personally remove the loops, and just have a stops to both the mall and link on Tukwila Parkway and Southcenter Blvd. That would speed things up much more than the deviation to the Sounder station.

   2. I think the peak-only 154 (Tukwila to Boeing Industrial) is meant to bridge that gap. To get to Burien (via Sounder) it would mean a three seat ride using the F (or eventually the STride bus). It could work out well if it is timed right. The bus is supposed to be timed with Sounder. It would have to be both directions to make sense. That is about 20 trips a day which doesn’t break the bank. You might actually save money overall (because of the savings from the F).

      The Tukwila Station is an in awkward location. Unlike Kent, there isn’t a lot there. But there is just enough (in my opinion) to warrant some kind of service (although not RapidRide). It is mostly (although not entirely) office buildings, so peak-only service is reasonable. The 906 (DART) covers some of those areas as well, so the approach that Alex suggests looks pretty good overall.

      I would take it a step further, and straighten out the F even more. Keep it on Southcenter Boulevard (don’t detour to the south). The 150 covers Andover Park West and the 906 covers the rest. For some this means an extra transfer, but my guess is not that many.

      1. The main reason for the stop is to add more potential passengers. I think destination-side Sounder connectors are a good way to connect to lower volume destinations because it brings in people from as far as Lakewood. But if the 154 is still too low on ridership, making the Link connection adds additional potential passengers from Federal Way (remember the 173?), Des Moines, Kent, and SeaTac.

   3. What I suggested in the last comment does not address regional transit. By that I mean long distance trips. While regional transit tends to be more peak-oriented, like all transit it suffers if there isn’t a midday (or evening) alternative. While Sounder running trains every half hour (or even hourly) would be ideal, it isn’t realistic given the cost. It also isn’t necessary given the relatively low ridership and lack of traffic midday. Complementing the trains with express buses could very easily do the job for a lot less money. Various ST buses already serve Auburn and places south. While they could (and should) be improved, the real work needs to be done north of there. Kent and Tukwila could use express service to Seattle. I could see an express version of the 150 running midday (Kent Station/Tukwila Station/Seattle). To connect it to the F you have to go on South Center Boulevard, which means something like this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/9MhquLrb1jaojZxXA. Despite the detour to Kent Station that is still quite a bit faster than 150. I could see ST running that as a way to boost Sounder ridership.

   4. Isn’t one of the big jogs there because Metro anticipated that Strander Blvd would finally connect to SW 27th St.

      This item says that it was planned to be completed in 2020:
      https://tukwilawa.gov/wp-content/uploads/PW-CIP-Streets-Strander-Blvd-Extension-Phase-3.pdf

      However it now appears dead. The latest Tukwila Capital Improvements Program doesn’t even list it anymore:

      https://www.tukwilawa.gov/wp-content/uploads/PW-Current-CIP.pdf

      So what to do?

      1. I’m not sure that would even save more than a minute or two anyway because the Sounder station is still a diversion from a combined Strander/SW 27th. So I don’t think this changes the plan with the F-Line.

2. Please note that the Metro Connects service plan is grossly under funded. Unless there is a fire hose of new service subsidy, the FWLE project will have about the same number of hours as the current network. Both ST and Metro routes will probably be changed.

3. “ The RapidRide A-Line is in an interesting state of somewhat redundant with Link, but serving a lot more people directly. Since some of the most common trips on the A-Line are redundant with Link, a lot of the passengers will move over as well. Considering this, it seems reasonable that Link could be reduced to 15 minute headways all day every day.”

   ST pretty much promises 10 minute service baseline for all day. To drop it to 15 would be a scheduling problem. It seems they either 10 or 2 minutes are the options.

   To deal with the loss of riders from redundancy, it seems to me that the RapidRide A should be extended. From Federal Way, it could extend to Kitts Corner or Great Mall or Downtown Auburn. Or maybe it should be split into two L-shaped routes like Des Moines to KDM to FW, and TIBS to KDM to Kent.

   1. Yeah, I don’t see them cutting Link service. I could see frequency on the A being reduced, but hopefully it doesn’t come to that. The A works for some trips, Link works for some trips, and the combination works for a lot of trips.

   2. The A line, and the Link may have similar destinations but they’re routing almost is totally different, and so is the gaps between stations.

      I don’t think the A line ridership will be as affected as some people think.

      It’s sound transit route 574 that it would be completely redundant to the link. But I’m pretty sure they will turncate that bus at Downtown Federal Way Station.

      1. I agree. The A won’t be hurt much (and in some ways will be helped). The 574 becomes redundant.

         ST may decide to truncate everything at Federal Way, or they may decide to run a combination of express buses, some of which stop at Federal Way and then run express to Seattle. I suggested the latter here: https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/02/25/regional-transit-after-federal-way-link/. Either way there will be a lot fewer express buses running to Seattle from Federal Way.

   3. The riders lost on the A will be replaced by new riders in a few years. The population will continue increasing, planned infill housing will emerge, and people will continue to migrate to a more international level of transit usage.

   4. I meant the A-Line, not Link, being cut to 15 minutes. Sorry about the typo.

   5. Have the A line extend to Tacoma. Why is it the cash starved agency responsibility to serve the rich county? Should be the opposite.

      1. It’s not about rich and poor agencies. The center of the region is Seattle and Bellevue. That’s where the most jobs and culture and businesses and people are. Federal Way is the gateway to the center, so that’s where people need to go to. If Federal Way were on the Pierce side of the border where Milton is, the situation would be the same, except the A would be going a couple miles into Pierce County instead of the 500 going a couple miles into King County. But the 500 would still be mostly used by Pierce residents going to King County, for the benefit of Pierce residents, like it is now.

         The reason the transit center is in Federal Way is it’s the largest city between Tacoma and Seattle (if you don’t count Kent further east). The size of Federal Way and its downtown (and future downtown growth) makes it a destination in itself, so the 550 can kill two birds with one stone, taking Pierce residents to an activity center that’s also a transfer to a larger activity center, for the benefit of Pierce residents.

      2. Do you have data to back up who’s residents are using the 500 more, King or Pierce? I would argue the center of the south sound is Tacoma. Very few people from Pierce are going to be riding a 45 minute bus to an hour and 20 minute train to get to Seattle. That’s absurd.

      3. I’m sure a fair amount of Pierce County residents use the 500, but my guess, based on who I’ve seen riding it, is it’s much closer to 50-50 than 0-100.

         It is mostly serving the same immigrants and poorer laborers living in the cheaper housing in Federal Way, often along that 99 corridor. When I take the A to federal way, half the bus just transfers to the 500 and continues on the journey. Pierce County has a lot of blue collar jobs in Fife and the tideflats, and I’m sure many of those workers live in Federal Way.

         Maybe it’s time to reassess the preconceived notions of who’s serving who, and get metro to pony up for what they owe. Preferably much more, since they have the wealth.

         Maybe skip building millions of dollars of duplicative RR service in the wealthy north end, and start serving their south sound constituents that are starved of good transit and need it much more.

      4. Outside Seattle, Metro service has been cash starved for a while now. It might be in better shape than Pierce, but it certainly isn’t rich. Sound Transit is a different matter, which is why they can afford a lot of these (very expensive) express buses.

         The 500 (and 501) are unusual buses. It is common for agencies to run peak-hour express buses that spend much of their time in a different county. These aren’t that. The closest analogy is a bus like the 105 in Snohomish County (Community Transit). It overlaps into King County just because it makes sense from a connectivity standpoint. The 500 and 501 are different because they spend quite a bit of their time in King County (it is about 50-50).

         I don’t think Pierce Transit releases stop data, so we don’t know where the rides are coming from. Prior to the pandemic, ridership on the 500 was not special. In contrast, the 1 (which also ran along a similar highway) had a huge portion of the overall transit ridership. I can see the 500 being useful for different types of trips:

         1) Downtown Tacoma.
         2) Downtown Tacoma followed by a transfer to some other part of Tacoma.
         3) Federal Way TC.
         4) Federal Way TC followed by regional trip (to Seattle).
         5) Federal Way TC followed by local trip.
         6) Other trips along the corridor.

         I see the first two being popular. Downtown Tacoma is a relatively big destination and transit hub. The third seems very small. There is some density around the transit center, but not a lot. The fourth seems quite plausible given the high quality express service provided by Sound Transit (at least during peak). I’m a bit suspect though, given the frequency of the 500, and the type of riders who commute to downtown from the South Sound. People who commute that far generally work at good jobs. I can see folks from North Tacoma or view property in Federal Way commuting that far; I don’t see the folks along that corridor doing that. On the other hand, I could definitely see people continue their journey by taking other local buses (especially the A). Which gets the last category, and it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if that is where most of the ridership comes from.

         If the schedule is any guide, there is no 9-5 commute pattern either direction. This again suggests it is just folks going along the corridor, or trying to get into Tacoma. The corridor itself is fairly disjointed. It is pretty good on either end, but quite empty in between. There just isn’t much between about 62nd (after the Emerald Queen Casino) and 348th (South Federal Way). This makes for a difficult dynamic. I could definitely see the A being extended a bit to 348th. But I don’t see them extending it further, simply because there is so little until you get close to Downtown Tacoma. Likewise if Pierce County had money they might want to increase frequency west of 62nd, but everything else is largely coverage.

         So even if there wasn’t the weird issues involving the county lines, the network would be fairly similar. An extension of the A all the way to Downtown Tacoma seems unrealistic, even though Downtown Tacoma is a good anchor.

      5. “Do you have data to back up who’s residents are using the 500 more, King or Pierce?”

         The few times I’ve been on the 500 there haven’t been many riders at all, and several of them went from Tacoma to the casino areas in Fife and looked like workers.

      6. ” Very few people from Pierce are going to be riding a 45 minute bus to an hour and 20 minute train to get to Seattle.”

         Fewer people are going to be riding the slow, infrequent 500 from King County when the 574 exists.

      7. “millions of dollars of duplicative RR service in the wealthy north end,”

         What duplicative service?

      8. Neither Metro nor Pierce Transit have had an agency-wide levy to increase service since the early 2010s, and the last one failed. That’s why service is so skeletal, and why Seattle voters pay for extra service.

      9. Well, right now if I want to get to downtown, I have the choice of the 49, 70 or a billion dollar train that takes 7 minutes. And you are adding the RR J.

         Duplicative.

         Yes, they do slightly different things, but when routes in the south end are peak only, hourly or non-existent, that kind of service is egregious.

      10. UW to downtown.

      11. Seattle is rich. Pierce and S. King are poor. So Seattle has excellent very expensive transit and Pierce and S. King have crap. Sounds counteintuive but Seattleites are very progressive when it benefits them. Even east KC has better transit even though no one there uses it.

          If you think east/west transit is tough in Seattle try Pierce and S. King. There is no there there at either end. It’s why all transit is designed to take Pierce and S. King Co. folks north to Seattle. Who in the south end is going to take transit to Federal Way.

          Today it is like there are two groups way south here. Those who now work from home and moved south to afford a house. And those who drive a truck for work.

          It amuses me when I read Seattle transit people talk about S. King and Pierce “returning” to “international transit” in the future. I assume they have never been south of SeaTac

      12. Seattle is rich. Pierce and S. King are poor. So Seattle has excellent very expensive transit and Pierce and S. King have crap.

          Wrong. First of all, Seattle isn’t rich — they are facing major budget problems. The school district just came up with a plan to close dozens of elementary schools. There are rich people in Seattle, but there are also poor people. About 10% live below the poverty line. Auburn is similar. For Tacoma and Lakewood it is about 14%. Kent, Des Moines and Federal Way are in between. Seattle has a lot more people than any of those cities, and thus has a lot of poor people (even if their rate isn’t quite as high).

          Here are the main reasons why Seattle has better transit:

          1) It has better density. When you sprawl it becomes far more expensive to provide the same level of service. The South Sound is especially challenging.

          2) Seattle is willing to tax itself at a higher rate. The county proposed spending money on transit. The proposal failed (even though Seattle voters wanted it). So Seattle proposed spending money on transit and it passed.

      13. Seattle has the ridership to justify decent service. Except for the A line, south King simply doesn’t. And the fact that the entire south kind streetscape is designed to make anyone outside of a car feel like shit probably has something to do with it.

          In South King, upgrading the frequency of a bus route will make some awful trips a little less awful, but everybody will still drive nonetheless because it’s still awful. In Seattle, decent service can actually make a bus system that’s worth riding.

      14. “I have the choice of the 49, 70 or a billion dollar train that takes 7 minutes. And you are adding the RR J. ”

          I thought you were going to say the E is close to the 5 and Link, and the D is close to the 40 and 28.

          The J will replace the 70, the same way the A replaced the 174, the F replaced the 140, and the I will replace the 160.

          The 49 and 70 aren’t at all duplicative. If you want to get from the U-District to downtown fast on a bus, you take the 70, not the 49. The purpose of the 70 is Eastlake and Fairview Avenues. The purpose of the 49 is Broadway. The reason they meet in the U-District is it’s the biggest university for hundreds of miles and a regional center that tens of thousands of people from all over the region go to.

          “It amuses me when I read Seattle transit people talk about S. King and Pierce “returning” to “international transit” in the future. I assume they have never been south of SeaTac”

          Yes, I’ve been there. In places like that, Canada and most other industrialized countries have two or three times as much frequency and coverage, and ridership is higher because transit options between points A and B are better and more convenient.

      15. @Cam
          > Yes, they do slightly different things, but when routes in the south end are peak only, hourly or non-existent, that kind of service is egregious.

          Cam nothing bans the southern cities from approving townhouses/ apartments that would garner more ridership. And where they do build apartments along pacific highway, king county runs rapidride a with high frequency. Or if there’s a destination there’s the 150/101.

          > Well, right now if I want to get to downtown, I have the choice of the 49, 70 or a billion dollar train that takes 7 minutes. And you are adding the RR J.

          More importantly the 49 and 70 are not that long of a bus route.

          The Route 49 runs every 15 minutes and requires 125 platform hours.
          The route 181 is half-hourly and requires 101 platform hours.

          In general king county metro calculates the riders per platform hour and rebalances it already. And it is overly generous with the south king county region already labeling them all as suburban so it can receive more bus hours under the same calculation.

4. 154 goes north, not West.

   A three-seat ride on infrequent service is a non-starter, in any case. I’ll start shopping for my hellcat.

   West Seattle, White Center and Burien are surprisingly poorly transit-connected with the south Kent Valley, Federal Way, Tacoma. West of the Duwamish is a massive area with a lot of cultural connections and people living in poverty that need transit. I don’t need door-to-door service. I’m happy to walk or ride my bike a couple miles. A couple options for 2 seat rides how, but it sounds like things are going to get worse soon, and they all turn into 3 rides. At those distances, no one is going to take transit.

   1. You are correct that West Seattle/ Burien connectivity to points south is awful. That whole 560/ Stride/ RapidRide F connectivity between Burien and either TIBS or SeaTac needs serious rethinking. It’s remarkable how the 560’s future isn’t clear once Stride starts running, and that RapidRide A and H don’t intersect. And the planned Stride TIBS gulch stop looks pretty rider unfriendly (noise, speeding traffic). And of course Stride and RapidRide F will both connect TIBS and Burien so a third route isn’t really warranted.

      I don’t

      1. Yeah, I don’t really get S1. Do people really need to get from Burien to Bellevue while bypassing Seattle? It seems like it should be 2 separate lines, split at the spine. If someone is needing to get from Burien to Bellevue, there is the H to link for that.

         Send a S1E from Tukwila/Seatac area to Renton and Bellevue.

         Send a S1W from Tukwila/Seatac area to Burien, White Center and West Seattle.

      2. The 560 will go away once stride 1 is running. That was the original plan back in 2016 documents if I can find them but here’s from the current website:

         > The S1, S2 and S3 Lines form the Stride program. These lines will replace existing ST Express regional bus service currently run by transit partners. The S1 Line: 1-405 South will replace Route 560, the S2 Line: I-405 North will replace Route 535, and the S3 Line will replace Route 522. Stride buses will connect to Link light rail, providing new ways to get to your destination.

         https://www.soundtransit.org/system-expansion/stride-bus-rapid-transit

         > Yeah, I don’t really get S1. Do people really need to get from Burien to Bellevue while bypassing Seattle? It seems like it should be 2 separate lines, split at the spine.

         The first plan was for Stride 1 to head from bellevue to seatac. There were some ideas about a branch model with say one line going from bellevue to seatac and a second line going from bellevue to burien (and stopping in tukwila). however I don’t think there was enough ridership to run two separate lines.

      3. The goal of Stride S1 is to be like a light rail line to Bellevue. Not everyone on the line will be going to Bellevue, so they will have access to transfer opportunities at various stops.

         But even to Bellevue, Stride is certain to come out ahead. Estimated travel time Burien to Bellevue is 38 minutes with the ETL lanes. Not sure how much I believe that, but that is 9 minutes shorter than the H-Line to just 3rd and Madison. Even today’s 560 handily beats the H-Line + ST 550 to Bellevue. Westwood Village is where things start to flip, and at that point, that’s mostly for connections to Burien and the airport.

         I think ST would probably take the Westwood Village part of the 560 and make it its own ST Express route from Burien. Extending it to Alaska Junction and the airport using saved service hours from shortening the 574 would seem like a possibility as well. Could even run some trips from Tukwila Station, if sounder trips into Burien that Cam does are common enough to justify it!

      4. Most routes are mainly for intermediate trip pairs. S1 serves Bellevue-Renton and Renton-Burien among other combinations. S1/S2 is already split when they could be one line. Adding another split just adds a transfer wait. it’s way too late to split or extend S1: the cities it serves are defined in ST3, and the station locations have been designed. West Seattle wasn’t mentioned. The purpose of S1 is to give BRT-level service to Burien, Renton, and Bellevue. This will be Burien’s first meaningful service.

         S1 is scheduled to open in 2027/2028, so the restructure and ST Express changes will probably be decided in 2026 or 2027.

      5. “I think ST would probably take the Westwood Village part of the 560 and make it its own ST Express route from Burien. Extending it to Alaska Junction and the airport using saved service hours from shortening the 574 would seem like a possibility as well.”

         ST mused about extending the 574 to Westwood Village to replace the part of the 560 that Stride 1 will abandon.

      6. Cam, I think you have a good point.

         The issue with Stride in Burien is that it stops at one place. So unless a rider is going within walking distance from that place, they’ll have to make a bus transfer.

         If a rider lives in North Burien, they’ll have to change to a bus at Burien TC. If their Bellevue destination is Spring District or Overlake they’ll have to change transit vehicles again.

         Meanwhile, if they are near RapidRide H one bus gets them directly to Downtown Seattle and they transfer once to get anywhere near the high frequency 2 Line.

         It’s the same issue going from White Center to SeaTac. It takes two transfers to make the journey unless the rider goes to SODO.

         With ST seemingly obligated to replace the 560, maybe the solution is to run 560 from Westwood and White Center to Burien and then on to SeaTac, and then further on to Downtown Kent as the terminus using SR 516? That opens up some connectivity that seems to glue lots of South King together. Maybe it would even terminate at West Seattle Link or Fauntleroy Ferry one day. It could even skip TIBS since the other major services also connect at either Burien or SeaTac.

         So someone from Kent (including Sounder riders) could get to Highline College, Link 1 Line, SeaTac, Burien, White Center and eventually 3 Line or the Fauntleroy Ferry. Much of the route would be on higher speed arterials with few express stops so the connection would move quickly.

      7. Samar 516 + SR 516

      8. That might work.

         The problem with looking at present-day ridership is that it gives a ready-made excuse never to create new routes that might make sense as development and business densities change going forward.

         The A-line saw nearly a doubling in ridership in the first 5 years of it’s existence, and that was with it replacing part of the old 174 route.

         You can’t constantly be saying “nobody crosses that river, why build a bridge?” Sometimes you need to build the bridge and give people time to figure out they can sell their barges. This sort of route you are outlining would be building a needed bridge.

      9. Yeah, I don’t really get S1. Do people really need to get from Burien to Bellevue while bypassing Seattle?

         Pretty much, yes. For the 560, Bellevue is a much bigger destination than SeaTac. SeaTac is similar to Renton. Thus riders from Burien — who are largely going to Renton and Downtown Bellevue (not SeaTac) — come out ahead. It will be a much quicker trip. The agency saves money as well. You will still be able to get to SeaTac from Burien. You can take the 161 or take the new Stride line and transfer via Link.

         As far as getting to Seattle goes, riders have the H or they can take the new Stride line and transfer to Link there. That will actually save a few minutes over the 560 (because the connection is further north) and be a bit faster than the F. So for most trips riders will be better off.

         The problem with looking at present-day ridership is that it gives a ready-made excuse never to create new routes that might make sense as development and business densities change going forward.

         Right, but in this case they *are* creating a new route. The 560 provides an excellent connection between Burien and SeaTac. It provides a very time consuming connection between Burien and Renton, or Burien and Bellevue. Yet way more people take the time consuming connection. So they made the Burien to Renton/Bellevue connection much better.

      10. You can’t constantly be saying “nobody crosses that river, why build a bridge?” Sometimes you need to build the bridge and give people time to figure out they can sell their barges.

          Yeah, except in this case they built the bridge and nobody used it. They forded the river upstream a couple miles from there. Now ST is building the bridge there.

      11. If you’ve ridden it, you would know it’s a pretty shitty bridge. Other than Burien, it bypasses or truncates before all the major population centers.

      12. If you’ve ridden it, you would know it’s a pretty shitty bridge. Other than Burien, it bypasses or truncates before all the major population centers.

          I think you missed the analogy. The 560 goes Westwood Village-Burien-SeaTac-Renton-Bellevue. For those riding between Burien and Bellevue, or Burien to Renton the detour to SeaTac costs them a lot of time. For those headed to SeaTac, it is excellent.

          This is basically what you propose — we double-down on this concept, since everyone is heading to SeaTac. Except they aren’t! Despite the outstanding, direct service to SeaTac, only a handful go that way. Despite the terrible detour, more people go to other places.

          We built the bridge you wanted. It is called the 560. It serves SeaTac really well. But the bridge that people really want is the one that connects all the other places *except* SeaTac. Why make a very time consuming detour if very few people take it?

          Look, I agree. Sometimes we can’t tell how many riders will go somewhere until we offer them good service. But if we offer them good service and they still prefer going somewhere else (that has much worse service) then we should focus our efforts there.

      13. It’s the same issue going from White Center to SeaTac. It takes two transfers to make the journey unless the rider goes to SODO.

          What? You catch the H towards Burien, and then take the 161. I suppose you could take Link (as part of a 3-seat ride) but that sounds like a bonus (a nice alternative to the 161).

          With ST seemingly obligated to replace the 560, maybe the solution is to run 560 from Westwood and White Center to Burien and then on to SeaTac, and then further on to Downtown Kent as the terminus using SR 516?

          So you mean an express version of the 161? That would be nice, but I would rather have an express version of the 150, since the 150 gets twice as many riders (and such a route would better mimic Sounder).

          My guess is the 161 gets a lot of ridership from the places along the way. We know that the West Seattle/Burien to SeaTac part of the 560 never got that many riders (about 120 riders a day before the pandemic). The Link extension doesn’t change things that much. If you wanted to get to Highline College from Burien (or even Westwood Village) you could take the 560 and transfer to the very frequent (and fairly quick) RapidRide A. Link will be faster, but not that much faster.

          Sorry, but I just don’t see it being worth the effort. Yes, it is (or will be) a pain in the butt for people making trips of that nature, but ultimately, not that many take those trips and it is pretty expensive to run those buses.

      14. While the H-161 combo would be one transfer, Route 161 only runs every30 minutes most of the day. It also meanders through Burien after leaving the transit center so it takes 14 minutes to reach SeaTac according to the schedule. It would seem to take as long as a double transfer — and possibly take longer.

          Since the topic is Federal Way restructuring, Metro could modify the route.

      15. At the times that I’ve ridden the 560 – heading east from SeaTac at 10 PM – virtually the entire bus is going from SeaTac to Bellevue. I would not be surprised if, overall, such ridership is outweighed by Renton-Bellevue trips during daytime hours, but the point is, there are certain times of day when SeaTac to Bellevue really is dominant.

      16. “ At the times that I’ve ridden the 560 – heading east from SeaTac at 10 PM – virtually the entire bus is going from SeaTac to Bellevue. “

          Is skipping SeaTac in favor of TIBS and its SR 518 stops in the freeway ravine a bad idea for Stride? Why eliminate the most used 560 stop pair and make riders transfer instead?

      17. I actually created the analogy. It is you who apparently missed it.

      18. I actually created the analogy. It is you who apparently missed it.

          I didn’t miss it. I simply applied it to something you wrote previously, on this very thread:

          1) Transit from Burien to SeaTac is outstanding. (This is the bridge in the analogy.)
          2) Transit from Burien to Renton and Bellevue is not. (This is fording the river.)
          3) More riders go from Burien to Renton/Bellevue than SeaTac. (Thus more riders ford the river than use walk over the bridge.)

          Enough with that analogy. Let’s go back to your original idea, and how you started this thread:

          Yeah, I don’t really get S1. Do people really need to get from Burien to Bellevue while bypassing Seattle? It seems like it should be 2 separate lines, split at the spine. If someone is needing to get from Burien to Bellevue, there is the H to link for that.

          Send a S1E from Tukwila/Seatac area to Renton and Bellevue.

          Send a S1W from Tukwila/Seatac area to Burien, White Center and West Seattle.

          The reason you don’t get S1 is because you didn’t know (or ignored) the ridership numbers of the 560. What you are proposing is basically just the 560, split in half. It would be worse for the majority of riders. In contrast, what Sound Transit is building is better for the majority of riders. Of course there are winners and losers, but those that lose out are not that bad off. They can take the local bus (161) or transfer to Link, which is something that many of them do now anyway! SeaTac is both a destination and connection point — to Link and to the A. Some of the riders using that bus are transferring to the A to get to Highline Community College. Now they will transfer to Link at TIBS to get to the same place. Thus a lot of existing riders (to places like Highline) are no worse off. Meanwhile, the majority of riders (that are headed to Renton/Bellevue) are better off. Furthermore, the connection to Link for those headed north is now much better. Thus riders headed to Rainier Valley (or directly to TIBS) are better off as well. Way more people are better off, and only a small number are worse off (and they aren’t exactly suffering).

          Oh, and this saves the agency money! It is easy to come up with grand plans for regional bus lines (I am as guilty of that as anyone). But ST does not have unlimited money. Any saving they have can go into running buses more often.

      19. When ST designed S1 it asked the public whether it should go to SeaTac or Burien. The majority of feedback said Burien, so that’s what ST did. So that’s an example of ST listening to what the area wants.

          It’s possible that a majority of people in the area wanted the opposite and didn’t tell ST (alluding to the Link 99 vs I-5 situation, although I don’t know what the public feedback proportions were there). But ST can’t guess what’s in people’s minds if they don’t tell it. And when people assert something like “the majority wanted S1 to go via SeaTac to Burien” or “the majority wanted Link on I-5”, it’s hard to tell whether that’s legitimate because we don’t know most of their opinions, and things like NextDoor can make a side look larger than it is. So we have to fall back on basic universal concepts like ease of walking to stops and destinations, short transfer distances, etc, because a large number of people DO want that even if they don’t say so or don’t recognize the question exists.

      20. Yeah, I don’t believe I wrote any of that. You are either confusing me with someone else, or you are making incorrect assumptions about my underlying meaning. That’s probably my fault.

          I’m really not a transit geek. I simply have friends all over South King, Federal Way, Burien, White Center, West Seattle. I also have friends in the north end, much farther away.

          When I go to the north end, I almost always take transit, and it is often faster than driving.

          When I go to south King County, I more often than not, drive. It is often 2-3 times longer to take transit than drive, and I am often stranded in the evening, forcing an $80 Lyft trip. And the plans I’m reading are going to be making that far worse.

          Do you think that’s okay? Do you think I shouldn’t have a reasonable expectation that transit works not just for Seattle and Bellevue, but all of the Puget Sound region?

      21. The ridership numbers on the 560 are poor because the route is poor. A shitty bridge.

          Have you ridden it? It winds weirdly along the airport, often sits at Burien transit center for 10 or 15 minutes, then heads north to completely miss all the significant residential and business districts, dead-ending at a QFC, which is technically the far edge of an “urban center” but there isn’t actually any density there yet. It drives through White Center, but doesn’t even stop. It inexplicably ignored all the actual destinations and density at Morgan, Alaska and Admiral Junctions.

          The reason the ridership numbers are a low – it’s a shitty bridge.

   2. “West Seattle, White Center and Burien are surprisingly poorly transit-connected with the south Kent Valley, Federal Way, Tacoma. West of the Duwamish is a massive area with a lot of cultural connections and people living in poverty that need transit.”

      What’s in the Kent Valley, Federal Way, and Tacoma that they’d want to go to? I think part of the problem is not understanding the desired trip patterns: what are people trying to get to and why? I can see airport jobs/flights, Highline students, north Kent industrial jobs, what else? A lot of chain stores that have equivalents closer to home, so they wouldn’t really draw people. What else?

      1. Part of the problem is that not only is the population spread out, but so too are the destinations. Making matters even worse is the fact that many of the destinations (and even some population centers) are difficult to get to. They aren’t “on the way”. This makes it extremely difficult to devise a cost-effective transit system.

         If there was one central destination than you can run a hub and spoke system. If there are a few, then you can build something similar (but with multiple hubs). If the destinations are more spread out you can build a grid. The concern with a grid is that you need good frequencies for it to work well. By its very nature people are expected to make transfers. But if the trains are running infrequently then the transfers are bad. For a grid (or a multi-hub systems) places that are not “on the way” are challenging.

         This is perhaps best summed up by the Rapid Ride F. The bus is the lowest performing of the RapidRide routes, by every measure (total ridership, ridership per service hour, rider miles, etc.). There are no major destinations served by the F. It moves back and forth to try and connect to the minor destinations as well as connection points. Even for just Tukwila it deviates to serve three connection points (Link, Sounder and the Tukwila Transit Center). It is easy to criticize the route and come up with alternate routing. But every proposal (including the one here) comes with big drawbacks.

         What is true for the F is true for the region as a whole. It is very expensive to serve these type of areas well.

      2. Kent Valley has Showare Center, the Regional Justice Center, the best steak house in King County, Breweries, a massive amount of jobs, and more people living there (Kent and Auburn combined) than any place in the state except Seattle.

         Federal Way doesn’t really have much, except a future very expensive train and some of the lowest resourced communities in the county.

         Tacoma – answer that for Seattle, and the answer is largely the same, but divide by 3.

5. Just an FYI… In order to propose a valid Dart route, it must have a deviation zone. ( With the exception of Trailhead direct, if it doesn’t have a deviation zone it must be operated in house.)

   Also for the 906, the reason why it doesn’t go through the Fairwood loop all day, is because of low demand outside of peak hours. The current 906 weekday frequency will return 30 minutes most of the day ( 20 minutes peak.)

   1. The 901 and 903 could keep their current deviation zones, but the 901’s would become more redundant with more fixed-route service in the area. (Then again, the 927’s deviation area remained static for aaaaaages despite new routes in the Issaquah-Sammamish area making it more redundant and the development of the Issaquah Highlands that for a long time had zero transit outside Highlands Drive and the park-and-ride but was never part of the 927 DART zone either.)

      The 905 doesn’t seem to have an obvious deviation zone other than the area along Riverview Blvd that’s a bit out of the way from Military Rd, although the 930 has some service areas that barely deviate from Willows Rd.

      The 906 could keep its current service area but the extended 102 might make it redundant. On the other hand, it could add a new service area on the Renton Highlands, perhaps in the area encircled by the peak-only 111.

6. > Here are probably going to be the most controversial ideas. Truncate the 150 and 101 at Rainier Beach Station, and split the 101 into two (three at peak) overlapping routes
   >But it is also for that reason that a change like this is sure to be controversial.

   Well you should probably touch on the greatly increased transit time with the truncations. Currently from Seattle (cid) to Southcenter on the 150 takes around 30 minutes. With the truncations and additional transfer (assuming similar time to the f line) it’ll take 50 minutes.

   Same thing for renton, it takes 30 minutes from Cid to renton. I checked google maps using the 1 line and the 107 now it’ll take an hour and 10 minutes.

   Sure there’s more traffic during peak times, but most of the time the transit time is much faster with the existing bus routes.

   1. Yeah, that would be a big hit. Just looking at the 101 here, it is worth noting that there are a fair number of Renton buses that don’t go downtown or connect to Link: 105, 107, 148, 153, 160. Thus I’m sure a fair number of riders take a bus, then the express bus to downtown.

      Like every choice, there is a trade-off. Riders lose their one-seat ride to downtown, but they get:

      1) Better connection to Rainier Beach. Presumably the buses would go as far as Rainier Beach itself, since there isn’t that much by the station. In any event for those in Renton this doesn’t add much (since they have the 106 and 107).

      2) Better connection to Link destinations south of SoDo (Beacon Hill, Rainier Valley). Not a huge improvement, as again the 106 directly serves the Rainier Valley stations and the 107 directly serves Beacon Hill.

      3) Improved frequency. This is the basic reason you do any truncation. It looks like you save about ten to fifteen minutes per trip by truncating in Rainier Beach. This is significant, but there are only two buses effected (the 101 and 150). You could probably pay for running the 105 twice as often (e. g. every 15 minutes) but not a lot more. Running the 107 twice as often is likely out of the question.

      The 105 performs well, and it would certainly be great if it ran every 15 minutes. But I don’t know if the trade-off is worth it. Other than better frequency, this change doesn’t get you much. In contrast when Link buses were truncated at UW Station a lot of people got a much more frequent trips to the UW. Rainier Beach is not the UW. Furthermore, for people in Renton this is basically just an express to Rainier Beach to go along with the 106 (which isn’t that slow). So again, they don’t gain that much.

      Ultimately it is a judgement call and I can see going either way. But it doesn’t look like an “easy win”, in my opinion. We run express trains, even though they are very expensive (because they save those riders a lot of time). The idea of running express buses (for the same reason) is quite reasonable, especially in this case where the times savings are quite high. You don’t want every bus to run express to downtown but as it turns out there aren’t that many that do. For Metro, it is just the 101 and 150 that run midday. Now if you want to have ST backfill the express service (by substituting similar routes) that would be great. They have a lot more money to spend on such things. But until then, I would likely just keep the Metro express buses rolling.

      1. The 101 and 150 basically run the ‘tram train pattern’ using the freeway instead and I think it’s fine to continue it.

      2. @WL — Good way to put it.

         I think the big weakness is that it doesn’t connect to the Link line. It is like train lines with a missing connection. Some (although not all) riders have to backtrack to get to Rainier Valley. This is why the TIBS station would be worthwhile. It should serve as a connector station. There should also be a freeway station so that the 101 and 150 can connect to Link and then keep going express to downtown.

7. Also I wish more Des Moines connections are made… I am really interested in new (added) Sunday service for DART Route 635 (Des Moines-Angle Lake). On my mind I actually pictured this route by then (I emailed and on a virtual meeting), I wrote hopefully sooner service than 2026 on 635 to add 30 minute all day for 635 (currently Mon-Sat) and that it could have a potential extension (definitely needed at some point to gain both ridership and interest to go further for more places) to go south nearby the Saltwater State Park area and terminate at the Redondo Heights P&R for better productivity and ridership for me and other riders in the Des Moines area. Definitely hope this route does not go away.

   1. I agree, hence adding more coverage in Des Moines. My map doesn’t include the 635, mostly because that route is funded entirely by the city of Des Moines (I believe it still is). When the Link extension opens, I think it would be good for Des Moines to move the 635 connection to KDM station. That would connect it with potential new bus service, and possibly free up service for an extension.

      1. I hope the City of Des Moines keeps funding the 635, and extends it to the college campus and the soon-to-open station. Have you talked with anyone at Des Moines about their aspirations for local transit connectivity, or for TOD, for that matter?

8. Is there any room for Pierce Transit to improve their connections into Federal Way with the new Link stations? I’m not that familiar with their cross-county routes but know there’s a few, and noticed that they weren’t mentioned in the analysis.

   Thanks for the King County analysis, it’s a lot to chew over but I especially like the idea of truncating the 101 and 150 at RBS, and straightening the F line.

   1. https://piercetransit.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5e122c82aab449f9acf4ce14b596d394

      There is the 500 (Tacoma to Federal Way), 501 (Tacoma-Edgwood-FW), and 402 (Puyallup-FW) which are hourly. There is the 497 (Bonney Lake to Auburn) which is peak express.

      Then there are ST 5XX that generally go from either Tacoma to Seattle or Tacoma to Seatac, sometimes with a Lakewood tail.

      There is also the 560, which is operated by Pierce Transit, but doesn’t actually serve Pierce County. They even maintain the bus in Lakewood, which I find completely bizarre, as it doesn’t come within 15 miles of the county border.

      Honestly, Pierce is in desperate need of better frequency local coverage. I wouldn’t waste any of their scarce dollars connecting to Link.

      1. Honestly, Pierce is in desperate need of better frequency local coverage. I wouldn’t waste any of their scarce dollars connecting to Link.

         Agreed. ST will run plenty of buses from Pierce County to Federal Way. I hope many of those buses continue to Downtown Seattle, but either way I expect riders to be able to easily connect to Link at Federal Way. This is the great benefit of Federal Way Link — easy connection from the HOV lanes of I-5 (both directions) which means very good regional connections.

         What Pierce County needs more than anything is better bus service within Pierce County.

   2. Pierce Transit has a long-range plan called “Destination 2040“. Page 43 has a chart of potential feeders to future Link stations. It also wants to increase frequency overall on its network. However, it hasn’t lifted a finger to fund the additional service it says it wants.

      The chart says no changes are planned for Federal Way Link. For Tacoma Dome Link, the 500 and 402 might be truncated at South Federal Way. The 501 might be rerouted to Lakeland Hills an Auburn TC. Thus none of these routes would serve Federal Way Station. Fife Station might get routes 63, 498, and 500. East Tacoma Station might get routes 41 and 400. Tacoma Dome Station might get some routes extended from Commerce Street.

      Reader Troy Serad has written an extensive proposal for overhauling Pierce County’s local/regional transit network. I’m thinking of writing a review of it.

      1. “However, it hasn’t lifted a finger to fund the additional service it says it wants.”

         There is some whispers of a transit bond measure, though chatting with a county planner last week, it doesn’t look like it will make the fall ballot, which would be a it’s best shot, with the presidential .election. higher turnout would be a huge boost.

9. “Considering this, it seems reasonable that Link could be reduced to 15 minute headways all day every day.”

   Link is not just about South King, the line goes all the way through Seattle to Lynnwood. Since it’s not possible to run the 1 line at different frequencies in different sections, avoid service cuts to Seattle and Lynnwood requires that the entire line run every 10 minutes, and no argument about trip patterns around Federal Way changes that.

   1. That should have been the A-Line, this is now corrected. You are right, it doesn’t make sense to reduce Link to 15-minute headways.

      1. That makes a lot more sense. I could see that, but I’m not sure it is a good idea. The RapidRide A is by some measure the highest performing bus in our system. Yes, Link will poach some of those trips, but only a handful. Furthermore, the two go together.

         When Link went was extended from SeaTac to Angle Lake, overall ridership went up and ridership at each station went up except for one: SeaTac. This always puzzled me. SeaTac is a major destination, and it seems like workers (or those who fly daily) would take advantage of the parking at Angle Lake. Some did, but not not enough to make up for people switching from SeaTac to Angle Lake. But why did they switch? I can see several groups of people:

         1) Those who parked at SeaTac now parked at Angle Lake. This would be only a handful, since parking costs money at SeaTac, and was free at Tukwila.

         2) Drop offs switched from SeaTac to Angle Lake. This seems more plausible, but given the mess that is SeaTac it again seems more likely that “kiss and ride” drivers would go a bit further to Tukwila (where they could have a really good smooch).

         3) The connection point for RapidRide A Line riders changed from SeaTac to Angle Lake. Ding, Ding, Ding! We have a winner! I would be willing to bet this was it. Again, the A gets a lot of riders. Prior to the Link extension, everyone south of Angle Lake would have to ride all the way to SeaTac to access Link. I don’t know what express buses existed back in the day, but I assume that for Metro it was only those that run during peak. The only all-day express to downtown along that corridor is the 586. Thus riders everywhere else would have to ride the A Line and then transfer to Link. This explains why ridership at Angle Lake was not only high, but caused Link ridership at SeaTac to actually go down (as people switched to the closer Angle Lake).

         With that in mind, I find it difficult to justify less frequency on the A. Link will serve three new stations. Not twenty, but three. Thousands of riders will have to continue to take the A and then take Link to get to downtown Seattle. Running the A less often would be a degradation for many as a result.

         Then of course there are people who are just traveling along the corridor. It is easy to assume that with a successful line like the A and the E that everyone is heading to the main destination. In the case of the E this is definitely not true. I don’t have the numbers on the A, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it is the same thing. Even if you are headed to SeaTac or Highline it is quite possible you prefer a one-seat ride (for the same reason that riders of the 21 don’t all jump off at the SoDo station and take Link into downtown from there). Link isn’t that frequent, and any transfer is a bit annoying.

         Reducing frequency on the A might be justified for other reasons (e. g. we want more coverage, or there really isn’t that much difference between running buses every 15 minutes versus every 10) but Link will “poach” only a handful of trips. The vast majority of riders will continue to use the A as a feeder to Link, or as a way to just get around the corridor. Cutting service when the feeder aspect of the A improves would be a bit harsh.

      2. “riders of the 21 don’t all jump off at the SoDo station”

         The 21 doesn’t go to SODO Station; the closest it gets is 1st Avenue South. Transferring would require walking five blocks and up and down across the railroad overpass. People tolerate walking at the ends of trips more than at the middle.

      3. Certainly a lot of people will use the A-Line even after Link. There’s no disputing that. And it’s not that I want A-Line riders to get worse transit. Really the issue is, if we want to expand transit options at stations, the money’s gotta come from somewhere. If the A-Line could be kept at 10 all the time and there was the resources available to bring more people to it and to Link, then that would certainly be great. But beyond hoping Metro can redo the 2014 sales tax measure in the near future (and get it passed this time), any near-term changes will have to be reallocated from somewhere.

         The thing with frequent service is, it’s very expensive. Going from 10 minutes to 15 doesn’t seem like much, but going from 6 buses/hr to 4 saves 2 buses per hour, which means it would free up approximately enough hours for a half-hourly route that as long as the A-Line. This would pay for the 184 extension to Federal Way, or pay for about 80% of the 168 extension to Des Moines. These wouldn’t be small improvements, either, that’s miles of newly frequent service at Link stations.

         Relatedly, this is why Metro has to really cut back a lot of neighboring service to make the RR G run at (required for funding) 6 minute headways. If they could cheat a bit and run it at 7.5 minute headways, that would free up a half-hourly bus route. If they went to 10, that would free up a frequent route, or two half-hourly routes. But the average wait time for a 6 minute bus is only 2 minutes shorter than a 10 minute bus, or 45 seconds shorter than a 7.5 minute bus. Sad fact of reality, diminishing returns really come down HARD when a transit route just starts to get comfortably frequent.

      4. You’re only counting the direct money cost of bus runs. There’s also the cost of passengers’ time and frustration, the money they would have earned and spent and paid taxes on if they hadn’t lost those minutes waiting for buses, and the benefit of spending more time with other people at their destinations that can improve their and the other person’s health. A proper government should weigh all of these.

      5. This.

      6. “this is why Metro has to really cut back a lot of neighboring service to make the RR G run at (required for funding) 6 minute headways.”

         The RapidRide minimum is 15 minutes until 10pm every day, and even that has been stretched recently on one or or two lines. The G is set at 6 minutes to give a higher level of service, so that there’s at least one fast/frequent east-west corridor in central Seattle, and because its middle has highrises and the largest medical district in the state, and the hill is very steep. Maybe Metro promised 6-minute service in a grant application, but it didn’t have to.

10. > Certainly a lot of people will use the A-Line even after Link. There’s no disputing that. And it’s not that I want A-Line riders to get worse transit. Really the issue is, if we want to expand transit options at stations, the money’s gotta come from somewhere.

    I somewhat understand your goal, but at the same time these are the most productive bus routes. I’m not sure why so many proposals here (not just you) want to gut the frequency high ridership bus routes aka A line, route 7, route 550 (section of bellevue way)

    > the A-Line could be kept at 10 all the time and there was the resources available to bring more people to it and to Link, then that would certainly be great.

    As Ross noted, the problem is that most of those existing riders will still need to use the A line to reach the link stations. If they were already next to Federal Way, Star Lake or kent/des moines then they could have used the freeway bus 574 to reach seattle — many don’t so would need to use the A line to reach some other link station.

    And then for trips staying within pacific highway S, most will again just use the a line rather than walk 1 or 2 miles on each end to the link stations.

    Link outside of Seattle is predominantly a replacement for freeway express buses. Not really local avenue buses. If we had built link along pacific highway or bellevue way then replacing the buses along those routes make a lot more sense — but we didn’t. Perhaps we can increase the frequency of rapidride A slightly to say 12 minutes but dropping it drastically from 10 to 15 minutes is quite painful especially if anyone is transferring to another bus.

    1. Even in Seattle, Link is primarily a replacement for express buses. Link has only five stops in Rainier Valley, four in north Seattle, and one on Capitol Hill. If you’re at Graham Street if I remember, it’s a 10-minute walk south to Othello Station, or a 20-minute walk north to Columbia City Station. If you’re east or west of MLK it’s longer. I’m halfway between two Link stations, and it’s a 7-minute walk uphill to Capitol Hill, or a 15-minute walk downhill to Westlake. The difference is that the 71/72/73X and 41 existed before Link (comparable to the 574), but there was never was an express equivalent to the 49, 106, or 67, so Link was brand-new service in those corridors. So I would never take Link from my home to Westlake or University Street like a local route, but I do take it to U-District or Roosevelt or Columbia City or SeaTac, where local routes would take forty or eighty minutes.

    2. “If we had built link along pacific highway or Bellevue way then replacing the buses along those routes make a lot more sense — but we didn’t.” Even then, Link would be an express overlay for the RR-A and there would still be a strong case for the A at good frequency, unless there was a Link every 1/2 mile. It’s not just the alignment, it’s also the stop spacing. Even Link in the RV needs the Graham infill station.

       1. It’s at least be a mile station spacing rather than the effectively
          2 mile station spacing.

11. I expect ST will want to accelerate the opening of OMF #3, in south Federal Way, to bulk up capacity on the 1 Line. I also expect the Federal Way City Council to then insist on an early opening of South Federal Way Station.

    I’ve pondered what it would look like to have the A Line skip Federal Way City Center Station and stay on Pacific Highway until SFW Station.

    1. That might not be terrible. SFW station is much closer to 99 than downtown FW. It’s also the last bits of civilization before 99 plunges into the Hylebos Wilderness. Honestly. there is such a dearth, of well, anything between 356th until reemerging in Fife, that I think saving some money center-running the TDE at-grade through there would be a nice cost-saving measure. You could elevate for a bit through the industrial section of Fife, then pop back to at-grade after you cross the Puyallup River. Skip the sky-palace, build a center platform transfer to T-Link and call it a day.

       Or just dead-end Link in Downtown FW and make that the terminus. Then pour the billions into upgrading Sounder tracks between Tacoma and Seattle to allow for all-day, evening, weekend. Which makes much more sense, honestly.

    2. Siting and building a transit center may be good at the time, but as light rail stations open, the better transit route design could change from “hubs” to “spines”.

       The region invested heavily in transit centers in recent decades. Parking garages, freeway access ramps for buses, and bus routing that uses the centers for driver breaks/ layovers were all created. It’s been successful.

       The thing is though that Link changes things. The role of transit centers as hubs conceptually shrinks. The role doesn’t disappear; it just shrinks.

       Further, some of the places that got transit centers have gotten bigger to the point that key destinations can be a long walk, with major destinations being a half-mile or more away. Plus, using a transit center does add travel time for a rider on a bus if the bus must pull off into a loop accessible from minor streets requiring getting through several signals.

       I think a good case could be made to extend RapidRide A to South Federal Way Link. The current major benefit to ending at the Federal Way TC are its upcoming role as the end Link station and its current role with the HOV access ramps from I-5cabd a large parking structure. Once Link goes further, the station becomes just another Link station on the way to Tacoma. Extending RapidRide A to South FW would put this route near more commercial destinations all potentially reachable without having to transfer to another bus.

       In the other hand, the creation of more micro mobility approaches like autonomous shuttle could breathe new life into the role of any major transit center.

       At some point, the Metro should be revisiting the role of each major transit center. Is it still in the right location? With Link operating does it still make sense as a place to end all bus lines? Should routes terminate or continue through the transit center? Should the layout be updated with better bicycle storage or retail or more pickup boarding areas? Should its role be an end point for infrequent regional buses but not frequent local buses in the future? Will a HOV direct access ramp’s function become irrelevant? I could see the future of each center being somewhat different — with some shifting to more like a commuter bus station, some staying the same and some going completely away (TOD opportunity site) when an in-street spine bus network layout begins to make more sense.

       It is important to assess the future function of every transit center every few decades because land uses and trip patterns change anyway — and adding Link is a big catalyst for revisiting transit connectivity needs.

       1. “Siting and building a transit center may be good at the time, but as light rail stations open, the better transit route design could change from “hubs” to “spines”.

          The DSTT + SODO busway created a linear hub/spine from Convention Place to Spokane Street. Link is essentially extending that to Northgate, Angle Lake, Everett, Tacoma, and Redmond. One advantage is that transfers can be anywhere along the line, they don’t have to be at 3rd & Pine, so that you can move some transfers out of downtown congestion.

          I wouldn’t mind calling the RapidRide corridors “spines” if they’re fast/frequent enough to deserve the term, and the same for Stride, Swift, and Transit+ corridors like the 40. The word spine does have a precedent of political and public favor. The problem is people can equate it with freeway corridors. The Link spine is either on or nearby parallel with I-5, I-90, and 520.

       2. I perhaps could be more specific. I’m seeing value in what one might call “short spines” (as opposed to long ones). I’m also thinking of them as activity districts of between about 1-2 miles.

          The major one is of course Third Avenue. Aurora north of 125th is another one. Rainier between I-90 and Hillman City is another one. Bellevue from Meydenbauer Bay to Spring District is another one. Or the U-District north to Roosevelt.

          How should transit serve these areas? They are too big for a single transit transfer center because half the destinations require a transfer just to go a little further.

          In theory, they probably would be best served by at least two spine bus routes that branch out at the ends. Maybe two smaller transit centers with one at each end? Maybe no transit centers with no routes terminating at the spine (layovers at the route ends)?

          There isn’t a universally best layout. It really depends on the unique geography. However, I think a good argument can be made that a transit center built 30 or 40 years ago may or may not be the best transit structure in 2030 or 2040 for an area, particularly with a whole new light rail network added in.

    3. I think it depends on whether the FW TC is a major transfer node for freeway buses. If there is a still a strong network of freeway express routes that serve FW TC, I think diverting the A is important. But after TDLE is fully open (and perhaps as Sounder expands it’s span of service), the I5 express routes fade away and therefore the freeway bus/HOV connection at the FWTC fades in importance. It may come down to how important of a transfer node FWTC is for all the local KCM routes, vs other nodes like KDM or SFW stations.

       It’s also possible that the FW TC is akin to 185th Station … Swift Blue + RR-E is too long of a route to run from Everett to Seattle, so near-ish the county line two route overlap and turn off of the linear corridor. The same may happen with the RR-A + PT’s 500 … SFW Station is closer to the county line, but operationally the FWTC might be a better terminus for both routes?

12. Right now, South King County can not expect Sound Transit or Metro to be really careful about those of us who live here. Unless you live in Seattle you are not important.

    1. It might be a bit more productive if you outline what exactly you want in south king county and what you view as “extra” resources spent in seattle rather than vague statements that I could say about any two random regions.

       1. I don’t want extra resources. I want the point of views and concerns of the residents of South King County to mean as much as Seattle’s voices do. We should not have to be twice as loud to be heard on what is important to us. We should not be referred to as not knowing what is best for our area when we have a different point of view then the Seattle activists do on how we are impacted by Sound Transit and Metro. An example would be where the route the 1 Line would take. With the exception of Highline College, the overwhelming majority of Kent Des Moines wanted the I5 route and not the Pacific Highway route. The main argument against the I5 was we were not capable of knowing what was best for us. Saw that argued on this very blog. It took a lot of pressure to get what we wanted. A lot less then it should have because there was a bias towards Seattle and Seattle wanted the Pacific Highway route and thought we were too stupid to have a voice in the process.

       2. The link alignment has already been decided and is actively under construction, we are talking about the bus restructures.

          > I want the point of views and concerns of the residents of South King County to mean as much as Seattle’s voices do

          Again it might help if you wrote what you want for the bus restructures then.

          > An example would be where the route the 1 Line would take. With the exception of Highline College, the overwhelming majority of Kent Des Moines wanted the I5 route and not the Pacific Highway route… A lot less then it should have because there was a bias towards Seattle and Seattle wanted the Pacific Highway route and thought we were too stupid to have a voice in the process.

          As I mentioned above this has already been decided. I brought the former alignments in context of Alex’s proposal to lower the rapidride A frequency, which I said was not possible because the link light rail does not run along the corridor.

          Anyways, in case talking in vague hypotheticals is very annoying for all parties. I thought you were talking about Alex’s rapidride A frequency decrease at first.

       3. I want the point of views and concerns of the residents of South King County to mean as much as Seattle’s voices do.

          What makes you think there is any difference? Seriously, what makes you think that the residents of Seattle had much of a voice when it came to various decisions that were made? Do you think the people in Seattle thought about it and said:

          “Well, obviously West Seattle should be first. Ballard should get a line through Interbay, and not via the UW. ”

          Really? Come on, get real. No one had a voice in this but the people on the board, and they wanted what they wanted. The City of Kirkland didn’t even have a voice! Consider that for a second. The City of Kirkland — meaning the mayor and the city council — hired a transit consulting firm to determine the best course of action with regards to a transit expansion. They suggested BRT on the CKC (which is now part of EastTrail). Their opinions were rejected. A freakin’ city! Not a random group of concerned citizens but people elected to represent the city (with the help of a transit consulting firm) and they were ignored!

13. Okay, let’s talk about the reduction in trips for the Rapidride A. It makes sense of it starts after the expansion opens. It would be faster to get on the 1 line and head to a station and hop on a bus to get to the spot where only buses go. Any change should not take effect until after the extension in completed, open, running, and any bugs or problems are worked out. Even then, it should be a couple of months after, maybe the second shake up after opening. Then, we should see if it continues to make sense after doing for a year. If not, we should be able to discuss bring it back. I know that ot will be inconvenient for me personally because I take the A to get groceries and the 1 line wouldn’t be useful for that, there is no 1 line stop at the Redondo Fred Meyers where I do about 90% of my shopping. We should also look to find ways to improve keeping buses on schedule. Especially if there are going to be fewer buses. I know that increasing it from every 10-12 minutes to 15 minutes doesn’t seem like that much time, it can add up. Especially during peak hours. I want to make sure that any changes made will not be done until the areas where the changes will happen get a chance to be heard and taken seriously.

    1. > I know that ot will be inconvenient for me personally because I take the A to get groceries and the 1 line wouldn’t be useful for that, there is no 1 line stop at the Redondo Fred Meyers where I do about 90% of my shopping

       This is an example of why I don’t think decreasing the rapidride A frequency makes much sense. Most destinations along pacific highway it makes no sense to use solely the link stations outside of federal way station or if one is near high line station. You’d still need to take the rapidride A to the link station

       1. When TriMet opened the Green Line, the sorta-parallel 72 (≈15 blocks away) had an increase in ridership rather than a decrease.

          Thus. I think any plan to reduce the A in response to Link would be a bad idea.

    2. > there is no 1 line stop at the Redondo Fred Meyers where I do about 90% of my shopping
       > With the exception of Highline College, the overwhelming majority of Kent Des Moines wanted the I5 route and not the Pacific Highway route.

       Uhh just saying the pacific highway route one of the alternatives would have been an additional station on 260th. You would have been able to use the light rail if it was on pacific highway

       1. It would have had a bigger negative impact on the area as a whole. More homes would have been lost, more business would have had to shut down. The impact on local traffic would have been terrible. Construction of it on I 5 has made traffic worse at times. Just because something is to my advantage doesn’t make it right.
          Plus, that would be too far to walk with my disability.

       2. But it’s better for transit riders right?

          You made it sound like you preferred the i5 alignment for transit reasons earlier

    3. Matthew: There are at least two recent and major counter-examples to Link construction causing temporary inconvenience but not enough traffic congestion that businesses are forced to close: U-District station, and Lynnwood Station. And you don’t have to tear down buildings if Sound Transit gets into the habit of building elevated rail *over* wide thoroughfares. Bet even if they built is alongside the roadway, aren’t you mainly talking about a few parking spots, since the actual buildings are set pretty far back from the curb anyway?

    4. “[decreasing frequency from] 10-12 minutes to 15 minutes doesn’t seem like that much time, it can add up”

       Very important! I’ve harped on this repeatedly. Waiting several minutes is one of the biggest things people don’t like about transit and why they don’t ride it.

       Decreasing frequency on the A when Link starts is solving a nonexistent problem and counterproductive. Even if the A’s ridership dips initially, it will be back up in a few years with new riders. If you decrease frequency, those new riders will be lost, and some of those who didn’t switch to Link. Metro should want more people to ride the A, and the only way to attract them is to keep the frequency up.

       “We should also look to find ways to improve keeping buses on schedule.”

       Very important too! The technical term is “reliability”. Buses get off-schedule due to congestion. Metro needs to add more standby buses at congested times that can swoop in to compensate for one that’s delayed. It needs more service hours and drivers and repair parts for that, and it doesn’t have those. It got them in 2015-2019 and reliability improved, but then it lost them and when congestion came back in 2022, reliability got worse again. When it does get the resources, the first portion of resources will go to reliability, and then after that more frequency. City DOTs can also help with transit-priority lanes and signal timings that help buses bypass congestion.

       “the overwhelming majority of Kent Des Moines wanted the I5 route and not the Pacific Highway route”

       On a transit blog we’d assume you brought this up because they wanted this for a transit purpose (i.e., better transit), and I couldn’t figure out what that could be, except faster Federal Way-downtown travel time. But then you say no, they want the line away from them for non-transit reasons. If that’s what you mean, you need to say so explicitly or people won’t realize you mean that.

       “It would have had a bigger negative impact on the area as a whole. More homes would have been lost, more business would have had to shut down.”

       How many people find it difficult to get around and get depressed because of the land use and the skeletal nature of the transit? It’s not zero, and in Kent-Des Moines it’s probably at least a quarter of the residents or half the bus riders. That’s thousands of people. People who aren’t heard because “the majority” drive and just want more car lanes and don’t car about the unwalkable nature of the strip malls because they don’t walk. And how many lower-income people don’t live in or have businesses in Des Moines because it’s so inconvenient to get around without a car? You say “Kent-Des Moines residents”, but there’s also would-be residents.

       What’s really happening in South King County is, the land use was designed in the 1940s and 50s when it was assumed that everybody could afford cars and loved driving, so it was OK to make it unwalkable because the future was driving. And cars gradually went from one per family to one or more per person. That may be OK for wealthier areas like the Eastside or Shoreline, or for Kent in the 70s when the future was expected to be upwardly mobile like that, but that’s not what South King County is like now. So those people you say are the majority and we in Seattle are too progressive to understand, the leaders of that movement are perpetuating a hellhole on the rest of their residents and would-be residents based on an 80-year-old fantasy vision, and that hellhole is one of the things that’s keeping their incomes low and creating unnecessary stresses in their lives.

       The basic fact is that mobility is a good thing governments should promote, so that people can get from A to B largely when they wish. And cars don’t scale because they’re ten times larger than a person, and require the same amount of space around them so that they don’t collide and can get in and out of parking spaces, and they’re horrendously expensive compared to transit. So cities need to have good non-car means of mobility: sidewalks, bike corridors, transit lines, and secondarily taxis. “Good transit” means coming every 10-15 minutes full-time, and going in all directions to all the activity centers, and having stops people can walk to. Putting Link on 99 was all about having stops people can walk to, and transfer from the A to.

14. In the past Metro has not taken to heart the concerns of the locals. I hope they are open to listening to those who would use their services if it truly meets their needs. In particular I like the recommendations for Federal Way and South King County. Hopefully they will adjust their plans as they receive real data. Otherwise we will have an overpriced and under utilized system.

Comments are closed.