With the full Link 2 Line across Lake Washington expected to open in the next year or two, King County Metro is considering how to best reroute the the roughly-parallel RapidRide B Line. With RapidRide Candidate Corridor 1999, recently set as a Tier 3 priority line, King County Metro proposes a new north-south RapidRide between Redmond, Crossroads Bellevue, and South Bellevue. The current RapidRide B running an L would be split into a east-west and this north-south variant.
East Link Restructure and Future Alignment
RapidRide B, currently serving as the main bus between Redmond, Crossroads, and Bellevue Downtown would split with the north-south portion running from Redmond to Bellevue’s Crossroads neighborhood as part of this new line. The rest of the route would be a combination of routes from the East Link Connections bus restructures. The Route 226‘s portion connecting South Bellevue to Bellevue College, the Route 223 from Eastgate via Bellevue College to Crossroads, and Route 245 using NE 51st St instead of NE 40th St. Note: while Metro refers to the line as B + 226, the actual closest route comparison is Route 223 from Eastgate to Redmond.
There were four alignments discussed:
- Redmond Technology: debated crossing SR-520 using the existing NE 40th Street or route to NE 51st Street, with the latter chosen for a slightly faster route.
- Overlake: Choose between detouring to Overlake Village Center or heading straight on 156th Place NE. The latter was chosen for the faster route and the existing Link connection at Redmond Technology Center.
- South Bellevue (Lake Hills): Debated between the using the existing Lake Hills Boulevard or switching to SE 22nd Street with the former chosen for denser land use.
- Southern Terminus: Debated between Factoria; Eastgate Park and Ride; and South Bellevue Station. Factoria was briefly explored as mentioned in the Bellevue Transit Master plan but had difficulty with layovers/turning around and duplicative service. Eastgate Park and Ride as a terminus was not seriously considered with a lack of a Link station, but might be revisited when Issaquah Link opens. South Bellevue Station was chosen after the former two were eliminated.
After major alignment was chosen, two other changes added were using the proposed Bellevue College Connection rather than running through the middle of Bellevue College, and running on SE Eastgate Way instead of 142nd Pl SE and I-90. The latter option adds in a stop on Richards Road and operating through the Eastgate P&R bus loop, though with an increased travel time compared to using I-90.
The new RapidRide B + 226 would provide for a more consistent connection from South Bellevue Station to Eastgate, Bellevue College and Lake Hills compared to the new Route 226’s proposed 20~30 minute frequency.
Bottlenecks and Improvements
This data indicates the major delays are on 156 Ave NE in Bellevue with some minor delays on 148th Ave NE in Redmond.
The existing B line has the second worst travel time variability of the RapidRide routes analyzed, from a 16-minute travel time in the early mornings and nights to up to a 37-minute travel time in the morning and evening peaks. A peak delay of over 130% of the base travel time is simply begging for transit prioritization.
To address these delays, Metro proposes to adjust intersections around Lake Hills, add BAT lanes to 156 Ave SE in Bellevue, and add BAT lanes to 148 Ave NE in Redmond.
Unfortunately, Bellevue and Redmond are are generally less likely to implement BAT lanes from conversion of general traffic lanes compared to Seattle, so the next section will analyze based on their actual transportation improvement plans listed in order from South Bellevue to Redmond.
Around South Bellevue Station and Eastgate there are two projects:
- TFP-242 Bellevue Way HOV lane: Acquire right of way for phase one of Bellevue Way SE, constructing a new inside southbound HOV lane from the Winter’s House to the future South Bellevue light rail station. This would connect to the section of Bellevue Way, including an HOV lane that extends to I-90, already built by Sound Transit.
- TFP-266 I-90 Factoria Blvd Exit Expansion: Relocate the current trail undercrossing of the ramp between northbound I-405 and eastbound I-90 to a new bridge south of the existing undercrossing, and add a second off-ramp lane to the current ramp undercrossing. Evaluate how to best stripe the off-ramp lanes to ensure reliable transit operations
The HOV project while helpful for buses heading southbound on Bellevue Way, the HOV lane also currently heads west towards I-90, though buses can leave the HOV lane early to enter the eastbound I-90 ramp.
 |  |
For the route through Bellevue College, currently buses use quite a circuitous route through the center of campus then three rights, through the Eastgate P&R bus loop, then three more rights to reach 142 Pl SE.
The Bellevue College Connection would upgrade the existing Snoqualmie River Road from a parking lot road to a full road with sidewalks and usable by buses. This will save as much as 4 minutes per trip.
For the 156th Avenue corridor, while the Bellevue Transit Master Plan does list as a project “156th Avenue NE – BelRed Road to north city limits: Construct business access and transit (BAT) lanes in both directions”, few if any parts of the transit master plan has been implemented.
156th Ave NE currently consist of 5 lanes, 2 general lanes in each direction and one center left turn lane. A limited form of queue jumps is more possible at intersections with an additional right turn lane, especially given there are existing U-turn bays. There is a separated paralleling running 148 Ave NE Master Plan (TFP-250) in Bellevue that might add some BAT lanes; however, the proposed RapidRide B + 226 does not run on this road.
Redmond’s Transportation Improvement Plan has a 148th Ave NE and NE 51st Street Westbound Right-Turn Lane: Add a second right-turn lane from westbound NE 51st Street to northbound 148th Avenue NE. No BAT or Bus lane improvements were found in the Transportation Master Plan nor in the updated one.
Station stop and travel times
Existing stop spacing is around 1,980 feet and around 45% of stop pairs are below a quarter mile. With some minor stop rebalancing, the new average stop spacing would be 2,840 feet or half a mile.
Costs and Gains
The full buildout is somewhat unlikely because right now the estimated cost is $76 million. As fractions of the total cost, transit speed improvements would be 53%, stops and stations 29%, charging infrastructure 15%, and finally layover and terminus facilities would cost 2%.
With a full buildout, Metro estimates ridership would increase by about 800 riders from 3,500 daily riders to about 4,300.
Conclusion
The new north-south RapidRide B + 226 presents an opportunity to enhance transit service along the 156th Ave SE (Bellevue) and 148 Ave NE (Redmond) corridors. By providing a direct and frequent connection between South Bellevue, Bellevue College, Crossroads and Redmond, the new route will offer a more reliable connection for both students, residents and shoppers. Lastly, the implementation of BAT lanes speeding up transit service heavily depends on local will from Bellevue and Redmond.
After review, they may decide upon little change. NE 8th Street is an important corridor with density and schools; it probably attracts more ridership than the three corridors between Crossroads and Eastgate via BC. Local service is needed to complement Link. There is duplication between the B Line and Route 245 on 156th Avenue NE.
With the Wilburton Link station and the hospital district, it may make sense to have the B Line cross I-405 on NE 10th Street rather than NE 8th Street; the latter is proximate to the hospitals and library; the former is a full interchange with congestion. Bellevue could figure out a queue bypass for the inbound B Line coaches.
In downtown Redmond, the B Line and Route 542 could serve different parallel corridors as today: NE 90th and 85th streets. Or, Route 542 could be truncated at RTS when Link reaches downtown Redmond.
The complementary concept of the east-west segment of the B Line extending to the U District via SR-520 requires finding a layover and turnaround loop near Crossroads; that will not be easy.
They will still keep rapidride on NE 8th as a separate line.
https://platform.remix.com/project/d0616992?latlng=47.46204,-122.42211,9.078
This map above shows how it’ll be
There is a severe fiscal issue; Metro Connects is not affordable. The long range planners are not using a budget constraint. When the short-range planners implement a restructure, they are subject to a budget constraint. Lynnwood Link is an example; it is deleting Route 372 in its second phase; Metro Connects showed it as a RR line. Will the B-271 and B-245 ever be affordable?
@eddiew
If you’re talking about capital dollars for implementation I assume the split could be done maybe cheaper by forgoing certain elements
For the operating costs I’ll need to check the pdf when I get home but from what I remember it didn’t cost that much extra bus trips for these b lines. The 165 and 181 has larger issues with higher difference from current frequency to rapidride
I’d like it if they could extend the east-west line to 164th. That would be closer to all the housing developments beyond that. There’s not a lot there but it’s only 8 blocks further, and it gets it to the top of the hill.
Well, they do have to turn the bus around somehow.
I think it’s a strong conceptual route. I really like how Factoria, Eastgate and Bellevue College will get a frequent, well-marked RapidRide service. These are regional destinations that should be on a RapidRide route, while the destinations being lost in and near Downtown Bellevue are now more quickly served by Link 2 Line.
My biggest concern, and one that the author identifies, is the path through Bellevue College. I’ve stated my views on the college campus “isolation” to its surrounding land uses known in prior comments. I feel like Metro has proposed the best that they can by using Snoqualmie River Road.
I just hope that the future Bellevue College Master Plan proposes shifting transit from a mere service and the back side of the campus to being featured prominently and set up to tie into a future Link station for transfers. To that end, starting out on Snoqualmie River Road could be strategic should the future campus plans and light rail construction result in years of disruption in the coming one or two decades (which I hope someday makes the Link station and its RapidRide transfer the prominent heart of the campus).
An interesting example is how San Diego State created a bus transit mall with a light rail station underneath. It’s been mentioned before. It’s adjacent to their student union building with a stunning sunken entrance like an amphitheater. The similarities to Bellevue College seem obvious — a large commuter college campus just off a freeway corridor getting a light rail line.
I wish there was more information about how it’s performing . Here is a video of how it got built:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5WAGmeMnX1o
I think Link will serve Bellevue College like it serves Highline College and Northgate College. Stay outside of the college. Stay very close to the freeway.
@ Issaquah Resident:
I agree with you that building just one end station in Issaquah that’s two miles or more from the next one is a rather poir idea. If the public is spending money to build tracks that much further (including overpasses), there should be two end stations at the very least.
Redmond is designed better by putting two end stations pretty close together. It’s too bad that Issaquah and Everett and Ballard didn’t consider it. East Tacoma doesn’t get to much besides the casino; a short extension to Downtown Tacoma and additional station would have been more valuable there. West Seattle is an opposite version of that, where the ridiculously deep final station is a huge chunk of the cost even though at least 1/3 of the dense part of the catchment area is within 1/4 of a mile of the next much shallower station and almost all of the dense area is within walking distance of the station at 35th.
And that gets into the next topic, which is that light rail is a service, not a monument or an occasional amusement park ride to a special event. The slower the train, the more expensive it is to run. The smaller the ridership the more it costs per rider. Over time, transit operators will scale back frequency if ridership is low. And the worse the frequency, the transfer burden magnifies the problem because it adds time to the second vehicle wait for a rider.
Which of course ties back into the problem of too many elected officials who don’t understand transit riding and demand drawing lines and dots on a map like an elementary school art class. That’s what sort of happened in ST3. Many of the ST3 graphics were even simple stick figures. I know there were pre-ST3 corridor studies but they usually involved constrained options like only one station in central Issaquah.
You do realize that Link will take about 18 minutes just to reach East Main Station from Issaquah? ST 554 gets to Mercer Island in only 14 minutes from the same place today. Because there really isn’t much developable land left in the I-90 corridor, traffic on I-90 HOV can’t get much worse — and today the primary congestion is because of ramps to other roads and not I-90 itself. If 554 gets cancelled when / if 4 Line opens. Trips to Downtown Seattle will take at least 10-12 minutes longer – just to ride a train rather than a bus to and from Issaquah.
Alas, this should have been placed in response to the comments below.
Since this is a Tier 3 project, it won’t be built until around when the Issaquah line is constructed.
For reference the issaquah link station at Eastgate and Factoria is as follows:
“”””
The LRT guideway continues at-grade in the I-90 median (on structure over Lakemont Boulevard SE) to the Eastgate Park-and-Ride, where it crosses to the north side of I-90 via an elevated structure then transitions back to at-grade. The representative station at Eastgate is at-grade along the southern side of the existing transit center, allowing the existing direct access ramps and 142nd Place SE structure to remain.
The project would include widening the 142nd Place SE overpass sidewalk to the north towards Bellevue College which will require some closures of the existing freeway station and possibly the I-90 westbound main line.
West of the Eastgate Park-and-Ride, the LRT guideway travels along the north side of I-90. An elevated station on the northside of I-90 will be located near Richards Road SE to serve the Factoria area.
“”””
Unfortunate. That puts the line on the wrong side of the freeway from most of the Factoria development, and at the very south end of the Eastgate and Bellevue College area.
It’s hard to reach factoria (south of i90) as the line needs to turn north.
It could potentially be in the freeway median but that means they’d need to remove the eastgate hov ramps in the middle as well and the station at eastgate would be in the median instead of north of i90 next to Bellevue college
@WL, yeah, the real solution would be to not build the line because you can’t do a good job with it. But the next-best solution would be to have it serve one or the other location actually well.
the real solution would be to not build the line because you can’t do a good job with it. But the next-best solution would be to have it serve one or the other location actually well.
Agreed. The corridor does not lend itself well to a rail line. There aren’t that many destinations, and most of them are quite close to the freeway (which can be served just fine with buses). Bellevue College is a good destination, but there is nothing much between it and Downtown Bellevue. You would have to detour to get to Factoria, and that is challenging. From Factoria you would be in the same boat (not much between there and South Bellevue). There isn’t much between Issaquah and Eastgate either. So we are looking at miles and miles of brand new (very expensive) track with only a handful of destinations, most of which can’t be easily connected. The general plan is to have five stations (at most) and the only one that looks good is the one in Issaquah. Every other station is second-rate in one respect or another and not significantly better than a bus.
“There isn’t much between Issaquah and Eastgate either. ”
This is why I suggested that it would be better to spend more money to deviate a few blocks from I-90 and better serve Bellevue College as opposed to building almost three miles of track to a remote part of Issaquah.
It only goes to Issaquah for political reasons. I-90 mainline is never really congested (any congestion is because of ramps backing up onto I-90). The Issaquah TC (the presumed end Link station site) isn’t really adjacent to anything and is surrounded by stroads.
Anyway, I don’t want to deviate too far from the more relevant point I’ve made — which is simply that Bellevue College needs to radically refocus its campus circulation and design to be better for transit riders — including both this route and someday Link (and other routes too).
This is why I suggested that it would be better to spend more money to deviate a few blocks from I-90 and better serve Bellevue College as opposed to building almost three miles of track to a remote part of Issaquah.
It is not really remote. Or at least the plan is to develop a large business park there.
In any event if you skipped Issaquah (to better serve the college) you still have the same basic problem: there are very few potential stations, and serving them is expensive. They are very spread out, which adds considerably to the cost. It is expensive to deviate from the freeway but if you don’t deviate from the freeway you add very little value. At best it is a shuttle between Downtown Bellevue and Bellevue College, something that can be achieved quite easily with express buses.
If ST is itching to spend money then they can simply add HOV ramps from Eastgate (I-90) to 405 (towards Bellevue). That way ST can run express buses from Issaquah that stop at the Eastgate freeway station on their way to Downtown Bellevue. Or they can run express buses from Downtown Bellevue that go right to the campus (with several stops there). As it is, even with the current conditions it is still a pretty quick express trip from Downtown Bellevue (https://maps.app.goo.gl/s7KX6LGobRb2LeCn9). The only time that is a problem is when there is traffic, which is less of an issue for students.
It seems to me that adding a center exit ramp on Richards (it seems there’s enough room for that in the median?) and another center exit ramp to Bellevue Way or I-405 would serve the corridor just as well for an order of magnitude less money
Kirkland could maybe get additional funding for K line improvements and the 255? Or improved connections to Stride?
Believe me, Ross. I think 4 Line is in general a wasteful way to spend ST3 money. There are many ways to explore making it more effective — from repositioning and densifying station locations to changing modes (like an automated line or cable pulled system with no South Kirkland Station or buses) to moving the transfer point to South Bellevue (running up the edge then across Mercer Slough to East Main may actually be worse environmentally than just going across Mercer Slough to South Bellevue).
That tragic thing is that the corridor’s big hope is in how there’s enough lead time to hone the station areas to be transformed to be amazing. Sadly, I don’t see anything major coming forward since ST3 to take advantage of building it. All the cities and ST (and Bellevue College) seem content continuing their planning as usual.
Johsn is correct – what is needed is ST investment to add two stations within the I90 envelope, one to serve Factoria and one to serve central Issaquah (more or less the Costco campus). The Factoria station can be elevated (at grade with 90) or simply be a center on/off ramp.
If ST can make these Stride station, not only with the stations themselves be cheaper than Link stations, the capital investment in I90 ROW can be effective skipped over. Perhaps in the future ST can partner with WSDOT to add an HOV/HOT lane to I90, but that can be done on a totally separate timeline from investing in 2 (or more) Stride stations along I90.
By switching to Stride as the mode, ST will have a massively lower project budget, allowing work to occur much faster *and* bringing into the scope ancillary bus investments such as this proposed work in/around Bellevue College.
The Factoria station probably still requires a complete rebuild of that interchange, but in that way is very simillar to the interchange rebuilds at 44th (Renton) and 85th (Kirkland) that ST is funding as Stride stations.
WSDOT as the lead contractor and long term owner of SOGR, with ST primarily writing a check.
“All the cities and ST (and Bellevue College) seem content continuing their planning as usual.” My hope is that once 405 Stride is in operation, that’s a tangible example for politicians and city staffers to understand and apply to the I90 Bellevue/Issaquah corridor. Right now, Link is shorthand for “good transit” and “not stuck in traffic”.
It could even continue on to Kirkland using the 85th St center exit ramps. That would be better for both Kirkland and Issaquah I believe
https://i.imgur.com/PxOfyKE.png
Areas of major work circled in blue; everything else is already done
By switching to Stride as the mode, ST will have a massively lower project budget
It isn’t just that, it is leveraging the existing roadways. For example a bus can serve half a dozen stops in Issaquah, get on the freeway, connect to Bellevue College and then run express to Downtown Bellevue. If could continue farther. It might continue to the UW (taking over part of this route). Or it keeps in the spirit of the original proposal and keeps going to Kirkland. But instead of ending in a parking lot in South Kirkland it continues, and serves the core of Kirkland (where the people are). A second bus could run from the Highlands over to Sammamish Road (and Costco Headquarters) then get on the freeway and do the same thing. With a bus-based solution you enable dozens of stops, while with Issaquah Link they are proposing three, maybe four (including South Kirkland). You end up asking the vast majority of potential riders to transfer to a train that isn’t super-frequent, nor is any faster than an express bus. Or they just run those express buses anyway, and hardly anyone rides the train.
With all due respect, I think some people in the Issaquah area would object to converting Issaquah Link to buses or RR or Stride.
Including the surrounding areas like North Bend, Sammamish, Snoqualmie, Eastgate and Factoria, and the ride shed Issaquah Link will reach by having a stop at the Eastgate park and ride, that is over 100,000 people, more than West Seattle or Ballard. Kirkland is another 92,000, and Issaquah Link will go through downtown Bellevue. Granted the population is spread out, but it is spread out basically everywhere along East Link except downtown Bellevue, and some stops like East Main have no population almost.
Maybe if West Seattle and Ballard Link are converted to buses ST could argue the ridership does not meet the cost for Issaquah Link. But the issue for WSBLE is whether the subarea has the revenue for that line, especially with the costly upgrades to tunnels and underground stations. Issaquah Link is long but pretty cheap per mile because it is above ground and uses a right of way. Look at the cost of the stations in Ballard and West Seattle, and even 130th.
If Federal Way, Fife, Tacoma, Lynnwood and then Everett are getting Link then Issaquah will get Link. Where else would the money be used in East King Co. if not Issaquah Link. I doubt the Issaquah council would go quietly, and Bellevue would probably support Issaquah, and so would Kirkland. I would also guess way more folks go to Issaquah each day than go to Ballard or West Seattle or a lot of stops on Line 1 which is all about taking folks to downtown Seattle.
If Link is about the future then this area deserves Link, more than so many other areas Link will serve. Whether buses or RR or Link folks will still need to use feeder buses or park and rides in this area, but that is true for most of Link from Everett to Tacoma to Redmond, and Sounder S. and N. Riders like Mike who don’t drive will now be able to get to Issaquah with two seats for all his shopping.
The other factor is politics. The subarea will have the money, and it must be spent on the eastside, so the question is where will the money for Issaquah Link go if not Issaquah to Kirkland Link? The only way I could see politically Issaquah Link being changed to buses is if ALL the savings are spent in Issaquah and Kirkland, but on what? Feeder buses to RR. No way.
I know some will argue the ridership on the 554 when East Link fully opens does not support a Link line so long, but I don’t think it matters. Issaquah Link was the product of an eastside political process and only that process can change Issaquah Link. ST certainly can’t on its own. We obviously don’t care what the other subareas think, and why should they care what the eastside does if it can’t possibly benefit them. I leave WSBLE up to those who live in that subarea. Issaquah Link was approved in 2016 and since that time this region has boomed. If ridership today were the only criterion then about half the Link stations should not have been built, and probably all the future ones under ST 3.
Issaquah Link will get built. The subarea will have the revenue, it is in ST 3, and the cities involved are too powerful on the Eastside which is becoming the dominant area in the region which will only continue. Which usually means greater density over the next 20 years if not exactly more trips.
Including the surrounding areas like North Bend, Sammamish, Snoqualmie, Eastgate and Factoria, and the ride shed Issaquah Link will reach by having a stop at the Eastgate park and ride, that is over 100,000 people
Might as well include Spokane and the state of Idaho while you are at it.
Granted the population is spread out
Which is why the total number of people in a region is meaningless. Otherwise Kansas would have a subway by now. What matters is population density and how close those pockets of density are to other pockets. But there are a host of other factors as well like the overall transit network, trip patterns and existing road infrastructure. Unfortunately, Issaquah Link fails in every regard. Most of the people in the area you describe would not benefit from Issaquah Link in the least. Even a lot of people in Issaquah wouldn’t benefit. Why would you want to take a bus to the one station in Issaquah and wait for the train when you can take a bus directly to Downtown Bellevue?
Issaquah Link is long but pretty cheap per mile because it is above ground and uses a right of way.
But that is only because you have a lot of miles of tracks with no stations at all! This is exactly backwards of what you want for a subway. It means the cost per station is extremely expensive, even if the stations themselves are cheap.
Look at the cost of the stations in Ballard and West Seattle, and even 130th.
Wait, what? You are saying that “even 130th” station is expensive. But then the same thing would be true here. So not only do you have miles and miles of track with very few station (pushing the cost way up) but the stations themselves aren’t cheap either.
Where else would the money be used in East King Co. if not Issaquah Link.
We already mentioned that. Build an HOV connection between Eastgate and 405 (heading towards Downtown Bellevue). That way buses can run express between Bellevue College and Downtown Bellevue. Then just run buses a lot more often, to the various places.
If Federal Way, Fife, Tacoma, Lynnwood and then Everett are getting Link then Issaquah will get Link.
This is an excellent summary of what is wrong with Sound Transit. People just assume that running Link is the best way to serve their city or region. They treat light rail like it is a community center. If those other cities have it, then we should have it. No one considers the possibility that they would be better off with something else.
In this case, they clearly would be. Imagine the 554 ran express between Eastgate and Downtown Bellevue (via HOV lanes on the freeway). After serving the transfer center it would then get back on 405 and head to the Kirkland Transit Center (using the new 85th HOV ramps). From there it would continue and follow the northern tail of the 255 to Juanita and Totem Lake. Which gets more riders, Issaquah Link or the new 554? Obviously the bus. It takes just as long to get from Issaquah to Downtown Bellevue. But in Issaquah you have a lot more stops. In Kirkland you’ve swapped out a minor stop (next to a park and ride) for the heart of Kirkland and many more stops. A lot of people have now avoided a transfer, and they get to their destination a lot faster. Keep in mind, this is just one bus! A bunch of buses could serve the area, and likely will, since Issaquah Link doesn’t even connect well with East Link if you are headed towards Seattle.
Which brings up another issue. I get folks sometimes think that no one crosses the lake anymore (East is East, and West is West…). But if that was the case, then ridership won’t go up much when East Link crosses the lake. Obviously this is silly. East Link is predicated on lots of riders across the lake. What we’ve seen is that while East-Side-only ridership is respectable, it certainly wouldn’t be worth the cost if it lacked the connection to Seattle. As it turns out, Issaquah Link is entirely East Side only, which means that ridership would likely be a tiny portion of the existing East Link ridership (given weaker stations and far fewer of them). Sorry, but Issaquah Link just doesn’t make sense. The sooner Issaquah residents and representatives realize this and start planning for something else the better.
While I respect your opinion Ross I disagree.
But more importantly the Eastside had this debate in 2016 when deciding whether to vote yes on ST 3. To be honest, even in 2016 pre-pandemic I had doubts about ST 3’s benefit for the Eastside and voted no. If there is one argument that might support your argument it is post Covid there are so fewer transit trips on the Eastside, especially to Seattle, but East Link and Redmond Link are still getting built when there is little density along most of those lines and ridership will be less than half of what ST is STILL estimating.
My guess is if Issaquah Link was a HOV lane from Eastgate more eastsiders would have voted no and maybe ST 3 would have failed.
The ultimate problem is there is no legal mechanism I can think of to modify ST 3 unless the subarea simply doesn’t have the revenue to complete the levy, like skipping First Hill.
I don’t see a legal or political mechanism to change modes for WSBLE (unless we are talking station location and the city’s mayor is on the Board and agrees), unless it can’t be afforded, and I don’t see a legal or political mechanism to change Issaquah Link. Using your criteria would mean Link would never be justified on the Eastside “unless it goes to Seattle” because there is too little density to create walk up ridership (although 130th station has no walk up ridership).
We expect Issaquah Link to bring Seattleites to Issaquah, not the other way around. You still see all travel as going to Seattle. That trip is dying on the Eastside.
The subarea has the money. Issaquah Link was debated and promised in the levy. The Issaquah and Kirkland areas have the population and vibrancy. Who can change that? Maybe the Issaquah City Council could request a change but won’t. The rest of the Eastside cities won’t demand the funding from Issaquah Link for their cities. ST is a seperate agency so the King Co. Council has no jurisdiction. The ST Board would definitely face litigation if it attempted to convert Issaquah Link to a HOV bus lane from Eastgate, and I don’t see Eastside Board members supporting that, while Board members from other subareas don’t care and should leave that decision up to the subarea.
Believe me, there is plenty of Link that makes me shake my head, including WSBLE, the station at 130th, Everett and Tacoma Link, but there is nothing I can do about that and I don’t live there. They pay their ST taxes so have the right to decide how to use it. If the project was in the levy and there is the money I don’t see who has the legal authority to change that unless the city getting screwed gets their ST taxes back. If Kirkland and Issaquah got their ST 3 taxes back that might be different.
By the way did you know Kansas is the second largest rail hub in the U.S. and is planning 107 miles of passenger train service, mostly on existing tracks. You don’t have to be NYC to have passenger rail, especially on the surface. Just look at Sounder S and N.
“Including the surrounding areas like North Bend, Sammamish, Snoqualmie, Eastgate and Factoria, and the ride shed Issaquah Link will reach by having a stop at the Eastgate park and ride, that is over 100,000 people, more than West Seattle or Ballard”
By that measure, you should also include the vast areas north of Ballard, such as crown hill, all of which regularly fill the buses on the 40 and the D.
As far as what else is there to do, that could fill a dozen articles on this web site. I’ll wait until then for details.
@Issaquah Resident
The problem is that the Issaquah-Kirkland line fails on the basic premise of providing service to the two cities. Take a look at the map of the proposed line (link below). The map says “Central Issaquah”, but doesn’t really reach into Issaquah; it just ends somewhere north of the transit center. The Kirkland side is even worse – it just ends at South Kirkland Park and Ride.
https://www.soundtransit.org/system-expansion/south-kirkland-issaquah-link
It’d be one thing if it was wildly expensive but actually delivered something of value. Instead it stops short of being useful. With another billion or so it might be a decent (if extremely expensive) line, but that’s not what’s being proposed here and I think it’s extremely unlikely that ST can find money for major extensions
A BRT system could actually reach useful destinations. Imagine regular express service from all over Issaquah (something like Issaquah Highlands, Front St, Gilman, and the transit center) directly to Bellevue and Kirkland downtown
The problem is that the Issaquah-Kirkland line fails on the basic premise of providing service to the two cities.
Exactly.
We expect Issaquah Link to bring Seattleites to Issaquah, not the other way around.
But again, it fails miserably in that regard. Consider a trip to Costco Headquarters, the largest employer and by the far the highest density employment area in Issaquah*. With a train a rider from Seattle does this:
1) First take East Link across the water, then all the way north to East Main.
2) Take a second train south from East Main then over to the station in Issaquah.
3) Take a bus from there to Costco.
In contrast, consider what the alternative would be:
1) Take East Link across the water to Mercer Island.
2) Take an express bus from there to Costco. It would stop at the Eastgate Freeway station and use the 17th Avenue exit to get there.
Overall it would probably save at least fifteen minutes, while also avoiding a transfer. What is true of Costco Headquarters is true of various places in Issaquah. If I just want to visit the city itself — e. g. the Salmon Hatchery or the area around it — I am in the same boat. I have to take two trains and a bus, instead of just one bus from Mercer Island. Not only do I spend extra time waiting (these trains aren’t that frequent) but I go way out of my way in the process.
Even for Eastgate this is worse. The fastest option to Seattle is the express to Mercer Island, not a trip to East Main. Basically this is either ignored by those heading to or from Seattle, or it requires an unneeded detour. To be fair, it is faster from Downtown Bellevue to Eastgate. But it would be just as fast if they built an HOV connection between 405 and I-90 (Downtown Bellevue to Issaquah and vice versa).
You still see all travel as going to Seattle.
I do see trips involving Seattle dominating ridership. Don’t you? What is East Link ridership now — four, maybe five thousand? It has twice as many stations and much better stations than Issaquah Link will ever have, and yet it has less ridership than a typical bus in Seattle, let alone the main Link line. Various Link stations get more ridership than all of East Link right now. The One Line gets roughly 20 times the ridership of the Two Line — because it serves Seattle.
But that misses the point. Issaquah Link adds very little value. You can’t say that about the main line, or even the current East Link. Northgate to the UW is dramatically faster. So is Roosevelt to Capitol Hill. So is Beacon Hill to the UW. None of these trips even involve downtown, yet they are much faster than bus alternatives — and often faster than driving.
In contrast, Issaquah Link doesn’t offer any of that. None of the trips are significantly faster than a bus alternative, and many of the potential trips (e. g. Downtown Seattle to Issaquah) are much, much worse.
This just doesn’t add any value. It is one of those “they have a train, so we should have a train” projects. No one bothered to see whether it was actually a good train. It isn’t!
By the way did you know Kansas is the second largest rail hub in the U.S. and is planning 107 miles of passenger train service, mostly on existing tracks. You don’t have to be NYC to have passenger rail, especially on the surface. Just look at Sounder S and N.
I think you missed my point. We aren’t talking about regional rail. We aren’t talking about leveraging existing rail lines (like Sounder). We are talking about a metro. A subway. Miles of brand new track with a handful of brand new extensions. Issaquah Link was estimated to cost $3.3 billion back in 2015, it would probably cost close to four billion now. Yet it would offer no significant improvement over a much cheaper project involving buses. In fact, for a lot of the riders, a bus-based solution would be much better. So we are looking at about a million dollars per rider and only a handful (if any) would be better off.
My greater point is when people say things like “this city has 80,000 people” it is meaningless. They could be very spread out, or concentrated in a handful of neighborhoods. If everyone in Kansas lived in Wichita then it would definitely make sense to build a subway there. But they don’t. They are spread out all over the place, which is why a subway serving all of Kansas would be silly.
When it comes to transit it is far more meaningful to look at density. It doesn’t mean that those are the only places to consider for a subway — you have to consider a potential network as well — but the total number of people is meaningless.
Glenn in Portland,
“Including the surrounding areas like North Bend, Sammamish, Snoqualmie, Eastgate and Factoria, and the ride shed Issaquah Link will reach by having a stop at the Eastgate park and ride, that is over 100,000 people, more than West Seattle or Ballard”.
“By that measure, you should also include the vast areas north of Ballard, such as crown hill, all of which regularly fill the buses on the 40 and the D”.
Fair point, and I assume Ballard Link is predicated on this population to the north, none of whom will be able to walk to the station. But I am not suggesting Ballard Link be converted into a RR or Stride line that starts 8.3 miles from Ballard, which is the distance from Issaquah to Eastgate.
John D,
“The problem is that the Issaquah-Kirkland line fails on the basic premise of providing service to the two cities. Take a look at the map of the proposed line (link below). The map says “Central Issaquah”, but doesn’t really reach into Issaquah; it just ends somewhere north of the transit center. The Kirkland side is even worse – it just ends at South Kirkland Park and Ride”.
Fair point. But by the time 2046+ rolls around I think Kirkland will allow Link to continue to downtown, if it is underground like in West Seattle and Ballard.
Re: Issaquah, right now it is hard to identify “the center”. It is a very large downtown, but I see a center forming over the next 20-30 years. East Link stops several uphill blocks from Bellevue Way, which is the center of Bellevue. The issue with the eastside is today there are not a lot of “centers”, which is why eastside transit and Link rely so heavily on park and rides or feeder buses. But West Seattle has three stations because there is no real center. It isn’t like Lynnwood Link accesses the city center. Tacoma Dome is not the “center” of Tacoma. I am sure Kirkland and Issaquah will implement shuttles or other transit to get from the Links station around their towns, if additional stations are not built.
Ross B,
“In contrast, consider what the alternative would be:
“1) Take East Link across the water to Mercer Island.
“2) Take an express bus from there to Costco. It would stop at the Eastgate Freeway station and use the 17th Avenue exit to get there”.
Maybe, depending on traffic and frequency, but there are a lot of other parts of Link in which a bus would be quicker, certainly south of Seattle. Issaquah Link would be quicker to Bellevue and Kirkland than a RR/Stride bus, certainly one that begins at Eastgate. The one thing that might affect things is if Issaquah and ST agree to run a one seat bus from Issaquah to Seattle in addition to the 554 to Bellevue Way when East Link opens. A lot of chatter about this on our social media. The bus would make a few stops at the larger park and rides in Issaquah, Eastgate, skip Mercer Island, and run up 4th Ave. S. to Denny and then turn around during peak times. I think it is easier selling a one seat bus ride than a two seat ride if you want a city to give up Link.
In the end I think Issaquah Link is also political. Issaquah fought for Issaquah Link, there are not a lot of other areas to site LINK on the eastside with any great “center”, and I don’t see any legal mechanism to change ST 3 if the city or area opposes the change and there is the money for it. No one on the Eastside is saying abandon Issaquah—Kirkland Link and those are the only folks that count in the subarea.
Some talk about changing the selection of the Board, but when they talk about “future” decisions the new Board would make those decisions would be ST 4 or later, unless of course the subarea does not have the revenue to complete its Link projects which is a different issue.
Right now, there is zero interest in Issaquah about abandoning Link for buses, although it is a ways off. Folks here think they have paid their ST taxes, Issaquah is very important center on the eastside, Link was promised in ST 3 which is why many voted yes, a lot of other Link lines and stations are not very good or dense and more expensive, and the city and council would fight changing Issaquah Link to a bus.
Same with Kirkland. ST estimates some pretty high ridership on Issaquah—Kirkland Link. Let’s see what happens with WSBLE and then Tacoma and Everett Link. If they get built there is zero chance Issaquah Link won’t get built, although I think there is almost zero chance Issaquah Link won’t get built anyway because there is no one who can change it except Issaquah and maybe Kirkland.
@Issaquah Resident
The problem isn’t political, it’s capital. Sound Transit doesn’t have money to extend the Issaquah-Kirkland link. From my understanding, outside of a small (but vocal) minority, Kirkland and Issaquah residents support running Link through the city. The problem is that a line extension on both ends would cost multiple billions of dollars, and Sound Transit just doesn’t have the money.
Even if Sound Transit somehow comes across the money, I don’t see them prioritizing Kirkland or Issaquah over the other regions. At the very least it would be a difficult uphill battle to prioritize extending Issaquah-Kirkland over Everett, Tacoma, Ballard, or even West Seattle or Redmond.
With BRT, existing infrastructure could get re-used to build a high-quality system to actually serve Issaquah and Kirkland. Here’s an example of a BRT line that could get built much more quickly and cheaply:
https://i.imgur.com/zyNA6tk.png
Note that it wouldn’t just provide regional connectivity for Issaquah – it’d also provide fast and frequent internal connectivity from places like Issaquah Highlands to Front St. And it’d also get built much faster due to lower capital and construction requirements – likely spinning up something like 4-8 years faster than light rail.
Issaquah-Seattle is a different story and would require a different solution; Issaquah-Kirkland link doesn’t do a good job of solving for that either. From Issaquah riders have to go quite far out of their way (to East Main station near downtown Bellevue) for the transfer to Line 2.
In discussing Issaquah Link, please keep in mind that there could be substantial cost savings by looking at other approaches too — like an automated system that uses mostly single track segments, or a BART Oakland Airport connector technology between Bellevue College and Link, or a self-propelled rail line like Arrow in San Bernardino. I’m not saying that one is preferred; I’m only saying that Issaquah Link is an overly expensive thing to build and operate especially since the specs for the technology are 55 mph max (slower than an express bus today).
As others have pointed out, it’s spending billions on a slower transit trip — just like many other ST3 projects.
> The problem isn’t political, it’s capital. Sound Transit doesn’t have money to extend the Issaquah-Kirkland link. From my understanding, outside of a small (but vocal) minority, Kirkland and Issaquah residents support running Link through the city. The problem is that a line extension on both ends would cost multiple billions of dollars, and Sound Transit just doesn’t have the money.
Kirkland section is pretty easy to extend if at grade but has local* pushback from building on the ERC. *Not all locals of course
Issaquah has the opposite problem where the city and residents do want Link but it is hard to connect it to Bellevue or Seattle directly. The original plan was adjusted to connect Issaquah to at least Bellevue but it is still hard to reach Seattle with the transfer point at East main instead of south bellevue.
> Fair point. But by the time 2046+ rolls around I think Kirkland will allow Link to continue to downtown, if it is underground like in West Seattle and Ballard
We can’t really handwave away saying it’ll be underground on the kirkland section. It’d cost more than all of east link to build an underground segment for downtown Kirkland/totem lake. If such a line was to be built one would have to assume it’s either at-grade or elevated.
John D,
Under subarea equity any ST tax revenue raised in the East King Co. subarea must be spent in that subarea. Whether a ST project is affordable is subarea specific. The Eastside spends around $65 million every year on ST buses and some of that cost will end with the full East Link. No savings from scrapping Issaquah Link can go to a project outside the subarea.
I am not an expert but I do think the Eastside will have the ST revenue to extend Issaquah Link into the city centers. The growth of the Eastside just since 2016 when ST 3 was estimated has been mind boggling. If not, then the other options are to extend a surface line to the city centers or feeder buses. Link on the Eastside has been much less expensive per mile than in Seattle.
Bus RR is always faster to build and cheaper than Link. That is true for WSBLE, Everett and Lynnwood Link, Tacoma Dome Link, and so on. Look at how slow Link is through the RV. But that isn’t what was promised in the levy. Who knows, maybe the next chair of the Board will be from Issaquah or Kirkland like Dow is from WS. If your argument is all of ST 3 should have been rapid buses with a much smaller levy (and no Sounder) I could understand that argument (and Lynnwood Link).
Issaquah Link is a long ways off. But if it is affordable by the subarea it will get built. ST determined in 2016 Issaquah Link was the best use of the money in the subarea. Issaquah and Kirkland won’t agree to “rapid” buses because we have that today although the exits from I-90 to 405 need upgrades which they will get.
I think only Issaquah and Kirkland can change Issaquah Link. There is no authority within the Eastside subarea to do this. The Board can’t and won’t unless it isn’t affordable. Issaquah and Kirkland residents have paid for Link to Bellevue (including a tunnel) and even to Redmond for 3000 boardings/day according to ST.
Let’s see what happens with WSBLE, Tacoma and Everett Link which probably are not affordable by the subarea although ST says they are even if all underground like in WSBLE under the new designs. . Who has the authority to convert WS or Ballard Link to buses if the revenue is not adequate for Link in the subarea? That will be interesting.
I will also extra note that whether a freeway BRT or the existing proposed light rail, it is just in general hard to build near the i90/i405 interchange.
the factoria station would almost always be placed on the north side of the interchange. For freeway brt proposals one could add in some extra stations like near 150th that bellevue investigated, and the lakemont one that is currently deferred. And also the past hov direct access ramps proposals in issaquah and highlands that weren’t build in sound move/st2. though again the i90 interchange is pretty hard for a bus on i90 to reach the i405 center median lanes, I have no real idea how it would reach it.
> Who has the authority to convert WS or Ballard Link to buses if the revenue is not adequate for Link in the subarea? That will be interesting.
They won’t run out of money for west seattle as they can raid the coffers of all the other projects first. Ballard link practically has already run out of money even before construction has started.
@all
speaking of kirkland-issaquah link, does anyone know if any planning or any documents have been done yet? It has been 8 years since ST3 was voted in, there’s no way sound transit hasn’t investigated the route at least a little bit by now. Or are all the documents just not released to the public?
I do think that two points are relevant here.
1. Renton is an East King subarea community within ST subareas. It’s the second most populous one and it’s getting just the new transit center at Grady and Rainier, the new 44th stop on 405 and Stride service itself but that’s it. So a pretty good case could be made that the funds could go to Renton anyway and that would still be in the East King subarea.
2. The proposed South Kirkland Station may not actually be in the City of Kirkland and at most Kirkland is planned to just get a few hundred feet of rail track. Then the South Kirkland Station is projected to get terrible ridership. So I don’t think Kirkland has much leverage here. If they got too demanding, ST can easily do things like drop or move the station. I actually think that getting the South Kirkland segment built could end up dropped or moved because of cost, construction mitigation and general opposition to the station design details. It’s a lot of last half-mile difficulty just to get to the existing garage (originally following Eastrail) and build a station.
Al S.,
Who has the authority to make the decisions you raise? Not ST. No city in East King Co. certainly no city outside the subarea. Maybe the Board, but Issaquah and Kirkland are heavy weight cities on the Eastside. Is Balducci really going to tell them no Link for them and tear up ST 3. Those would be massive lawsuits. Where else has the Board deviated from ST 3? West Seattle is getting three stations underground at a fortune.
The points you raise are good ones if it was 2015 or 2016. But the decisions were made in ST 3. Renton wanted improvements to 405 that IMO are more important for Renton.
When it comes to Kirkland it has already shown ST who is the boss just like Bellevue did. I agree S. Kirkland is not the best terminus but Kirkland was not going to use Eastrail and wasn’t going to have a surface light rail train running through its fantastic downtown. ST thought Kirkland (and Bellevue) should get the Walmart version of Link.
I would love Kirkland Link to run to downtown Kirkland but to do so probably means underground. Like West Seattle, Ballard and Roosevelt. Considering the density Kirkland has downtown and population density downtown I could see the line extended to downtown Kirkland, or close, but underground.
For Issaquah with less density I think Link will need more than one station, probably near large park and rides and one or two downtown. I don’t think a surface or elevated line would be a big deal if they paralleled I-90.
Issaquah—Kirkland Link will be built. The better focus is how to make it better. For Kirkland that is an underground extension to its downtown, and for Issaquah probably 2-3 stations but not nearly as expensive as the station at 130th St. that makes little sense to me if spending the money wisely is the point although that is not my subarea.
But I agree with Wesley. If I lived in Ballard I would be seeing all the money for Ballard Link being spent in other areas of the subarea. Maybe Ballard is the Renton of the west side.
@Issaquah Resident
It’s simply not true that Kirkland blocked the light rail from entering downtown. Kirkland was and is relatively pro-transit, and was pushing for BRT along the Eastrail corridor. They even paid a consultant to study the line in an attempt to sway Sound Transit. Those plans were shot down by Sound Transit, who decided on Light Rail and then decided to trim the line because they couldn’t afford to run it all the way to Kirkland.
I have no idea where the myth that Kirkland opposed the transit line comes from. There was a very small but vocal minority in Kirkland that wanted to block the transit line, but they did not represent the actual city and I do not believe their complaints made a meaningful difference in the final decision. After it was decided to run Light Rail on the corridor, it came down to an issue of capital.
Coverage from STB: https://seattletransitblog.com/2015/11/16/kirklands-brt-design/
This was written by Jay Arnold, a Kirkland City Councilmember at the time and current Deputy Mayor: https://seattletransitblog.com/2015/08/27/st3-brt-erc/
Take a look at the CKC Master Plan and note that it includes transit on the corridor: https://www.kirklandwa.gov/Government/Departments/Public-Works-Department/Cross-Kirkland-Corridor/Cross-Kirkland-Corridor-Master-Plan
John D, thank you for the links.
I remember this debate. The folks opposed to developing the trail were more than a vocal minority. My problem was it didn’t serve downtown Kirkland. It was a sop to Google which never built, but left the regular rider closer to Rose Hill than downtown Kirkland.
If there is the money I would rather see Link to S. Kirkland and then hopefully downtown Kirkland than BRT that drops a rider off next to 405 and develops an important bike and pedestrian trail. I think ST got this one right, although the one constant was Kirkland despite all its claims of being pro transit and TOD didn’t want surface rail or surface BRT in the downtown core. As the first link notes, Kirkland wanted BRT as far east as possible. That is hardly pro transit, just like Bellevue running Link along 112th.
And to be honest Issaquah despite pushing for Link didn’t offer up prime land for its one station. But then in 2016 Issaquah unlike Kirkland really didn’t have a core, and still today segregates housing and retail although I think that will change, and according to so many on this blog the arrival of Link will help create more density.
I think if the N King Co subarea that has the same ST tax revenue as East King Co. subarea can build tunnels and underground stations from West Seattle to Ballard and from U District to Northgate the Eastside can build underground rail from S Kirkland to downtown Kirkland. I think the money will be there in 2046 or so.
I don’t think Issaquah will go for BRT instead of Link, and I don’t think Kirkland will allow BRT in downtown Kirkland so what good is BRT that drops you off at the top of the hill next to 405. I never thought Kirkland was being genuine about TOD with its BRT proposal “as far east” as possible.
> I have no idea where the myth that Kirkland opposed the transit line comes from. There was a very small but vocal minority in Kirkland that wanted to block the transit line, but they did not represent the actual city and I do not believe their complaints made a meaningful difference in the final decision. After it was decided to run Light Rail on the corridor, it came down to an issue of capital.
John it was not a myth and at least a sizable opposition to running light rail on the corridor. Oversimplifying: the city council wanted to run buses, while some kirkland residents wanted any transit while vocal opposition for the trail was against light rail on the corridor.
“”””
This evening, Tuesday March 15, the Kirkland City Council is planning on voting to ratify a letter that, among other things, contains the following statement.
“If light rail on the Cross Kirkland Corridor is included in the ST 3 package, Kirkland would have to oppose the ballot measure.”
“”””
If the city council voting to ratify against light rail on the corridor is not enough proof of opposition I’m not exactly sure what is.
https://www.theurbanist.org/2016/03/15/kirkland-to-vote-to-oppose-light-rail-tomorrow/
https://www.kirklandreporter.com/news/many-voice-opposition-to-buses-light-rail-on-kirkland-trail-during-open-meeting/
@Wesley Lin
My understanding is that a rail corridor to downtown Kirkland was never on the table, and that Kirkland City Council was specifically opposed to rail because it would not have connected to downtown Kirkland
The first link is quite slanted, and the second link shows that the City was in support of transit along Eastrail:
“However, the city’s explanations didn’t satisfy many of the audience members. At one point they laughed sarcastically when city officials tried to assure them that the two possible rapid transit projects on the CKC wouldn’t wreck the interim trail.”
And on the cost issue: https://seattletransitblog.com/2015/05/12/the-eastside-needs-better-choices/
“The high-end cost estimate for Totem Lake to Issaquah rail is $2.67B (vs. about $900M each for East Link and I-405 BRT). With Eastside revenues well under $4B, Sound Transit could build to either Totem Lake OR Issaquah, but not both.”
@John
Yes, I know the Kirkland city council was in favor of transit — however they were specifically in favor of BRT. If you check the article you’ll note it says “The city’s hope is for Sound Transit to build a two-lane BRT system from Totem Lake to downtown Bellevue, with around 6-8 stations in Kirkland, where electric buses to stop every six and a half minutes. Sound Transit has an easement on the CKC.”
> The high-end cost estimate for Totem Lake to Issaquah rail is $2.67B (vs. about $900M each for East Link and I-405 BRT)
Sound Transit chose to build i405 brt instead. Also you’ll note they spent the extra money saved on shortening the kirkland line for issaquah link’s flyover i-405, that $2.67 billion dollar figure is based on it heading up CRC and bypassing bellevue downtown to wilburton. I mean the existing planned south kirkland to issaquah line costs $3.3 billion dollars.
@Wesley Lin
Another source: https://seattletransitblog.com/2016/03/14/a-grand-bargain-for-kirkland-in-st3/
“Kirkland developed a detailed Bus Rapid Transit plan for its Cross Kirkland Corridor in response to two perceived limitations of light rail, namely that a small capital package would render light rail unaffordable and that light rail was inappropriate for a rail-trail corridor that misses the heart of downtown Kirkland. The City and Sound Transit are at an impasse on the project, with Sound Transit preferring light rail given the likelihood of a larger package and because the preponderance of public comment strongly favored light rail over BRT. Kirkland has remained steadfast despite these new realities, threatening to publicly oppose the ballot measure (pages 12-13) if light rail is included. Meanwhile, citizen activism via the Save Our Trail group threatens any transit investment in the corridor”
@Wesley Lin
Maybe I am mistaken. My understanding of what happened was:
– Sound Transit comes up with a few suggested lines. None of the rail lines connect to downtown Kirkland (Eastrail is too far east)
– Kirkland opposes rail to Totem Lake because it didn’t connect to anything (Totem Lake was fairly industrial at the time) and pushes for BRT to downtown Kirkland instead (via Eastrail)
– Kirkland and Sound Transit are unable to come to an agreement
– In the end, Sound Transit decides to end the line in South Kirkland and “serve” downtown Kirkland by rebuilding the 405/85th St interchange
@John D
> Maybe I am mistaken. My understanding of what happened was….
It’s kinda generally correct though I can elaborate a bit more.
The original plan was for light rail from Totem Lake via Wilburton (not bellevue) to Issaquah.
> This project would build light rail from Totem Lake to the East Link Hospital Station in Bellevue with some sections at-grade and other sections elevated, utilizing the Eastside Rail Corridor. It would continue to downtown Issaquah generally following the I-90 corridor and would include examination of a Park and Ride Facility in Issaquah.
You can view it here 2015 the project E-03 https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/project-documents/2015_0827_ST3_CandidateProjectsList_web.pdf
There were broadly 5 separate parties, kirkland city council, the general public of kirkland, issaquah, sound transit and even wsdot.
There were three problems with it, 1) kirkland (city council) recognized it the stations were far from important destinations and wanted a brt instead 2) kirkland trail supporters didn’t want transit on the line (though I think? were slightly more accepting of a bus over a train) 3) issaquah was annoyed that their light rail line would head to wilburton.
Then came in an unexpected item. WSDOT was planning on building express lanes along lynnwood to bellevue and bellevue to renton. Originally i-405 brt was actually going to be right curb-side brt using shoulders and flyover stops. Sound Transit decided to change their plans for rail for kirkland to totem lake/woodinville into the Stride BRT program using center lanes (and the kirkland 85th interchange).
“Kirkland’s light rail” money* was reallocated to the Issaquah Link to flyover i-405 so it can reach east main satisfying issaquah to connect to at least bellevue downtown. Whereas the rest of kirkland would just skip light rail. If kirkland (city council/general populace/trail proponents) was more accepting of light rail sound transit probably have funded a simpler stride 2 and instead there would be light rail proposed to be built along ERC.
Also an fyi I checked the hyperlink for “preponderance of public comment strongly favored light rail over BRT”, the study is a general one about people rating ST3 projects, and does not really prove anything about people supporting light rail over brt for kirkland ERC. There actually isn’t an option to vote on BRT on ERC in the survey.
*I mean that’s how Issaquah Link got so much money to build there.
though again the i90 interchange is pretty hard for a bus on i90 to reach the i405 center median lanes, I have no real idea how it would reach it.
It actually doesn’t look that bad. The challenge appears more height than the other two dimensions. The freeway separates west of Eastgate, which is good. So initially the lanes just come from there. It has to then go way up and join with the northbound center HOV lane of 405 (that already exists). Again that doesn’t look that difficult. Southbound is a bit harder, but it is the same idea. You have to go over the northbound lane, but there appears to be enough room.
By no means is this cheap. But it is much cheaper than building rail all the way to Issaquah. It also doesn’t look as bad as some interchanges where I would like to see HOV-lane connections, like 520/405.
Bus RR is always faster to build and cheaper than Link. That is true for WSBLE, Everett and Lynnwood Link, Tacoma Dome Link, and so on. Look at how slow Link is through the RV.
But that is because it serves Rainier Valley! There are a lot of people in Rainier Valley that have a very good connection to not only downtown, but other places like SeaTac, Capitol Hill and the UW. That is the difference.
Consider a better example. I’ve used this example before, but I like it, so I’ll use it again. Imagine a commuter who lives in the Northgate neighborhood (say 5th & Northgate Way) and works downtown. Ten years ago they took a bus that would pick them up a couple blocks from their home. It would then go through the streets of Northgate, get on the express lanes, and be downtown in a jiffy. Towards the end of its run it was basically open BRT — they had all-door boarding; Metro officials downtown had hand-held ORCA readers allowing a lot of people to get on the back. It was fantastic.
Now, of course, that is gone. Riders have to take a bus to the Northgate Station, go up to the platform and wait for the train. It costs them a lot of time as well as the hassle of a transfer. But in exchange they get something truly amazing! Extremely fast travel times to other, major destinations like the UW and Capitol Hill. Sure, that commuter’s trip to downtown is a bit slower, but so many other trips are much, much faster. Trips that thousands and thousands of people take.
With Issaquah Link, that isn’t the case. People would have to make extra transfers but they get nothing in exchange, since there are no significant time savings with any trip.
@mike
Maybe we could have a brief article about the current representative alignment and suggested station locations of issaquah link given it seems like most people don’t know where it is and it’s stuck away in pdf documents
I’m thinking about how we can address it. Maybe a link in the next open thread. There’s not really enough information for an entire article, and there’s nothing new to report.
@Mike
I like the idea of comparing Issaquah link versus the new 554 as “Issaquah Resident” noted
That could be an article. I added it to the spreadsheet. It may take a week to put together.
Given how much the design has changed for other Link extensions, I don’t think anything has been decided about its final station positioning. West Seattle plans are different from the starting point, for example.
I would rather ST spend its money doing Bellevue College and Factoria stops right (easy destination access) as opposed to putting stations further out in a sea of parking.
Of course the planning won’t begin for at least 5-10 years. There’s plenty of time for Bellevue College to work with ST — if the organizations want to — to propose something awesome! Fingers crossed!
> Given how much the design has changed for other Link extensions, I don’t think anything has been decided about its final station positioning. West Seattle plans are different from the starting point, for example.
Sure, but in general it’ll probably be similar or slightly adjusted. large changes like moving it to the south of i90 closer to factoria are unlikely.
I mean the west seattle plans were changed from facing ending west because people knew about the plans and wanted it to continue south. How can anyone ask/advocate for a different station location if they don’t even know about it.
I think the 554 when East Link opens across the bridge and the 554 is rerouted to Bellevue will be a good test case for the alignment of Issaquah Link. The routes are quite similar to S. Bellevue. The number of riders on the 554 will be important data. The 554 is pretty fast once it reaches I-90, probably as fast as Issaquah Link will be.
At the same time I don’t think you can predict because this area is changing so rapidly, and so are technology and transportation. Issaquah Link is premised on people from Issaquah taking Link to someplace else, when in 25 years it could be more people taking Link to Issaquah, which is more and more the case with our retail and hospital and fewer commuting out of Issaquah to work. It’s also predicated on traffic congestion on I-90 that is much less after Covid at least until the bridge.
I think it is hard to predict or design Issaquah Link today, especially if you don’t live in the area. If you don’t work outside Issaquah today you don’t need to leave Issaquah for anything. People who have lived in Issaquah for a long time can’t believe how it has changed despite a relatively small population although surrounding areas have grown and rely on Issaquah’s retail.
> I think the 554 when East Link opens across the bridge and the 554 is rerouted to Bellevue will be a good test case for the alignment of Issaquah Link.
The 554 reroute to south bellevue and then bellevue downtown definitely parallels Issaquah Link alignment a lot. I think it’d be interesting to compare the two a bit more in detail
Yeah, and the other thing is that the 554 will serve Issaquah Highlands, whereas Issaquah Link will not. Likewise if you are just taking the bus to get to Seattle (and transferring at South Bellevue) then Link wouldn’t add much. It is really Issaquah to Bellevue trips that matter.
“the 554 will serve Issaquah Highlands”
We still need to confirm that. The route map shows the full-time service terminating at I-90, and only “select trips” continuing to the Issaquah Highlands, Sammamish, and Marymoor Village Station. You said you thought it might be a mistake in the map. We still don’t know.
I hope all trips go to the Issaquah Highlands: that’s important to make the village more walkable, and to connect different parts of Issaquah together.
The map is clearly in error (it is not physically possible to end there). Once you get to the overpass you have to go all the way to the Highlands to actually turn around (https://maps.app.goo.gl/wt5f4H5VhdpnecNL6). Even if it was possible to end there it is nonsensical. Why would you serve the stop at Sunset Way & Rainier Boulevard and then go to the freeway only to turnaround (making no additional stops at all)?
It is theoretically possible that they meant to draw something else (e. g. the bus turning around at Sunset & Rainier) but seems like a bizarre change that comes out of nowhere. It takes five minutes to get from Sunset Way & Rainier Boulevard to the Highlands. There is an existing layover at the Highlands. A high percentage of the existing riders use the Highlands stops. Why would they suddenly change things?
Speaking of which, there is the existing route as well as the text documentation. The existing 554 serves the Highlands with every trip. If it didn’t serve the Highlands it would be major news, given the number of riders effected. It is highly likely this would be mentioned in the text, but there is nothing implying that — not a hint that things will change there. The only area it mentions that will have “select early/late trips” is Sammamish, the same situation as today.
The people who drew the map just made a boo-boo. They knew that part of the line was supposed to be solid blue, and part if it white with a blue-outline. They likely got distracted by I-90 and just goofed. It is worth noting that they made other mistakes. For example they only show three stops between the freeway and South Sammamish Park and Ride. Right now there are four. Should people worry that their stop will suddenly disappear? Of course not. The map was crudely written and is flawed.
Looking at this again – shouldn’t the B take the route of the 245? The routing is much better on the south end. The 245 could follow the 223 routing after passing through Microsoft
I’m not sure I follow you. Are you talking about the B route after they do the restructure (https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/metro/programs-and-projects/east-link-connections)? Or are you talking about this proposal, which is a bus that just stays along NE 8th after crossing 405.
They are two different beasts. The B is similar to what exists now, but just a bit straighter and faster. The 222 and 223 backfill existing service. With this proposal the bus on NE 8th just goes east-west, while buses like the 245 and 223 go north-south.
This proposal – I think you are referring to the proposed east-west B line.
I think the north-south B line should follow the route of the 245 once it passes Microsoft, rather than the path of the 223