RapidRide Corridor 3101 + 1028 (RapidRide B + 271)

65 Replies to “RapidRide Corridor 3101 + 1028 (RapidRide B + 271)”

1. Is there a reason that the NE 6th Street extension project isn’t mentioned? It’s project 26 in the Bellevue transportation plan listed and linked in the post.

   It’s unfunded in that document.

   The reason I mention it is because this part of this bus corridor would shift from NE 8th to NE 6th as the route crosses I-5.

   Given how Bellevue is excited by the Grand Connection idea, I wasn’t sure how important it still is or if it would be folded into the bigger Grand Connection project.

   1. Hi, I think I just forgot to include that one thanks for the call out, I might edit the article and include that one. Yes that one actually is slightly funded (25k funded this cycle for a study out of the 90 million required)

      But yes both the RapidRide k and this rapidride B + 271 could use the 6th street extension to skip some heavy delays along the corridor.

      For some additional information, originally ne 6th extensions was supposed to be included for the renton to bellevue tollway expansion but was excluded after having a shortfall in funding. WSDOT might fund it when they do the next freeway build on 405 along with the lake hills connector southbound ramp https://bellevuewa.gov/city-government/departments/transportation/projects/state-highway-projects-bellevue/south-downtown but I’m not sure.

      1. Thanks for writing the article!

         There are so many piecemeal projects in Bellevue that it’s easy to skip over one.

         The project is rather costly to do. The main beneficiary would be bus riders.

         There have been proposals to take it further east to 120th. I am not sure if it’s worth the challenge going further east than 116th. Having this bus route turn to stop at Wilburton seems better for riders.

      2. I wonder how they’ll handle the Chick-Fil-A. The drive-thru backs up around the block

      3. @John D., interesting point.

         If there isn’t a stop on that section of 116th, the bus could take the left lane and be fine (since the drive-through traffic is in the right lane). But, there has to be a stop somewhere around the intersection of 116th and 8th – and it’ll ideally be right at the intersection, next to Wilburton Station.

         But then, having the stop on the southwest corner isn’t ideal anyway, because then people would have to cross two streets to reach the station.
         Ideally, the stop would be on the northeast corner before the turn… but then the bus would have trouble getting in the left lane to make the turn.
         Perhaps it’d be least-bad to give Wilburton station up as a lost cause and instead put a stop at 6th and 112th convenient to the downhill entrance to Bellevue Downtown Station?

         In that case, the 8th/116th stop could be moved south of the Chik-Fil-A to Woods Coffee, or east to 120th, or perhaps this could be used as an excuse to build 6th St all the way through to 120th so the bus can avoid that intersection altogether.

      4. It would be cool if the NE 6th St extension was designed to curve northward and run underneath and next to the Link tracks between 116th and NE 8th.

         That would enable RapidRide stops just south of NE 8th at Wilburton Station, and taken this route out of the delay and hassles of making two turns at 116th.

         I’m not sure if it would be worth it. But it seems fashionable these days to ignore any cost-benefit analysis on choosing transit options.

      5. @Al S.

         It would be nice if the extension went all the way through to 120th to break up the superblock

2. If the proposed western end is already moving through the U-District and looping at 45th, would a minor extension northward to at least 50th make sense? 45th is a place with lots of pedestrians so turning bus there is already rather unsafe for pedestrians. Plus there is lots of activity and dense housing between there and Ravenna.

   Given how this route is already long (about 13 miles) I can see why it may not be a good idea. But given how 45th is a congested area, it seems to me that adding a few more blocks and one more RapidRide stop with a place to more easily reverse the bus direction could make it both easier to drive as well as add some additional riders.

   I don’t know the street details of this area, so I can’t pinpoint the best place to loop this route’s buses — but 45th probably isn’t it.

   1. 45th on that section has BAT lanes.

      You can view it on google maps or here:

      https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/SDOT/TransitProgram/TPMC%20Route%2044/UDistrict60.pdf

      Alternatively it could turn left southbound on NE 43rd after reaching the U district stop.

      1. I see the issue more as one of pedestrians in crosswalks conflicting with turning buses. A BAT lane is nice to have — but it doesn’t really help the conflict I’m concerned about. It just seems easier for me to have buses turn at a less busy street. 43rd could work!

   2. The buses currently turn left on 43rd then right on 12th, where they lay over before starting a new run by turning right on 45th

   3. Yeah, what John said. There are a lot of buses that are turning around, laying over or just passing by the U-District Station. I think the 48 does the type of thing you are suggesting while the 49, 70 and 372 is similar to the 271. It is complicated. There are issues with simply finding space to layover, turning around, which street to cover, and of course, trolley wire (for some of the buses). There is also the issue of through-routing (which is different, but related). It is quite complicated, and probably deserves its own post at some point (I’ve considered writing something).

      1. There are former layover places that could be revived, like University Way between 50th and 52nd. And maybe new places between 50th and 55th or south of Campus Parkway.

      2. Sure, or Memorial Parkway. It is complicated. Some get sent over here, some over there. But the main thing is, this is just one bus among many. I see no reason why this bus would follow a different routing than similar buses.

         If we want to change the routing of the buses around the U-District, it is a complicated subject. It involves buses with wire, buses that are currently through-routed, buses that run on Roosevelt, University Way and 15th. In the past I’ve thought about some ideas, but the 271 (or the future equivalent) is only one tiny piece of it.

   4. Perhaps the west terminal loop should be changed; NE 43rd Street is needed for the electric trolleybus routes. Memorial Way would be a good place for all the SR-520 routes to lay; all could serve the stops on 15th Avenue NE (e.g., routes 255, 542, B-271).

3. I really dislike the loopback on Northup. I wonder if the bus could just skip the Yarrow Point station? Yarrow Point to UW is and will be well served by the 255 and 542, and the 249 would less frequent but would take riders to Bellevue TC

   1. I really dislike the loopback on Northup. I wonder if the bus could just skip the Yarrow Point station?

      I don’t think that is why it is doing the little loop. I think it is just so that the bus can access the HOV lanes sooner. Assuming there are no stops on Northup, that opens up the possibility of letting it be “driver’s choice”. If traffic is light, then just use the ramps on Bellevue Way. If traffic is crawling, then backtrack to Northup and use the HOV ramps. The 41 used to do that in the afternoons when the express lanes were going the wrong way. Sometimes it would get on the mainline at Northgate, but often it would go down 5th to 75th. Sometimes the driver would even exit the freeway at 45th and then reenter the freeway using the HOV lane entrance.

      Yarrow Point is an interesting issue though. We don’t want to force the bus to backtrack every time just to serve a stop like Yarrow Point. As you mentioned, riders can get to the UW via other buses. Riders heading to Downtown Bellevue can use the 249. You wouldn’t want to delay the vast majority of riders (those traveling between Bellevue and the UW when traffic is light) just to serve a handful of riders who prefer this bus.

      Then again, I think the bus can use the Bellevue Way ramps and still serve the station. It is a bit tight, but doesn’t look terrible to me. It is about 1/3 of a mile from the merge point to the HOV exit. This means two lane changes in about 20 seconds (if cars are going full speed). That doesn’t seem that difficult. Not exactly great, but reasonable.

      If Metro feels like it is too tight, then just skip Yarrow Point. It isn’t worth it.

      Note: Back when ST ran a bunch of buses to Yarrow Point (and had stop data for buses) very few people used that stop, and only a handful were headed to Bellevue. You can see this in the “520” section of this document: https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/2020-service-implementation-plan.pdf

      1. Agree with RossB’s comments about Yarrow Point. I’ll also add that most of the ridership that Yarrow Point does get is (anecdotally) transfers between a downtown bus and a U-district bus. If the 270 didn’t serve Yarrow Point, such transfers involving the 270 would simply be made at Evergreen Point, with zero impact to the rider. And also, that I expects Yarrow Point’s ridership numbers to drop considerably once the 545 is discontinued, leaving to much less reason to want to transfer there.

4. Make it two routes. Break it in two at the Bellevue TC to make the routes more reliable. If it’s all one route, the service will be more unreliable.

   1. The point of the corridor is to consider combining the two already-existing routes into one: the entire 270, the east-west leg of the B. I think the interesting question is what will Metro do with the other half of the B if this route is a Tier 2 priority, but the combination of the north-south segment with the 226 (discussed yesterday) is a Tier 3 priority?

      1. And I’m saying I think it would be a mistake to combine the two routes into one. I think it would lessen the route’s reliability.

   2. It does kind of feel like Metro wanted to move RapidRide B to Bellevue College, Factoria and South Bellevue because the current route is substantially superseded by Link. That left them with the NE 8th St segment left over — and they felt obligated to tie it to something to call it a RapidRide.

      I think a good case could be made to have turn the NE 8th south at 8th and Bellevue Way, serve Ild Bellevue and end at South Bellevue station. I know there is an interest in having that route be run by ST but it should really be a Metro service. Note too that much of the NE 8th corridor is in the Bellevue HS attendance zone and plenty of these residents shop and dine on Bellevue Way (not just the mall) and recreate at the Downtown park.

      Instead of tying service on 520 (Route 271 segment) to NE 8th (with very few through trips beyond BTC) I think it could be more strategic to extend a little bit inside Seattle instead. Fremont, South Lake Union or somewhere on north Aurora could provide some interesting connections.

   3. Hi, I originally thought the route had lots of potential, but after analyzing the travel times I’m not quite as sure and a solid case could be made for maintaining them as split with the 270 from UD to bellevue and the B from bellevue to crossroads.

      Regarding the length, it’s actually not that different. the current B is 8 miles while the new route is 10 miles — albeit on a freeway.

   4. Make it two routes.

      I wouldn’t. I think there are a few reasons to split a route:

      1) It is too long. There are all sorts of problems with routes that are too long (reliability being one). I don’t see that with this route (especially if they add the improvements they want to make).

      2) The geometry is wrong. Various trip pairs won’t happen, especially through a point where it makes sense to split. For example, consider the future 333. It seems highly unlikely that riders will ride through the college from either direction. That means going really far to the west, then coming back east (in an area where there aren’t that many riders, other than in the college itself). This particular route doesn’t have that problem. In fact it is quite linear. I think every trip pair makes sense.

      3) There is much better pairing available. To go back to that previous example, the northern part of the 333 could exist, while the southern part could be the tail of the future 72. That way riders from Lake City have a one-seat ride to the college. With this bus you are sacrificing some of the existing B trips. I’m not sure how many though, and some of those will be one-seat rides on different buses. My guess is you are asking a few people to make a transfer, while plenty of others get a one-seat ride to the UW.

      1. And, that one route would be more unreliable than two routes. One route, for example, would really hurt people along NE 8th street whose destination probably isn’t the UW/U District. They may just be trying to get to downtown Bellevue, the Bellevue TC, or Bellevue Downtown Link station from somewhere along NE 8th, but congestion in the U District is delaying their bus. Two routes would solve that problem and make travel along the NE 8th corridor much more reliable and predictable. They deserve to have reliable, frequent bus service. Extending a NE 8th bus route out to the U District will increase the routes unreliability.

         The only good thing that can be said about having it be one route is it would solve the BTC layover problem. If it was two routes, they are going to have figure out where the two converging BTC-bound routes will layover.

      2. You are basically arguing that the route is too long, but I disagree. The trip from UW to Bellevue is quite fast. The 520 mess is just about over. They plan on adding BAT lanes on Bellevue Way, which doesn’t actually look that bad. Likewise they are planning on adding BAT lanes for NE 8th. Overall it looks fairly quick and reliable.

         There is always a balance. The shorter the route the more reliable it is, but the more people have to transfer. In this case it would be unnecessary. There are plenty of trips (NE 8th to the UW or NE 8th to Bellevue Way) that would have plenty of riders. Even just consider a trip from NE 8th to Downtown Bellevue. The transit center is perched on the edge of downtown (not the middle). If the bus ended there then you have a long walk to other parts of downtown or a transfer.

         Then there is the cost. Splitting routes costs money because you have more layover time. For example consider the E. It is extremely long. It takes a lot longer to complete a trip of the E then this bus. So should we split it? No. If we split it then a lot of riders would have to transfer. Not only that, but it costs a lot more money. The same goes for pretty much all of our routes. If your only concern was reliability than most of the routes would be split, riders would be forced to make more transfers, expenses would go up, and ultimately ridership would go down.

         Again, there is a balance. There are routes that I would definitely split, but this isn’t one of them. This is a very good combination of service, with a lot of very good one-seat rides.

      3. The north part of Route 333 could be Route 347; it could extend to Bitter Lake via NE/North 145th Street. Route 72 will deviate to the South Shoreline Station; the latitude is NE 148th Street. The parts of Route 333 between North 145th Street and Shorewood and along NE 175th Street could be deleted. Other route do or could serve the north-south part. No route need serve the I-5 and Ronald Bog segment of NE 175th Street.

      4. @eddie — I like some of those ideas, but they are a bit off-topic. I brought up the 333 just as an example of a route that is begging for a split. In contrast, I don’t think that is the case here. Not at all. It sounds perfectly reasonable for someone in NE 8th to want to go the north or east end of Downtown Bellevue. Or go up to the north end of Bellevue Way. Or to head to the UW. In contrast no one is going to ride the 333 from 145th & Aurora to 175th & Aurora given it does this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/JF3rWtGJxS2tqDpt8.

5. “It does kind of feel like Metro wanted to move RapidRide B to Bellevue College, Factoria and South Bellevue because the current route is substantially superseded by Link.”

   But it’s not. We’ve been through that many times: Link can’t replace the 106 or A because the in-between areas need transit stops. Link doesn’t really serve the Overlake Village retail: it’s way off in a corner. If you’re in Crossroads, you can’t even get a frequent route to Overlake Village Station because of its location: you have to bypass it and go to Redmond Tech station. It won’t work for Crossroads to Spring District transfers. It’s unlikely for Crossroads to the hospitals unless you can’t walk from the B. NE 8th Street is a different corridor from Link (16th).

   “I think the interesting question is what will Metro do with the other half of the B if this route is a Tier 2 priority”

   I’ve been wondering that too. There seem to be four possibilities in the intermediate stage: (A) extend the B so that it keeps its L shape until the north-south line, (B) implement the north-south corridor as a regular route first, like Metro did with the 160 (I) and 250 (K, although the K’s design changed), (C) turn the north-south part of the B into a regular route, or (D) delete the north-south part.

   Extending the B would be straightforward since it’s already working and it’s a short line. Travel time/reliability may be an issue if 156th/148th aren’t improved. Implementing the north-south corridor would require a bold decision like the 2010s, but Metro has gotten more hesitant about that. A short route from downtown Redmond to Crossroads may seem short and silly. Deleting the north-south part would leave a gap between downtown Redmond and NE 70th where the 245 turns. The 223 goes to downtown Redmond but it’s too infrequent and out of place to replace the north-south part of the B. So Metro may really have to either extend the B or create a north-south regular route and go ahead with the 156th restructure.

   1. “ ink can’t replace the 106 or A because the in-between areas need transit stops. ”

      Conceptually you are correct, Mike. Interim destinations make RapidRide useful when paralleling Link.

      Still, I see NE 8th very differently than MLK or Pacific Highway. Iys not like much of the rest of RapidRide B either. It’s mostly single family houses with lawns and a few garden apartment complexes with the occasional minor business on that stretch. There’s even a golf course on it.

      1. That may be, but the one time I took it, the ridership in that area seemed decent enough.

         But then, I got to it from the 560, which had all of 5 passengers get on or off over the entirety from SeaTac to Bellevue. Even the 50 would have seemed busy.

      2. When you think of MLK, you don’t think of single family homes?

         https://www.google.com/maps/@47.5292933,-122.2804809,719m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu

      3. Al, if you are saying NE 8th between 156th and 108th is mostly single family homes and a few apartment complexes, and occasionally some businesses, you are incorrect.

      4. There’s a lot more apartments along NE 8th than you’d think. From 136th to 148th it’s all apartments lining the road. west of 136th it’s mostly actually townhouses next to the road

      5. “There’s a lot more apartments along NE 8th than you’d think.”

         Even I overestimated the number of single-family houses, and I’ve been riding Metro on NE 8th Street for forty-five years. When I looked more closely in the 2020s, it’s apartments/condos/businesses the entire way from 120th to 164th and beyond, with the exception of the golf course and a block that appears to be a protected wetland (at 148th). My relative lived at 124th, and their friend lives in a condo around 130th, and there’s multifamily all around them.

      6. In case you missed the irony, Route 106 is not yet a RapidRide corridor.

6. For metros rationale for splitting the B; one large reason might be because they don’t like the “duplicative” service between eastgate and Redmond technology center and want to consolidate the north/south service along the route.

   Currently the 221 and 245 go from eastgate to Redmond downtown while the Rapidride B also runs from crossroads to Redmond. And then later in east link connections they’ll be three lines from Redmond down to crossroads with the B, 223 and 245.

   With the north/south B they’ll not have to run three north south lines

   1. The 245 doesn’t go to Redmond downtown; it turns on 70th to Kirkland. It’s easy to forget that. The B and 245 only overlap between NE 70th and NE 8th Streets. Metro is probably keeping the two because they go to different places. There’s no point in forcing a transfer at NE 70th in the middle of nowhere.

      1. Thanks for the correction, yeah I meant the Redmond downtown to crossroads is overlapped by the 221 and rapidride b.

         > There’s no point in forcing a transfer at NE 70th in the middle of nowhere.

         Yeah they’ll keep the a route from Redmond downtown to eastgate (rapidride b n/s) and a route from Kirkland to eastgate (245) but it’ll consolidate from 3 on that corridor to just 2 routes

         https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/metro/programs-and-projects/east-link-connections#gallery-1

         If you look at east link connections the three bus routes run parallel for 4 miles

7. This is a cool opportunity to build a transit center at Crossroads, considering the residential development and numerous buses running through there.

8. Who’s in favor of splitting the B and who’s against it?

   I’m in favor. The north-south line would consolidate the corridors. The east-west line would restore a one-seat ride from NE 8th Street to the U-District that used to exist before the B. It would also connect Crossroads and NE 8th Street to Bellevue Way and the Bellevue Square area, which is split by the too-far-east location of the transit center.

   As for losing the B’s L-turn, I can’t think of a large trip market between NE 8th Street, northern Crossroads, and Overlake Village. Microsoft employees living on 8th may be annoyed.

   1. I’m in favor of the split. The vast majority of real-world trips that would be served by the L can be done more quickly via the 2-line. Those that can’t usually take the form of riding of the RapidRide routes to Crossroads and walking a couple of blocks.

      There are very few real trips that would actually require a transfer from one RapidRide route to the other as a result of the split, which is more than offset by the benefits provided by the one-seat rides between each sub-route and other parts of Bellevue/Redmond.

   2. “It would also connect Crossroads and NE 8th Street to Bellevue Way and the Bellevue Square area …”

      I believe that trip you mentioned, as well at the trips connecting Crossroads and the BTC/Link station, and Downtown Bellevue, will become much more unreliable if the NE 8th route is sent out to the U District. I’d like to see another split dividing UD to BTC, and BTC to Crossroads. I suppose how one answers the split question depends of what their priorities are. For example, saving money might lead you to one answer, but reliability may lead you to another. My top concern with the Crossroads to U Dist route is route reliability. I foresee reliability along NE 8th street will be poor, with the route often getting stuck in various backups in the greater U Dist.

      1. with the route often getting stuck in various backups in the greater U Dist.

         Why? There would be BAT lanes or bus lanes the entire way. Look at the little insert in the image that Wesley included: https://i0.wp.com/seattletransitblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Screenshot-2024-07-31-at-4.24.33%E2%80%AFPM.png?w=1050&ssl=1. Note that some of that already has BAT lanes — more than what they show. That is because SDOT is adding them, bit by bit (as they are around the city). Given how important that corridor is (to other buses including this one) it will likely all be bus/BAT lanes by the time anyone seriously considers altering the 270, let alone making it RapidRide.

   3. I’m in favor of it. I’ve ridden the B from end-to-end and it’s far from rapid, especially in comparison to Link once it’s extended to downtown Redmond. Splitting the route into two corridors that complement Link will be a big improvement, especially since this would give two new frequent routes while the alternative would be the atrophy and deletion of the current route.

      B+271 is likely to perform especially well with Link, given that the current 271 is not fast, but neither is riding Link all the way through downtown Seattle and across I-90.

      1. the current 271 is not fast

         That doesn’t really matter. Despite the title, this isn’t really “B+271”. It is more like “B+270+BAT lanes”. This looks plenty fast to me.

      2. Ross,

         I’m aware that the RR improvements are only part of the puzzle, but there’s no way that Metro would make even the Bellevue-UW segment of the 271 frequent, where a good chunk of the route is sandwiched between a golf course and a super-wealthy neighborhood. The 270 at least connects some reasonably-dense parts of Bellevue, and with RR frequency would come with 15-minute weekend service as well (current proposed 270 is 30-60 minute service) all the way to UW, which has never existed before. On top of that, it gets the route into the pseudo-BRT 520 corridor, which the 271 hasn’t been able to serve for some time.

         I would assume the 556 is going to go away somewhere in this process, and I wonder if Metro could get ST to chip in a bit to cover the costs of providing a route that ST (sort of) used to provide.

   4. Obviously, my opinion isn’t worth too much here due to where I live, but I like the split.

      The one time I took the 271 it was to get to the Bellevue Botanical Garden. It seemed like once it got to the Bellevue Transit Center, there was nearly 100% turnover in passengers, with everyone from the eastern part of the 271 wanting to go somewhere other than UW, and all the UW passengers coming from some other route.

      Many of the passengers waiting for the B seemed to have shopping bags from the mall, and if so, they would have been better served by this route as it would have gotten them further west than the transit center.

      But, that is based on a single impression, so those who go through regularly would probably have better concept of what matches best with what.

      I would imagine the 271 might have been created to try to serve those with classes at both UW and Bellevue College, but with distance learning and all that going on, this may be a non-existent group of passengers.

      1. In the 80s there was a 252 that went from the bottom/side of Somerset Hill to Bellevue College, Lake Hills, 164th from Lake Hills Blvd to NE 8th Street, west on 8th to Bellevue TC and Medina, north on 84th, and west on 520 to the U-District. The 271 replaced that, maybe when the B was created. So there was always a route connecting BCC and UW, but I don’t think people rode from one to the other; they just wanted to get to one OR the other.

         The highest-ridership routes are the 550 and B, so they’re probably the biggest transfer. Not having all routes go through between the transit center and Bellevue Way was probably a mistake. This would rectify that. Although it could also be done by just extending the B to Bellevue Way.

         The primary argument for the proposal seems to be operational efficiency and an east-west grid route. I don’t think people on 8th are more prone to go to UW than anyone else.

9. I’m in favor too. The B Line’s Bellevue TC-Microsoft segment isn’t really necessary anymore because of the 2 Line, so reorienting the NE 8th line to stop Crossroads and sending it to Bellevue Square and the U District is a great idea for this important corridor.

10. In general I like this route. If takes a fairly common and successful approach, which is to basically add on a local tail to an express route. The core of the route is the connection between Downtown Bellevue and the UW. That gives you plenty of options in Bellevue. I consider them clockwise, starting from the college.

    The 271 serves the college and it is a major destination. However Eastgate will have frequent express buses to Mercer Island and Downtown Bellevue (via Bellevue Way). Thus riders heading to the UW may prefer just walking to the freeway bus stop and then riding to Mercer Island and riding Link all the way around. If they miss that bus, they can catch a bus to South Bellevue and again ride Link all the way around. Likewise if they are headed to Downtown Bellevue they can catch the (relatively frequent) 554.

    It doesn’t make sense to get back on 405. You would have to backtrack and loop around to get to Factoria. For more regional destinations there is Stride (and it is unlikely the regional destinations will get many riders). I’ll admit Renton to the UW has potential, but a lot of those riders will likely just take the 101 and Link. The only logical route to South Bellevue is via Bellevue Way, and that would mean duplicating both Link and other buses. Going directly west works for a few blocks, then density drops off dramatically. It isn’t clear that there is a layover in that area anyway. To the northwest there is nothing, and you’ve already covered the main northern corridor (Bellevue Way). Destinations to the northeast (like Microsoft or Downtown Redmond) have merit, but they will have their own express buses to the UW and Link for getting to Downtown Bellevue.

    That basically leaves going east. Going straight east is the best option. You avoid turns, which allows the bus to go fast. I would definitely consider turning left on 156th and going straight until Microsoft, but that doubles up service with the 245, and maybe that isn’t worth it. I think the assumption is that there will be good north-south buses (connecting to Link) in the area, and this will connect to every one. Thus this is the main-east west route (other than Link). The overall geometry looks pretty good to me.

    1. That being said, I still have concerns. John mentioned potential issues with the Northup loopback to get on the freeway, and I agree (obviously). I also assume it is difficult to cross 405, and I’m not sure what is being done there. Other than that though it looks quite good.

11. “As a Tier 2 priority RapidRide Candidate Corridor, Metro seems to be hoping to build the route sometime in the 2030’s, at which point the new Route 270, and full Link 2 Line will have been running for about a decade. ”

    I just want to point out that a full 2 Line should begin running in the next 18 months, and the new 520 ramps for transit affect time and reliability will also fully open soon. So it’s rather premature to lock in any routing combination decision.

    1. So it’s rather premature to lock in any routing combination decision.

       Of course. You could say that about all of these RapidRide projects. It is likely there will be restructures in various parts of the city. In many cases the RapidRide project might end up looking silly. If the 40 is split (as I think it should be) would they really put it back together again as a RapidRide? Of course not (although they could take one part and make it RapidRide).

       This kind go gets to the whole nature of RapidRide itself. It has to be considered in the context of the overall network. In some cases the routing is obvious (e. g. the E) in plenty of others it isn’t. Nor is it even obvious why those routes are even considered for RapidRide. It is weird that the 8 (or at least the Denny part of the 8) and the 4 are not considered for RapidRide given their very high ridership per hour of service and very high congestion. They are probably top five in that regard (and well above a lot of the other routes they are considering converting to RapidRide). It seems to me that if you are going to go through all the trouble and expense of RapidRide, you should focus your efforts on where you get the most bang for your buck and it seems to ignore that.

    2. “So it’s rather premature to lock in any routing combination decision.

       “Of course. You could say that about all of these RapidRide projects.”

       This routing is much more affected by coming system changes than a typical new RapidRide project. This route more than most proposed others is significantly affected by the opening of 2 Line as well as the 520 ramp opening.

       Because UW and Downtown Bellevue cover a wide area, I expect that the transit vehicles that a rider chooses will vary by lots of factors — from walk distance to transfer requirements to frequency to vertical maneuvering hassles/ time to lighting and security concerns. It’s good to have system redundancy and choices available!

       1. This routing is much more affected by coming system changes than a typical new RapidRide project. This route more than most proposed others is significantly affected by the opening of 2 Line as well as the 520 ramp opening.

          Maybe, but it is consistent with those changes (https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/metro/programs-and-projects/east-link-connections). There would have to be another major restructure in the area for this to suddenly become questionable, and that doesn’t seem likely given the solid geometry of the route. More to the point it doesn’t seem more likely here than anywhere else.

       2. “ More to the point it doesn’t seem more likely here than anywhere else.”

          My comments are about actual ridership, not service structure. We won’t know that until the service (both Link and Metro) are running.

          Metro does adjust priorities based on actual ridership. A good example is how Route 48 was going to get more attention before U-Link opened. When Link diverted riders from Route 48 once opened, Metro backed off on Route 48 upgrades and focused more on other projects.

       3. OK, but again, I see no difference between this and a lot of other projects. If anything, there seems to be a stronger case here then there would be elsewhere, even if ridership is poor. If they 270 is stuck in traffic and/or infrequent, some riders will take Link all the way around. Thus Metro might have second thoughts. But when they run the numbers again (and factor in the increase in ridership that comes with increasing frequency and speed) the route still looks good.

          In contrast, consider the 1049, which is basically the replacement for the 150 (https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/08/02/rapidride-corridor-1049-route-150/). The southern anchor is Downtown Kent. I’m sure they expect a fair amount of ridership here. But what if ST starts running express buses from Kent every fifteen minutes to Seattle. They could do that with the savings that will come from Federal Way Link. So now one of the key trips (Downtown Kent to Seattle) is poached by ST. Riders take Sounder when it is running, and this express bus when it isn’t. Potential ridership goes way down.

          Meanwhile, the 1052 and 1056 hook up with Link. But what if ridership barely changes on similar buses, even as Federal Way Link is implemented. Link just takes too long for a trip to Seattle. Those that do take Link just drive to the park and ride.

          I’m not saying any of that will happen. I’m just saying there is a lot of unknowns when it comes to the future network and future ridership, and yet the East Side seems more stable (at least in the short run) than a lot of places. We don’t know the ridership, we don’t know the exact frequency of the routes (hopefully they will better than suggested) but it is highly likely the routes will be as proposed. Since it won’t be implemented until 2025 (when Link goes across the water) it is unlikely anything major will change until 2027 at the earliest, which is a lot more than I can say for various areas.

12. It shouldn’t take a Red bus to achieve this, but I am definitely looking forward to 15 minute frequency on this rapidride corridor on the weekends instead of the currently proposed 30-60 minute frequency on the 270 with east link restructure.

    Not sure how many people would switch to east link, but having a rapidride service on the U District to Bellevue corridor would hopefully also bring fully articulated service instead of the currently cramped 271.

    1. “It shouldn’t take a Red bus to achieve this”

       Unfortunately it does to guarantee it. Otherwise Metro’s “Frequent” commitment is 15 minutes weekdays until 7pm. It probably wants to go higher but can’t afford to on all frequent routes. Some routes like the 62 have been full-time frequent since they were created, but others like the 40 only got it gradually, and others like the 5 have both gotten and lost it.

       The 271 is at the top of Metro’s list of routes that need the most additional runs to get to where they should be. That’s to address the infrequent weekends and evenings.

    2. RapidRide has a minimum frequency which is probably tied to federal funding. For example, the G will change frequency quite abruptly. Before 7:00 PM the bus runs every 6 minutes, then at 7:00 it starts running every 15. I can only assume this is tied to the paperwork surrounding the project. They promised all-day service every six minutes and they will deliver. But since we have a funding/driver shortage, it goes to 15 minutes right after. I’m sure that wasn’t the original plan (they probably had in mind a slower transition) but money is tight now.

       What is happening with the G is unusual because things changed. It is hard to see them start that project now, given the lack of money. Whether it is a RapidRide bus or a regular bus, running more often costs extra money. Even if nothing else changes, converting a bus to RapidRide costs money (for the fancy bus stops). Thus boosting frequency via RapidRide is more expensive than boosting frequency with a simple schedule change. It seems like the simplest thing to do with this route is just run it more often (when we can afford to). You don’t need to be RapidRide to run frequently — the 7 and 36 run more often than the F.

       To me the most exciting part of this project is the BAT lanes. This also enables better frequency. But as we’ve seen with buses like the 7 and 40, that does not require converting a bus to RapidRide. The main thing RapidRide does is add off-board stations (and different colored buses). This has value, but being faster, more reliable and more frequent seems like a priority.

    3. The RapidRide minimum is 15 minutes until 10pm every day. The Frequent minimum is 15 minutes weekdays until 7pm.

       I don’t think the G’s 6-minute daytime is a grant requirement. Why would Metro tie its hands on this line when it didn’t on any of the others? Why would the feds require it when they didn’t on the others? The jump from daytime to evening frequency is common throughout Metro. It probably also reflects that Metro doesn’t have enough hours for 6-12 minute evening service without cutting into other routes in East Seattle.

       The 6-minute daytime is probably because this is the densest part of King County, the 12 historically needed “as many runs as it could get” between downtown and First Hill in the peak and shoulder period, and an aspirational push to show how ultra-frequent service could transform a corridor and should be more widespread.

       1. The county RR headway standard is 10/15/15/15/15 headway (peaks/midday/evening/Sat/Sun). Some lines have earned tighter headway (e.g., lines E, D). The G Line headway was probably mandated by an a three-party agreement between the FTA, Metro, and SDOT. It was signed before 2020, when Seattle decided on a lower TBD level.

13. I understand wanting to serve the western portion of Downtown Bellevue, but there is basically nothing on Bellevue Way between 520 and NE 12th Street. I think it would be better to just go directly between UW and Bellevue Transit Center via 520 and 405, skipping all the local streets in Bellevue. So I guess what I would do is split the route further: one local route going along NE 8th Street, from beginning to end (92nd Avenue to Northup), and another express route from Bellevue Transit Center to the University District. Maybe extend the express route a bit and add another stop at Eastgate.

    The idea that the City of Bellevue would accede to converting existing general lanes to bus-only lanes seems quite fanciful. I don’t think you could get a single vote for that with the current city council. Probably someday, though.

    1. Bellevue Way is not as dense as it should be, but it’s still twice as dense as the 271’s routing through Medina. This proposal is a decade or more out too, and I would hope/expect Bellevue to become more dense, especially with the addition of the 2 Line.

Comments are closed.