Commenter Lazarus pointed out that Sound Transit has released 2 Line (East Link Starter Line) ridership figures on its dashboard. Although there is no direct filter for a drill-down to just the 2 Line, one can multi-select the East Link stations by holding CTRL (on a PC) or ⌘ (on a Mac).
Four incomplete months worth of data is insufficient to draw out meaningful observations but it is evident that the early novelty of rapid transit on the Eastside slowly wore off through late Spring into Summer. However, it is interesting to note that those declines were largely limited to weekend ridership, which supports the narrative that recreational rides are the ones that have waned the most in number.
When it comes to average weekday ridership, there is a more stable picture. Both May and July featured around 5,800 daily boardings, sandwiching a modest spike in June. Sound Transit’s earliest forecast for the starter line was 6,000 average daily boardings, which was later adjusted down to a range of 4,000 to 5,700. All in all, early performance is within the realm of what was forecasted.
One lingering curiosity of mine has been the cannibalization of other services, namely the 550 and the B Line, given the overlapping service area. Although there is not yet July data for ST Express, 550 ridership has not declined whatsoever since the beginning of the year. This suggests that Link has poached a negligible number of riders, if any, within the short South Bellevue-Downtown Bellevue commuter market.
When it comes to the B Line, there is also not much to suggest a significant impact from the 2 Line opening as average weekday boardings have roughly held steady around 4,700-4,800. It is worth noting that 2024 ridership exceeded 2023 ridership in the early part of the year, but 2023 saw a summer spike that has not yet materialized in 2024. Whether this is due to the 2 Line opening or some other effect won’t be clear until we have a longer span of data.
The 2 Line is an obviously superior option if one is traveling between Downtown Bellevue, Overlake Village, and Redmond Technology stations, but I suspect that the bulk of B Line ridership actually lies within the NE 8th, Crossroads, and the NE 156th corridors. I surmised as much last year:
Given that the rest of the B-Line functions more as a local service to connect Crossroads to both downtown and Overlake/Microsoft, I don’t anticipate substantial shifts in ridership even after the ELSL opens. With its congestion-free operation, East Link is likely to be much more competitive with the longer-distance Bellevue-Redmond commuter markets.
Ultimately, ridership trends are just that: trends, which need time to tell the full story. Until we get to a longer horizon, it’s safe to say that the early numbers of the 2 Line are promising and bode well for what we hope is the full extension to Seattle next year.
What’s been missing is an express bus between downtown Bellevue, Redmond Tech, and downtown Redmond. I assumed there was one, but when I tried to use it (from Bellevue TC to downtown Redmond for the trails on a weekend) I found there wasn’t: the 566 is peak only (and terminates at Redmond Tech). The B would take so long that I abandoned the trip. The Starter Line fills this gap between downtown Bellevue and Redmond Tech, although it doesn’t yet address downtown Redmond. That’s the latent ridership that may have shifted to Link.
Pre-COVID, there was the 232. It was a peak-direction Bothell commuter route, but it also ran bidirectionally from Bellevue-Redmond with a stop at Redmond Tech. I think it might’ve come every 45 minutes or so? I was also shocked there wasn’t anything better.
There also used to be Microsoft shuttles that connected Redmond Tech with the Microsoft building just south of the Bellevue TC, but they were only open to Microsoft employees and contractors. I hear a lot of people who used them for commuting got upset when Microsoft ended its lease in downtown Bellevue and shut down the shuttles.
There also used to be Microsoft shuttles that connected Redmond Tech with the Microsoft building just south of the Bellevue TC, but they were only open to Microsoft employees and contractors.
I don’t think the shuttles were open to contractors. A friend of mine was an IT contractor and he said they wouldn’t let him ride the bus (it made his commute much worse). Another reason why it is good to provide transit to Microsoft even though they run their own buses.
The Microsoft shuttle route, when it did run, was also slower than the 2-line is today; it got stuck in traffic at the 520/405 interchange, spent a lot of time sitting at stoplights within downtown Bellevue, and did a lot of meandering on local streets within the Microsoft campus. It also, of course, ran much less often than Link does, and had no real-time arrival tracking support.
@Ross, contractors aren’t allowed to ride the Microsoft Connector commuter buses, but they are allowed to ride the shuttles between offices. The Bellevue shuttles counted as shuttles because they ran between main campus and the offices in downtown Bellevue, so AFAIK contractors were allowed.
@asdf2, yeah. Either the MS Shuttle got stuck in traffic at 520/405, or it dodged that down Bel Red Rd (I think drivers were allowed to pick?) and ran slowly there.
The 232 dodged that by running on 112th; there was some traffic there but usually less.
William C, since it seems you know something about MS’s Connector buses (the big buses, not the van or car shuttles), what what do you think will happen when the 2 Line crosses the lake? Will many MS workers who live in Seattle opt for the 2 Line instead of the Connector?
@Sam, I expect there’ll be some switch but not much. Most of the Connector routes pick up away from Link stations, and I expect most Microsoft workers who currently ride the Connector will continue to find it more convenient to get a one-seat ride and do work on their laptops with the free wifi on the Connector.
But of course, there’re lots of Microsoft workers who aren’t currently riding the Connector – whether because of schedule, because they’re contractors who aren’t allowed, because of limited seats on the Connector, or whatever other reason.
@Al S: I think the higher Redmond Technology numbers come from park-and-rides as a norm in the suburbs, and even preferred for last-mile commutes; it’s often quicker to drive home from the P&R instead of waiting for infrequent suburban buses. Also, Bellevue Downtown will be great when East Link finally gets to use I-90, it’ll be a natural for bus-to-train transfers, but until then it’s not a great location for attracting foot traffic. Too bad a Bellevue Way station couldn’t have been built.
What’s been missing is an express bus between downtown Bellevue, Redmond Tech, and downtown Redmond.
Yeah, and I could even see it running from Downtown Bellevue to Downtown Seattle (via 405/I-90). That would have been extremely popular while we wait for East Link. At that point you don’t really need the 545 (at most the 545 runs as an express version of the other bus during peak). Meanwhile, Bellevue Way could be backfilled with local service (which will happen when East Link gets here).
I’ve suggested that ST create a version of an express bus bridge to connect the 1 and 2 Lines before on STB. It wasn’t a popular idea.
I’m still convinced that it would get more riders that STX 515 will.
The bridge is basically the 550. I don’t see ST running a different route at this point. If you did it now you would see a restructure (as buses backfill service along Bellevue Way) and then another restructure once Link goes across the lake (which isn’t that long from now). The time to run an express from Downtown Bellevue to Seattle was whenever the 550 started (ten years ago?).
The onboard map says there are unnamed bus routes connecting lines 1 and 2 at South Bellevue and Redmond Tech, so they’re using the 550, 542, and 545 for this.
“whenever the 550 started (ten years ago?).”
twenty-five years ago, in 1999.
I’m amazed that Redwood Technology (1733 July average weekday) gets more riders than Bellevue Downtown (1221 July average weekday). I expected that to be reversed.
It makes me wonder if Microsoft is motivating employees to use Link. It also makes me wonder if Downtown Bellevue buildings are offering lower cost or free tenant parking these days.
Thanks Mike. Interesting to know the history.
I’m amazed that Redmond Technology gets more riders than Bellevue Downtown. I expected that to be reversed.
I’m surprised as well. I’m just trying to think of the combinations here:
Bellevue Downtown to Redmond Tech — Counts for both (assuming they take the train both ways).
South Bellevue to Redmond Tech — Seems like an odd trip. If you are coming from Seattle, then why not just take the 545? Would you park and ride to get to Redmond Tech?
That basically leaves all the other stops. It seems like Downtown Bellevue would be a bigger destination than Redmond Tech. Oh, one possibility: Maybe it is faster from the UW to transfer there if you are headed to say, Spring District. Checking Google it seems like a wash, but maybe when traffic is bad (in Bellevue) that is the way to go.
I think some of the ridership at end stations will shrink when they’re no longer end stations.
However when a rider can get further that will change the pattern considerably.
So my hunch is this:
Northgate will lose about half of its boardings upon LLE opening this weekend.
Redmond Tech will lose about 10-20% upon DRLE opening in 2025.
South Bellevue will double or triple upon full East Link opening around Christmas 2025..
Angle Lake will lose about half upon FWLE opening in 2026.
And by 2026, the highest boardings on East Link will be Bellevue Downtown. If that isn’t happening by then, Stride transfers will push it to the top.
The 550 loses a lot of time also stopping at Mercer Island then rejoining I-90 on the right side on-ramp and having to make it’s way back over to the HOV lane through all the automobile congestion.
even with Route 232 suspended, the Redmond-RTS market had routes 542 and 545 and the RTS-BTC market had Route 566.
@eddiew, the 566 is unfortunately only peak-direction, and gets caught in the 520/405 ramp mess in the PM peak. I was very sorry when the reverse-peak trips went away.
Why does the top chart say boardings for the only Saturday the 2 Line ran in April on opening day was 8.9K, when ST said opening day boardings was 35K?
It appears to be a monthly average. Dividing 36K by 4 Saturdays is about 8.9K. I don’t think ST adjusted their calculations for a partial month.
Agreed. That is why the numbers are so tiny for April.
That chart is all around confusing. I don’t know what story stacking daily averages is supposed to even tell the reader. Doesn’t help that it doesn’t say anywhere that it’s portraying daily averages. Weird that the dashboard allows data to be viewed that way.
Signed,
A graph grump
I don’t know what story stacking daily averages is supposed to even tell the reader.
The graph comes from Sound Transit. Stacking the numbers allows readers to view all three data sets at the same time. I can see how many people are riding on an average Saturday, Sunday and weekday all at the same time.
The totals are meaningless — I would ignore that.
If you go to the website you can view things just by a particular day (e. g. weekday).
It’s possible that where one rider once rode one bus their entire distance, they may now be riding that bus and then boarding Link. That would mean that Link would count the rider but so would the bus. On paper it looks like transit is getting new riders — but they actually aren’t in the big picture.
The distance of the 2 Line right now isn’t far enough to get lots of that but surely there is some. And this type of transit trip change is going to be much more in play when Link crosses the Lake and bus restructuring occurs. And the opposite will happen (bus + 2 Line to just 2 Line) in some cases too.
Right. Basically it is measuring unlinked trips. Someone gets on a bus, then Link, then another bus. That is one rider on each route. In contrast, linked trips would count that as one trip. https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2003/chapter_02/chapter_02_box_page_72
To count the total number of unlinked trips in a day involves simple arithmetic. To count linked trips sounds harder, especially before the days of ORCA cards. They probably did some sort of sampling and then made estimates based on that. Even with ORCA cards they would have to do some of that (since not everyone uses an ORCA card). On Metro’s ridership page they list “Average Weekday Boardings”. I think these are unlinked trips. I would guess that the number of unlinked trips are going up relative to linked trips (i. e. people are making more transfers) given the Link various truncations. This makes the numbers even more depressing (we are nowhere near where we were from before the pandemic, even when you include Link).
It is a standard to report unlinked trips. There are some NTD protocols to help estimate linked trips, but as Ross points out, this involves some assumptions.
Unlinked trips is certainly the easiest data to reliably count and release.
I’m more just suggesting caution before concluding that subtracting lost Metro riders from new 2 Line riders doesn’t mean that the difference are somehow new transit riders. The regulars know this, but a casual reader may not fully understand this.
Surely some 2 Line riders used to drive — but it can’t be calculated by subtracting the Metro total from 2 Line total.
I agree Al, and I think that is a very good point. Additional transfers show up as additional ridership. After an extension or a restructure (or both) the overall number of unlinked trips may go up, but ridership may stay the same. It is hard to determine what is happening. Most likely it is a combination.
It is important to note that ridership is only one measurement. It is the starting point. If no one rides the train then it was a bad investment. But it is possible that there is no increase in ridership, but that part of the system is much better. Freeway investments never focus on the increase in the number of people on the road. Quite the opposite. If you add a lane, the hope is you have the same number of drivers, but you eliminate traffic. Obviously we want transit ridership to go up (especially after investing a lot of money) but that isn’t the only issue.
Several times I’ve taken Link from Downtown Bellevue to South Bellevue TC to catch the 550 to Seattle. It’s a crapshoot, if you are lucky and it times right you can save 10 minutes to catch up to an earlier 550. If not, you just wait at SBTC for the bus you were going to catch anyway from BTC. The idea is to skip the automobile congestion on Bellevue Way SE.
Is this the article to discuss the station boarding data? I don’t want to comment on that if a companion post is coming.
There’s no other article at this time, so comment away. We’re preoccupied with the Lynnwood Link opening and bus restructures over the next few weeks, so expect several articles on those.
A note on the July drop compared to May and June: July declines on a route often are due to school being out. Is there some high school or college trips using the 2 Line significantly?
I did a quick search for this and there no school appeared that could be a major factor.
Maybe the july heatwave was also a factor
I would guess that some people would rather call an uber than stand outside/walk to transit during on very hot days
1 line ridership also saw a slight dip June-July
Could also be some lingering novelty ridership in June that fell off in July
UW gets out in June but I highly doubt there is any meaningful UW-based ridership on the 2 Line. Bellevue SD and Lake Washington SD both operate their own network of school buses for students up through middle school, but there aren’t really any schools near any of the 2 Line station areas. At any rate, the July drop is mostly limited to weekends anyway.
ST says Bellevue Downtown to Downtown Redmond will take 17 minutes. The routes 250 and B Line take anywhere from around 30 to 50 minutes, depending on the time of day. The 17 minutes might be a minute or two higher. We’ll see. They did say South Bellevue to Redmond Tech would take 17 minutes, but in reality it’s closer to 20 minutes.
South Bellevue to Overlake Village is 17 minutes by my timings. South Bellevue to Redmond Tech 22 minutes.
I wonder how much of that is due to dwell time at the stations. I’ve only ridden the 2 line a couple of times, but the train seems to wait a long time at stations even when only a handful of people are getting on/off.
I thought this line would get only 3-4K. So I am impressed that it’s getting more!
Balducci’s push to open the line early was a smart move! It’s getting twice the riders of T-Link already and we will see another bump when Downtown Redmond Extension opens with two more stations. All of this is before the main event of opening across Lake Washington.
The graphs in the article need to be revised. It’s wrong to sum (“stack”) the averages for weekdays, Saturdays and Sundays. The monthly totals can be stacked but the averages shouldn’t be stacked.
There is a comment form for the display if you feel like sharing your opinion with the people who make the graphs: https://soundtransit.sjc1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9RlbfPOzOHh2m9w
South Bellevue got about 1,000 riders a day while the 550 continues to get around 4,000. So only about a quarter of the riders transfer there (if that). Most just stay on the bus. That means a lot of existing riders will switch to using Link. Of course that isn’t the only bus that crosses the lake heading to downtown. There is the 212, 218 and 554 from Issaquah and Eastgate. Then there is the 545, which right now carries more riders than the 550 (at around 5,000). It is basically going away (there will be a peak-only version to the north end of downtown). Altogether that adds up to around 12,000 riders which should be considered the baseline increase for Link once it goes across the lake.
Of course I expect it to be much higher than that. The 550 is a shadow of its former self in terms of speed and convenience. Even at its best some of the trips were slow because of Bellevue Way (although it also gained some riders there). The Issaquah/Eastgate trips will force a transfer, but frequency will increase considerably. Overall I except quite a bit more than 12,000 although I doubt it will reach peak levels, when about 30,000 people would take buses across the lake (heading to downtown).
The now demonstrated 6K on the starter line, the addition of may 2K more Eastside only boardings when reaching Downtown Redmond, the addition of 12-18K crossing the Lake and 2-4K at Judkins Park (have you been down Rainier Ave lately?) suggest East Link will have 22-30K riders in 2026 (say 15-21K boardings) noting that a portion of 2 Line users will board in both directions at an East Link station. And I’m not adding in Mercer Island trips to and from the Eastside.
Good point about Judkins Park. The 550 currently skips it, which means riders in Rainier Valley and the Central Area have to go downtown first if they are headed to the East Side (a big detour). A few people will switch from the 7 to Link as well (for trips to downtown).
The numbers I calculated did include Mercer Island though (550 and 554).
Judkins Park also adds a new entry off of 23rd. It’s like opening an infill station. I’m expecting the entries from the 23rd entrance alone will be higher than many of the other East Link stations. I even expect Route 14 to lose some riders that live between the route and the station entrance.
Do we have stop-by-stop data for the 550? I haven’t ridden it recently, but when I did, a whole lot of riders would get on/off near Bellevue Square. I’m sure they’re continuing to ride it rather than taking Link.
I don’t think ST has released stop data since this report in 2020: https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/2020-service-implementation-plan.pdf
Too bad there was never a 550 Rapid Express, like every other run or so at rush hour that ran express from BTC to Seattle via NE 6th & I-405 HOV ramps and ran on the I-405 and I-90 HOV lanes non-stop to Jackson Street skipping Mercer Island too. Hell, even 3 or 4 runs each in the AM and PM peak periods. This is fairly common in transit practice to have some real express runs when you have busy frequent service, it’s not cannibalizing the main route, its just skimming off some riders at the peak crush period. San Francisco Muni pre-COVID had a lot of these buses supplementing their main routes… the 1AX/1BX, 7X, 30X, 31AX/31BX, 38AX/38BX.
@Nathan,
Please refrain from using terms like “poached” and “cannibalization” to describe the impact of Link. Transit is not a zero sum game, and it is certainly not a battle between agencies for ridership. This is not some sort of “war”.
Link represents a significant improvement in speed, reliability, frequency, and capacity on the routes on which it is built. This is as it should be, and is exactly why the region chose to build Link. And the result of this has been, and will continue to be, increased total transit usage. That is good.
The role of the legacy agencies is to leverage off this new and improved asset while still delivering high quality and improved service to their ridership base. That is why you see agencies like CT routing Swift Orange to intercept Link at Lynwood City Center, and also extending Swift Blue to intercept Link at North Shoreline Station. And why CT will ax their downtown Seattle express shuttles and redeploy the resources for improved geographic coverage within SnoCo.
This is all pretty simple Jarrett Walker type stuff. Balkanization and siege mentalities don’t benefit the greater transit good. Improved network coverage and better network connections do.
We, as transit advocates, need to remember that.
Good point, Lazarus.
And when a local bus is carrying a rider 10 miles on a flat fare or pass, it’s more expensive than carrying a rider just 1.5 miles to a Link station in both service hours and miles.
So it should free up local bus service to run shorter trips more often and hopefully have more boardings per service hour because of it. It’s an opportunity to restructure service rather than hurt service.
@Al S,
Correct. The other agencies have an opportunity to leverage off of the service ST is providing with Link.
This is exactly what CT is doing. The resources saved by eliminating the expresses downtown will be redeployed to better serve the residents of SnoCo — both in terms of increased frequency on certain routes, but also in terms of better geographic coverage.
Done right it is a win-win for all agencies involved.
Did you mean to tag Sherwin, the author? Either way: I’m not sure how using words like “poached” or “cannibalization” are tonally different than saying RR B riders are “abandoning” the route for Link.
I get that you feel a need to defend Link and ST against every perceived slight, but you really care about reducing “balkanization” and “siege mentalities,” you may want to reconsider your consistent denigration of the “legacy agencies” as you call them.
We, as transit advocates, we should be openly and equally supporting the mission of every transit agency.
Also, both of those terms are used in sentences which indicate those effects are not significant. Given that “cannibalization” and “poaching” are just aggressive terms for the effects of potentially-redundant service, Sherwin’s usage of those words is a rebuttal to earlier fears that services like the 2 Line would not meaningfully increase regional transit ridership.
So, congratulations to ST!
@Nathan,
You are correct, it is Sherwin that is using the loaded rhetoric. You can correct my post if you feel so inclined.
As to whether or not riders are “abandoning” RR B, it would appear that that is indeed what is happening.
RR B was showing an approx 25% increase in month-to-month ridership as compared to same month data in 2023. That is good and significant. But that bump disappeared as soon as the ELSL opened.
Why? Undoubtably because some riders are simply taking Link instead of RR B. That is just data.
But the task for Metro should be to improve RR B by leveraging off the service Link is providing. So far Metro hasn’t done that, and future plans appear to suggest that Metro is going to attempt to protect RR B ridership by reducing the opportunities for riders to transfer to Link (example: removing service to OVS). This is the opposite of what should happen.
Ya, the future extension to RDT is good, but is it enough? I’d say no. And the bleeding off of RR B ridership would certainly indicate that Metro is not adjusting to the existence of the ELSL either well enough or soon enough.
But the loaded rhetoric in this post just feeds the notion of a siege mentality, and that is bad all around for transit.
@myself,
Language clarification. I mean comparing same month data across years. Basically March 2024 to March 2023.
That comparison was showing a 25% increase this year. And it was consistent. At least until ELSL opened. Then everyone changed.
Removing service to Overlake is leveraging the service that Link provides. RR B saves itself a detour and counts on Link to serve Overlake. It’s a bit worse for folks heading to/from Overlake, but better for anyone heading to/from Crossroads from the north.
Connecting riders would just head to RTC rather than Overlake. The ~2 minutes it takes to get from Overlake to RTC when heading eastbound is saved by not having the bus detour ~2 minutes through Overlake.
> And the bleeding off of RR B ridership would certainly indicate that Metro is not adjusting to the existence of the ELSL either well enough or soon enough.
Terms like “Bleeding off” are also part of a siege mentality. Please check your own tone before policing others’.
“As to whether or not riders are “abandoning” RR B, it would appear that that is indeed what is happening.”
Some 25 or 30 years ago, TriMet finally got enough resouces to improve bus service on highway 99E between Portland and Oregon City. One of the routes they added was 99, a limited stop service overlay for the often crowded and slow 33. These improvements led to a 20% increase in ridership on the corridor. Though the 99 originally used TriMet’s oldest buses (1960s era Flyers a couple decades past their prime), it was popular and helped a lot on this corridor.
When MAX orange line opened between Milwaukie and Portland, buses on route 99 would generally have perhaps 3 to 5 passengers at any given time, a far cry from ridership in those first years. A few days ago, during TriMet’s late summer service change, 99 went away for good.
That’s what the B would look like if passengers were “abandoning” the B.
I really don’t see that type of thing in the data at all. Line 2s and B are really closely matched, which means people are finding both useful. It’s not too surprising, since the routes really aren’t that parallel. Eg, I’ve taken the B to get to the Botanical Garden, but Line 2s doesn’t go anywhere near that.
Right, those predicting the demise of the B don’t understand all the kind of trips people make.
I used to take it to 124th for my relative’s apartment, the Bellevue Botanical Garden, and a wood southeast of the garden.
When I rode the 245 at rush hour on 156th, six people were getting on and off at every stop. That’s not the B but it’s the same corridor so the same thing must be happening on the B.
@Lazarus
> As to whether or not riders are “abandoning” RR B, it would appear that that is indeed what is happening.
It’s pretty clear you’ve never used rapidride B before, or if you have only from Microsoft to downtown Bellevue. Most of the apartments on NE 8th st and Bellevue Crossroads are not really walkable to the Link stations.
In another world, yes East Link would have cannibalized the rapidride B ridership if it was on NE 8th but it can’t because it literally doesn’t run on the same route.
You keep insisting that running Link closer to the freeway sr-520 was better because it’d be faster to reach microsoft and redmond, and sure that is an angle to take — but it has to give up on the ridership on the other corridor. There’s no situation where Link both takes over rapidride B ridership and also skips the destinations there simultaneously.
“Converted” is an appropriate word and likely easier to understand for people new to the conversation.
I agree with Lazarus’ desire for less violent tone; I’m frankly tired of reading headlines like “Politician BLASTS other politician” and “Agency KILLS plan”
Coming in late here – as already pointed out, I am the author, not Nathan :).
No need to read too much into the verbiage here. The use of “cannibalize” and “poach” is nomenclature I’ve been accustomed to in describing riders switching from one service to another. There is no implication of competition. Whether riders choose to go from bus to rail or vice versa is a matter of supply and choice. We want the solution that best maximizes mobility across the board.
@Sherwin Lee
“The use of “cannibalize” and “poach” is nomenclature I’ve been accustomed to in describing riders switching from one service to another”
Becoming “accustomed” to such loaded and divisive rhetoric is exactly what we don’t want, and exactly why we shouldn’t use such terms.
Transit is not a zero sum game. Link is being built in these routes specifically because it is a service better suited to the demand and the operating environment. We want people to switch to Link on these corridors. That’s why we are building it.
But that doesn’t imply some sort of “war” on the other agencies, and no one is stealing riders from other agencies. It is by design, and the other agencies need to adapt.
But we shouldn’t be doing anything to encourage this notion of a competition. As they say, a rising tide lifts all boats, and Link represents a rising tide of ridership.
The other agencies can benefit from that and see increased ridership too — if they adapt appropriately. But using terms like “poached” and “cannibalized” discourages adaption.
“But we shouldn’t be doing anything to encourage this notion of a competition. As they say, a rising tide lifts all boats, and Link represents a rising tide of ridership”.
That is a bit rich coming from you Lazarus who regularly hates on Metro and treats Metro like a second-class citizen or agency.
This isn’t a “competition” because ST has hogged all the transit funding for some incredibly expensive projects, some valid based on ridership, urbanism, and city congestion, and some not and getting worse, because the competing bus routes have been “truncated”. In many places there is now a forced transfer, and the feeder bus agency and ST must split the fare 53/47% when all those savings from truncation don’t look like they will materialize to the extent promised because a transfer requires much better feeder frequency.
The reality is the tide since 2018 has not been rising but going out when it comes to total transit ridership. How much Link will convert drivers to transit as opposed to transfer current bus riders to Link is unknown, but if Link will handle 1% of trips in the region when fully completed at $154 billion according to the Seattle Times, with zero carbon savings when construction is included, it doesn’t look like a lot of drivers will switch post pandemic because the commute to urban cores with expensive parking is waning, as is downtown Seattle as a destination, with Uber stealing a lot of urban trips.
We will probably NEVER get to ST’s pre-pandemic ridership estimates on Link, which according to Wiki is 750,000 boardings by 2050. We probably will never get back to total transit ridership in 2018, the high-water mark. Of course, that is the goal of regional planning: self-contained urban villages, fewer trips, fewer work commutes, fewer park and rides, shorter trips, shorter work commutes (and no commute with work from home). I know some on this blog think people will think, look there is a train, let’s get on it even though we don’t need to go anywhere it goes. I think people take transit for a reason, and often because they have/had to.
Although I marvel at the engineering to run Link to Lynnwood for maybe 20,000 daily hoardings, I am one who believes the station areas around the four Lynnwood Link stations will be marginal multi-family housing with very little retail with too long a walk to the Link station which means parking will be a big problem, especially for out of area shoppers and folks going out to dinner. Of course, they replace even worse planning so hard to complain, except denser housing with bad planning is even worse.
Did anyone really think these areas would build their new “town centers” next to I-5 or a Link station? Or become “urban”? Some even built their new town centers on the other side of I-5. They look like work housing to me and I know them, and the plan was these station areas would house the downtown Seattle workers who couldn’t afford to live in Seattle but had higher incomes than locals and showered before work. If you don’t need to commute to downtown Seattle anymore why would you live in one of these housing projects, most of which are not within walking distance of the Link station, when there is so much available land in the four-county area? The construction looks so SnoCo.
Let’s celebrate the opening of Lynnwood Link, and the parties mostly attended by Seattle urbanists who have never been to any of these station areas and will never return. Can’t wait to see how many on this blog move to one of these station areas. Same tragic error urbanists in this area keep making: building marginally “denser” housing in the boondocks because a train runs there, without retail density within walking distance, and thinking Totem Lake is about the housing density and transit and not the retail and resident wealth.
I think the boarding percentages per station on the starter line are pretty much what ST estimated before Covid for the full line except for one. The boardings are just lower across the board because it is a starter line and work from home. Microsoft and downtown Bellevue were always supposed to have the highest boardings (and de-boardings). They still do, although Microsoft is still mostly work from home.
The very low boardings at the other stations were also estimated, although there are some grand projections for boardings with TOD or development, although I think those estimates are optimistic post pandemic because the office commuter will be absent.
The one head scratcher is boardings at S. Bellevue because that was supposed to be a very high boarding station with a 1500 stall park and ride. True, the starter line does not cross the lake yet, but 550/554 and peak route ridership is very low today.
Some speculate those boardings will increase above boardings on the cross lake buses today because Link is a train and the 550 et al are buses because more Seattleites or eastsiders will take a discretionary trip on Link but not on a bus. That may be true on weekends, but not weekdays because people are at work and discretionary trips across the lake during the work day would take too long.
I don’t understand the concern about terms like poaching. Of course Link was built where bus ridership was highest. Link will generate few brand new transit riders. That is why the buses are being truncated. To force poaching riders to Link which is suppose to be superior and can better handle the capacity.
I would also like to see boardings on East Link between day and night. I wonder whether there will be very many boardings going to Seattle at night. The stations are pretty sketchy in downtown Seattle and Capitol Hill.
What has surprised me is the low number of cars at the S. Bellevue Park and Ride, even with the starter line. I thought more Seattleites would drive to the park and ride and catch either the 550 or Line 2 to downtown Bellevue (or Microsoft) to avoid traffic or parking costs. Pre-pandemic a lot of workers from Seattle and Issaquah and Mercer Island and south of I-90 did this (in part because the Mercer Island Park and Ride was full by 7 am) and the 500-stall park and ride was packed.
Low ridership on the 550 and few cars in the free S. Bellevue Park and Ride indicate to me employment in downtown Bellevue is not as strong as some believe (or they don’t come from areas served by the S. Bellevue Park and Ride) or shoppers and diners simply park in downtown Bellevue. It is pretty rare to have high boardings on Link or buses on the eastside if the park and rides are not full or more full.
I think Al’s estimated boardings are pretty close: around 22,000 to 28,000/weekday including both directions. Around half of pre-Covid estimates, which is an increase over cross lake buses today. Unless Issaquah demands a one seat bus to Seattle/SLU which would reduce ridership on East Link.
“What has surprised me is the low number of cars at the S. Bellevue Park and Ride, even with the starter line.”
This is relevant to overall East Link demand. That’s because part of the intended function of the South Bellevue Station is to provide remote parking for Downtown Bellevue, which historically had a high daily parking cost. That coupled with the low Bellevue Downtown station boardings suggests that parking there is no longer as expensive or difficult. That’s why I mentioned it earlier today.
I’d wager most of the cars at South Bellevue garage are from riders taking the 550 to Seattle, and most of the cars at Redmond Tech garage are from riders taking the 545 or 542 to Seattle or the UW. Both garages now are probably less than 1/5th full. When the full 2 Line opens, that will change, and I think both garages will fill up with riders wanting to take the 2 Line.
Sam,
“I’d wager most of the cars at South Bellevue garage are from riders taking the 550 to Seattle, and most of the cars at Redmond Tech garage are from riders taking the 545 or 542 to Seattle or the UW”.
I would agree with this. Pre-Covid the garages were full mostly with eastsiders going to Seattle, including Mercer Island. But there was also a fairly big number who came from Seattle, especially at the Mercer Island Park and Ride, from areas the 550 didn’t serve like Beacon Hill and Capitol Hill, both of which have no park and ride capacity. After work they would use the very good grocery stores on Mercer Island or in Bellevue. There isn’t any point in someone taking the 550 from Seattle to Bellevue today to transfer to Line 2 at S. Bellevue.
“Both garages now are probably less than 1/5th full”.
Definitely agree with this. The current S. Bellevue Park and Ride averages 50 cars/day according to the Seattle Times. That is 1/10th of the old park and ride capacity (500 stalls) and 1/30th of the new park and ride capacity (1500 stalls). Where they went is the mystery. Not sure about Mercer Island Park and Ride. The real canary in the coal mine is the Mercer Island Park and Ride because it is very easy to get to from everywhere along 405 and I-90 and closest to Seattle and avoids Bellevue Way. It always filled up first (and does today for sporting events in Seattle because so many buses access it frequency is great). If it is empty then transit ridership is hurting, and so is parking at S. Bellevue.
“When the full 2 Line opens, that will change, and I think both garages will fill up with riders wanting to take the 2 Line”.
I don’t get this. I suppose someone on the weekend might drive to the park and ride and take a discretionary trip on Line 2, but why? Parking is free in downtown Bellevue on weekends and everywhere else on the eastside all the time and congestion is light. During the work week I suppose if you are retired and have nothing to do you might drive to a park and ride to catch Line 2 (to where I don’t know), but if you work you don’t have time for pleasure trips. The people parking at the two park and rides during the week today are parking there because they need to take transit to work (but obviously own a car) which to me means downtown Seattle or UW where parking is tough and costly (although for a student only around $7/day at the E lots although the bridge toll must be included unless you take I-90).
These two park and rides will see more use when East Link opens IF more eastside workers start commuting to downtown Seattle or more eastside students go to the UW. I don’t see that increase personally.
The one increase will probably come at S. Bellevue from people from the Issaquah region who work in downtown Seattle and will now have to transfer at S. Bellevue to East Link. Sheerwin uses the term “poach”, ST uses “truncate”, I use “coerce”. I think most of them will simply park at S. Bellevue or Mercer Island and skip the Issaquah park and rides and a feeder bus, and those huge lots are pretty empty today as well.
East Link will make the trip to downtown Seattle worse for everyone in the Issaquah region who now must transfer rather than take a one seat bus, or drive to the park and ride on Mercer Island or S. Bellevue. That is why I would not be surprised if Issaquah requests a peak bus from Issaquah park and rides that serve the entire Issaquah region to downtown Seattle. Unless the ridership isn’t there for even one peak route.
Issaquah will point out the rerouting of the 554 and elimination of the 550 frees up a lot of subarea money, and the starter line shows the subarea has money to burn, so why not a peak route from the main Issaquah park and rides with a stop on Eastgate, skip Mercer Island, and head up 4th to Denny and then return on 2nd, not unlike today. At least until Issaquah Link is built.
Sound Transit might moan that will affect its ridership numbers, but ST’s ridership estimates were made up to begin with so so what. If the goal is to serve the customer no matter which is the better mode a one seat bus from Issaquah that also goes to SLU makes sense. If I were Bruce Harrell I would want ST to do whatever it can to make it easier for these choice workers to commute to Seattle because Bellevue is making it as easy as possible to commute to downtown Bellevue (554). Many large employers like Amazon are giving these workers a choice where to work, and Bellevue has already siphoned off 12,000 Seattle Amazon workers.
There aren’t many cars at South Bellevue P&R, period. I counted 7 one weekday afternoon in July. Pre-covid the P&Rs were so full that people would drive from one to another looking for a space.
“There isn’t any point in someone taking the 550 from Seattle to Bellevue today to transfer to Line 2 at S. Bellevue. ”
I do that. It makes more sense if you’re going to eastern Bellevue beyond the 550’s terminus. You save time in the South Bellevue-Bellevue Downtown segment, and in the Bellevue Downtown-Overlake Village/Redmond Tech segment. I haven’t ridden the 550 beyond South Bellevue once since the 2 Line started. I would take it if I were going to Bellevue Way, but I’m not.
” I suppose someone on the weekend might drive to the park and ride and take a discretionary trip on Line 2, but why?”
Ballgames, parades, protests, going to Seattle Center, etc. The 550 is full at those times, often standing room only, even on a Sunday. I don’t see a lot of people specifically boarding at South Bellevue (maybe 4-5 at a time), but they do take whatever transit is available to Seattle.
Again, the Eastside has hundreds of thousands of people, and they all do different things and have different attitudes and shopping preferences.
“Parking is free in downtown Bellevue on weekends and everywhere else on the eastside all the time”
Going from South Bellevue to downtown Bellevue seems less likely, and I’m skeptical how many people to it to avoid parking fees. But we didn’t build the 2 Line just for that, but for all the overlapping trips between all the stations. Most of those make more sense than South Bellevue-Bellevue Downtown.
“I think most of them will simply park at S. Bellevue or Mercer Island and skip the Issaquah park and rides and a feeder bus”
There have always been people who did that. The P&Rs exist partly to provide that choice, since Eastsiders feel they need that option.
“Sheerwin uses the term “poach”, ST uses “truncate”, I use “coerce”.”
What part of “twice as frequent” don’t you understand? Issaquah is getting 15-minute service on the 554 compared to current 30-minute service. Waiting 10 or 15 minutes is much more comfortable than waiting 25 or 30 minutes; you don’t notice it as much. Issaquah will also get all-day bidirectional expresses to Mercer Island; currently they’re unidirectional peak only. People who want to get to Seattle quickly might prefer those since the station is practically next to to the freeway exit.
I found the 2030 boardings from the EIS in 2011. It’s in this chapter (pages 6-62 of the PDF):
https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/projects/eastlink/eis_2011/04_chapter3_transportation.pdf
It included East Link all the way to Downtown Redmond as well as across Lake Washington.
All in all, the early numbers seem reasonable given how it’s just a partial opening. Notably, the EIS correctly identified the same top three stations in 2030 that the July 2024 data now lists. However, Bellevue Downtown has the highest forecast. A data wonk could drill down more if they wanted, but with the partial opening it’s very premature.
I used the 2 line and 550 to attend a Seattle Reign soccer game in June. I was going to use the 255 and check out the transfer to Link at Husky Stadium, but that weekend the 520 was closed for maintenance.
I got on the 2 line at Redmond Technology and rode it to South Bellevue Park and Ride. There were only about four people per car, but I’m putting that on the 11 a.m. Sunday time. The 550 going from South Bellevue to Lumen Field was about 3/4 full, including a few who were wearing Reign paraphernalia like I was.
I would gather the 550 after the game would’ve been crowded, as there were 10-15,000 fans, but both teams stayed long after the final whistle to sign autographs and take selfies with fans (the NWSL is very good with this), and didn’t get out of the stadium until 45 minutes after. The return 550 trip was also about 3/4 full, with the only problem being finding a stop; One Bus Away first pointed me to a stop that was closed for construction, and I had to walk a few blocks further up to the previous one.
The return trip to Redmond Technology surprised me with its ridership. There were about ten passengers per car at all times, including a few families with multiple kids, instead of being virtually empty. Nice to see that there are some Eastsiders using the starter line for regular transportation a couple of months after the opening.
The lack of eastbound 550 stops at the south end of downtown definitely suppresses ridership. It will improve once the construction completes, but the stop still isn’t very close to the stadiums. East Link will be much better since people can board at International District.
I think ridership will double (~12,000) when Downtown Redmond extension opens.
I’m surprised there’s been no news yet about a targeted opening date for that yet. Maybe after the Lynwood opening ST will have a better idea of when they can open it. Latest progress report says December, but I’ve heard elsewhere it may be spring ’25
I agree. All the traffic crossing into areas south or west of Redmond (like Sammamish) is funnelled into the exit on SR 520 that goes to Redmond way. There’s virtually no other way to get around it. This causes huge delays there, right where Marymoor Village station and the giant parking garage is. I can see lots of people using this garage to avoid the traffic of the PM rush at the exit.
And that’s not mentioning downtown Redmond and the Marymoor Village itself, which have grown very impressively over the last few years. I’m very curious to see how ridership evolves around here!
The progress reports say Dec 25 but all press releases I’ve read mention early 2025 or Spring 2025. Hopefully we’ll be getting news on testing soon.
Here are the listed dates from the latest ST progress report:
(https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/agency-progress-report-capital-program-june-2024.pdf)
Downtown Redmond Extension is listed to open for revenue service on December 31, 2024 or maybe as early as December 22. It’s supposed to be ready for testing on September 23. Simulation is scheduled to begin November 7. Look for the Board setting a date soon — maybe as early as later this week or early next week so it can get reviewed by the Rider Experience and Operations Committee.
The full 2 Line from Redmond to Seattle to Lynnwood is listed to open for revenue service on November 6, 2025. The rail activation date (hopefully East OMF access) is listed for June 5, 2025 with simulation (hopefully meaning 5 minute trains all day between Lynnwood and ID-C Stations) beginning August 24, 2025. These early dates are very important as ST has had to create a temporary vehicle storage strategy for Lynnwood Link. Of course, the simulated service should have in-service 2 Line trains between Lynnwood and ID-C, and South Bellevue and Downtown Redmond — as only the middle stretch would need to be in testing mode.
Federal Way Extension is listed to open for revenue service on April 9, 2026. Simulation would begin on January 20, 2026.
With so many dates hitting in the next 20 months — and each one depending on completion of sonething else by another date, schedule is a big deal. It could slip.
And the Lake Washington crossing next summer is probably the most critical test to pass. I will have lingering doubts until two four-car trains pass each other on that bridge in testing.
Agree Al, I share your concerns about multiple trains on the bridge as well as speed across the track bridges at each end. So much of this has never been done before outside of testing.
@M,
I think a doubling of ridership might be a bit sporty, but I do think the ridership bump will be substantial.
Verification (Fit and Function) testing for RLE has been underway for awhile now, so I suspect we will hear a date soon — maybe real soon. I think ST has had their hands full with LLE and the distributed storage. Now that that is over they should be able to commit to a RLE Simulated Service date and targeted opening date.
In other news, I noticed that they are pulling catenary wire on the fixed approach to the old bus tunnel, so progress on Full ELE is being made too.
All good news.
“I think ridership will double (~12,000) when Downtown Redmond extension opens”.
Sound Transit estimated 3000 boardings at downtown Redmond station pre-pandemic. That would include people boarding whose trip originates in Redmond plus those who came to Redmond and are returning home by Link.
When Microsoft was in office work I thought 3000 total boardings was low. By comparison Mercer Island (residents, not including the bus intercept or the park and ride that pre-pandemic was 50% off-Island) had 3000 estimated daily boardings, with probably the vast majority originating their trip from Mercer Island because few go to Mercer Island. That estimate surely is high today.
Now with Microsoft going work from home and a very large parking garage 3000 boardings at downtown Redmond might be about right. Those taking Link to Microsoft from the west obviously won’t continue onto downtown Redmond. I don’t know how many on this blog actually go to Redmond for a discretionary trip but the retail is not great, and Bellevue is upstream and much better retail as is Kirkland, Totem Lake, Issaquah, and so on. Lovely area on the far side of the moon but not really a retail or restaurant destination if you don’t live there, and folks who do live there often drive someplace else to shop or dine. I don’t know many on the Eastside who choose Redmond to shop or for a night out.
So I think strangely enough ST’s pre-pandemic estimate of 3000 boardings will be close, even with Microsoft work from home.
It’s highly unlikely that the two Downtown Redmond Stations will add 3,000 more boardings to the 2 Line segment when it doesn’t cross the lake. (3000 boardings x 2 directions is 6000 added to the current line of about 6000.) Redmond Tech has only 1700-1800 and Downtown Bellevue has only 1200-1300. Even south Bellevue is only 1000-1100.
My expectation is that the two new stations combined will be lucky to get 1500 boardings, meaning 3000 riders at most. With some boardings moving from Redmond Tech (say 250-500), I see the line only adding about 2000-2500 riders total to 2 Line.
My guess would have been higher if Downtown Bellevue boardings were higher, if Redmond Town Center was popular and if people weren’t working from home as much.
I think the largest benefit for Downtown Redmond is the high number of apartments within walking distance. Unlike the segment of the 2 line between bellevue/microsoft that misses out on density on NE 8th st, downtown redmond has a lot of apartments nearby.
The problem with all of these systems is there is no reliable transit TO and FROM the spine. The currently planned transit spine is almost perfect, with only some issues around the Factoria area in my opinion.
If we want people to use Link, BRT, etc… get bus service between the network and local conmunities efficiently.
Examples:
1. Factoria (T-Mobile) to South Bellevue Station and Eastgate Station
2. Kent to future South Renton Transit Center
3. Woodinville to future Bothell SR 522 BRT station and Redmond stations
People won’t ride transit unless it takes them where they need to go. The problem is we keep designing transit for people who will “walk” to the station. You aren’t going to get great ridership that way. Give people ways to drive and park at stations, and give them reliable bus service to major workplaces and city centers. Add electric scooters for shorter distances.
The region doesn’t come with dense cities and corridors like European places. We can’t escape a car and local bus centric society. We need our public transportation to complement what we have and serve our suburbs. Suburbs are a huge untapped population for transit.