Currently most bus lines on the eastside are radiating from the Bellevue Transit Center. With the growth of Bellevue College and with the city’s efforts to make the campus more transit friendly, Metro is planning to add more lines which serve the college. Why not make Bellevue College a secondary southeast hub and connect it to the Bellevue Transit Center via an ultra-high-frequency gondola?
While there are plans to build light rail from Issaquah to Eastgate, downtown Bellevue, and South Kirkland P&R, construction won’t even start for another decade. With the current ST3 project cost increases, there are some doubts whether it will be affordable. So what could be done to improve transit in the meantime?
The Issaquah and Sammamish populations are rapidly growing. With over 10,000 students, Bellevue College is one of the largest schools in the state. Many local bus lines serve the college. That creates high travel demand mostly to downtown Bellevue and Seattle. Once the 2 Line crosses the lake, transit in the area is about to change. Buses from Issaquah will serve either Mercer Island or South Bellevue Station with some continuing to Bellevue Transit Center. They will stop at the Eastgate Freeway stop along the way. Either way they will connect to Link (2 Line) but it means that frequency is split between two directions (Seattle vs Bellevue). Some of the riders may also have a long walk from the freeway median stop to the college. If all Issaquah bus lines would connect to a Bellevue College hub and then continue to Mercer Island, Seattle riders could stay on any of those buses and Bellevue riders could use the gondola line to the Bellevue Transit Center. That may allow for a frequency of 5-10 minutes from Issaquah to Seattle and Bellevue and even higher frequency from Bellevue College to Bellevue Transit Center.
The Issaquah buses would need to exit the freeway briefly at the Eastgate flyer stop, follow the existing 142nd Pl SE HOV bridge, and loop around at the gondola station. Traffic on the HOV lanes from Issaquah to Mercer Island is usually not an issue. Students and faculty could take the gondola to Downtown Bellevue or a fast and frequent set of buses to Mercer Island (and Seattle). Bellevue College would become an even bigger transit hub than it is today, creating many other valuable connections. By connecting the two hubs with an ultra-high-frequency gondola line, any transfers between a line on one hub and a line on the other hub becomes much easier (such as between Issaquah and UW via: Issaquah to College – gondola – Bellevue TC to UW).
The gondola would generally follow the Lake Hills Connector straight to the Bellevue Transit Center. You would also want to add a stop on the east side of I-405 (Target, Trader Joe’s, REI) which would create an easy way for pedestrians and cyclists to cross the I-405 “car sewer”, reach Eastrail, and give more people an opportunity to ride the gondola to the college. As gondolas arrive every ten seconds, students would get a high-frequency connection to Downtown Bellevue while riders arriving by bus could transfer quickly. With a travel time of about 12 minutes, the gondola is not only faster than a bus (271 takes 16 minutes at 8am) but also far more reliable and frequent (271 runs every 10-15 minutes mid-day). RapidRide K could just serve Kirkland to Bellevue instead of Bellevue College.
The Bellevue Transit Center station could be located on the northwest corner of the dog park right south of the Link station and connect to the Link mezzanine above to avoid the need for vertical conveyances.
The Bellevue College station could be located on the corner of Snoqualmie River Road / 142nd and Coal Creek Road on parking lot 14, an intersection soon to be upgraded for better bus circulation. It would require a bus loop for the Express buses to turn around and a new stop for other buses.
You could even extend the line to Bellevue Square along NE 6th St in Bellevue and over I-90 to Factoria/T-Mobile at the other end. This would provide transit riders from Factoria a safe way to cross I-90, reach the buses at the College and reach Bellevue. It would also allow for better routing in the area. A bus like the future Metro 240 would not detour to Eastgate (and the college) but instead go to South Bellevue (and Downtown Bellevue) using a more direct route. Riders heading to the college would transfer to the gondola.
Two strong transit hubs connected with a gondola line would not only improve the local transit experience in Bellevue but also strengthen regional connections along the I-90 and I-405 corridor.
This makes a strong case that a hub in the college area would be a significant benefit for the surrounding neighborhoods. That’s one thing STB tries to do: point out potential hubs or transit+walking opportunities that others may have overlooked. This article started with just the gondola line, but as we were refining that and how it would affect bus routes, the opportunity for a hub emerged.
The close-up map of the bus path from I-90 to the hub shows the tradeoff between getting to the college hub vs travel time to Mercer Island for Issaquah-Seattle trips. Martin thinks the detour wouldn’t take much time. I think it may be a lift to convince Metro to serve the hub rather than the freeway station.
You’d still need a bus route for the apartments along 140th/145th Place where college students probably live, both to get to the college and maybe to get to downtown Bellevue (if a one-seat ride to Bellevue TC is justified in that residential-only area).
The 240 did go directly from South Bellevue P&R to Factoria for a long time. It got onto I-90 for one exit. I used to ride it in the 80s. It was rerouted to Bellevue College in the 2010s after the discovery that a significant number of lower-income Renton residents were going to the college and asking for a better transit connection. This move also created the 241 to backfill the direct South Bellevue-Factoria corridor.
The Lake Hills Connector has a woodsy atmosphere like a parkway. There may be NIMBY opposition to the visual impact of a gondola there, or it may run into regulatory hurdles if it’s a protected greenbelt.
“This makes a strong case that a hub in the college area would be a significant benefit for the surrounding neighborhoods. ”
I agree. No matter what happens, Bellevue College needs a transit circulation rethinking.
I mentioned several weeks ago that the Bellevue College campus layout is not easy to serve even with buses as it is currently laid out.
It is laid out as a random positioning of buildings surrounded by parking — so a student drives there, attends class and drives away. The circulation is not designed to easily have buses pass through campus as the planners don’t want to encourage through traffic on campus yet they don’t want any exclusive bus lanes either.
Having a hub is one way to rethink the layout. Having a transit mall through campus is another.
The campus also needs a “student district” with places to gather, eat and shop for everyday things (as well as serve nearby residents).
The usefulness of a gondola seems to partially hinge on how things get laid out at the non-Link end. Without a clear place to land it may not be very effective unless the overall campus layout and circulation concepts change.
There are plans to upgrade Snoqualmie River Rd for bus service, which would improve the bus service through the area dramatically:
https://bellevuewa.gov/city-government/departments/transportation/projects/transportation-capital-projects/bellevue-college-connection
The changes that Martin linked to (https://bellevuewa.gov/city-government/departments/transportation/projects/transportation-capital-projects/bellevue-college-connection) will certainly help. This will make it much easier for buses to go serve the campus. In the future (https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/metro/programs-and-projects/east-link-connections) that would be the 220, 223, 226 and 245.
But it doesn’t really solve the awkward connections from I-90 and the splitting of service to the west. If Downtown Bellevue was not a destination the solution would be easy. Send all the buses from the east to Mercer Island. At worst the riders have to walk to campus from the freeway station. But you could also have that same little loop as merely a way to get closer to the college (in the same way that the 512 used to serve Lynnwood Transit Center).
But Downtown Bellevue is a destination. This splits demand with some express buses headed that way and other express buses headed to Mercer Island. A gondola solves all of these problems.
The college itself is definitely a “commuter college”. But that also means that lots of people will ride transit to it. It would be nice if the area was a bit more developed around the edges but that is largely the result of zoning from what I can tell. Just about everywhere in the area is zoned residential*. The one exception is where there is the coffee shop (https://maps.app.goo.gl/2iXJo7PDmpA44wBF6) and Shell station (just to the east). That’s it. If Bellevue rezoned the area I could definitely see more retail. It is quite possible that a gondola could lead to them rezoning the area. This is the way most “TOD” occurs in this region. It isn’t that an otherwise undeveloped area suddenly becomes more commercially viable — it is that the city decides to allow development in an area they haven’t before. So yeah, that could happen with or without a gondola but it seems more likely with one.
*This is the map I used to look at Bellevue zoning: https://cobgis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=e1748172d4f34f1eb3710032a351cd57. You have to select the little arrow next to “Property and Land Use” and then select the “Zoning” check box. Here are the definitions: https://bellevuewa.gov/sites/default/files/media/pdf_document/2023/ApxB_LandUsePatternsandUrbanFormAppendix_PUBLIC-DEIS.pdf
Bellevue is updating their zoning (see “Citywide Comprehensive Plan Map”): https://bellevuewa.gov/city-government/departments/community-development/planning-initiatives/comprehensive-plan
I don’t think there are any major changes around the college. The area south of the college (next to the P+R) seems like it has the most potential for redevelopment, but it doesn’t look like anyone is interested yet.
Martin thinks the detour wouldn’t take much time. I think it may be a lift to convince Metro to serve the hub rather than the freeway station.
There is precedent. The 512 used to serve Lynnwood Transit Center and then get back on the freeway. At Ash Way it continues to do that (and it takes longer). The 574 makes a similar detour to serve Federal Way Transit Center. The 535 detours to serve UW-Bothell. Off hand I can’t think of Metro buses serving nearby freeway stations in that manner but they have plenty of detours. Buses serving Four Freedoms, the VA and TIBS go out and back to get riders closer to their destination (or closer to a transfer). This would be similar.
You’d still need a bus route for the apartments along 140th/145th Place
Of course. The plan is to serve that with the 223 (and a little section via the 226). (https://cdn.kingcounty.gov/-/media/king-county/depts/metro/documents/projects/east-link-connections/maps/p4-final-central-subarea-routes.pdf). The difference being that if there was a gondola they would have a faster way to get to Downtown Bellevue (take a bus and then transfer). But if the express buses from Issaquah all go to Mercer Island (as I’ve suggested) then you want to backfill service along Bellevue Way. One option would be to send those buses along that corridor. That would mean fifteen minutes buses from Downtown Bellevue to Bellevue Way, South Bellevue, Bellevue College and 148th & 22nd where they would branch. It would be like this (https://maps.app.goo.gl/mb2TGBzwuUSVzisY9) except go through Bellevue College (once they finish the work on it). This would be an improvement for folks in the 148th area over what they have planned.
This would cost money but not a lot of money. Another option would be to shift the 240 over to Bellevue Way (and send the 554 to Mercer Island). Then don’t bother to have service along 112th south of 8th (which is the case now). That would mean a considerable amount of savings. There would be plenty of options.
Issaquah buses should not leave the freeway. Even with an investment like a gondola, Bellevue College will remain a secondary destination. The primary destination is Link. If Issaquah Link is built, then sure have the “Eastgate” station deviate from the freeway for a better connection to the College, but until then I90 buses should not deviate.
Eastgate TC is already a major bus transfer bus, which Eastgate freeway bus stops serve just fine. There is a minor “last mile” issue with the walk uphill from Eastgate to Bellevue College, which Martin proposes to solve by a side trip by all buses. Given that Bellevue College is a campus and not a point destination, a simple (driverless) shuttle running from Eastgate & the college would be more impactful. The only capital investment would be a roundabout at SE 36th & 142nd Pl. There are several buses that provide this connection (e.g. 245, 271), but a shuttle would enhance the frequency.
The Issaquah buses are not going to the college to serve the college but to drop people off at the gondola so that riders can reach Bellevue. The alternative would be for the buses to split frequency between Mercer Island and Bellevue which reduces frequency.
Looking at the map got me thinking of a much shorter gondola run from South Bellevue Station to Factoria majestically sweeping over the I-90/405 interchange. Pretty short and would help connect Factoria to the rest of the transit world. Sponsored by T-Mobil? Interesting post!
We discussed other East Side gondola ideas. The big problem with South Bellevue is that there is nothing there. You connect to Link but that still means waiting for the train. One of the key advantages of gondolas is that there is essentially no waiting. This makes them especially well suited for point-to-point trips. Downtown Bellevue and Bellevue College are both much bigger destinations than Factoria.
Another consideration is how this influences the overall transit network. A gondola from Downtown Bellevue to Bellevue College allows all the buses from Issaquah to just continue east (on the freeway, in the HOV lanes) to Mercer Island. The same thing could be accomplished by running the gondola from the college to South Bellevue — the problem is that riders then have to make a transfer to get to Downtown Bellevue. It costs more (probably) but it is worth it to go directly to Downtown Bellevue.
Likewise one of the big benefits for a gondola extension to Factoria is that the Factoria bus(es) could skip going to the college. It is a similar dynamic — some of the riders want to go to the college while some of the riders want to go South Bellevue (to then transfer to Downtown Bellevue or Seattle). There is a very fast connection between Factoria and South Bellevue Station (https://maps.app.goo.gl/SYEgjogTRXixnyvw5) — the buses won’t use it because they also want to connect to the college. By running the gondola between Factoria and Bellevue College the buses can run more directly to South Bellevue and Downtown Bellevue.
At the same time I would expect a decent amount of travel between the college and Factoria. I would consider it a borderline project — hard to say it is a great value. But like the main project (Bellevue College to Downtown Bellevue) you have three benefits: point to point gondola use; transfers involving the gondola; better bus network.
Thanks Ross. Lots of good info you provided for me to chew on.
Martin’s original proposal had two gondola alternatives: College-Bellevue Downtown, or College-Factoria-South Bellevue. I said few people would want to take a gondola to South Bellevue to transfer to Link because South Bellevue is in the middle of nowhere. So we were concerned it would be a weak route. Then the hub idea emerged, and Martin chose College-Bellevue Downtown as the primary proposal, with optional extensions to Factoria and Bellevue Square. That left South Bellevue out.
As an Issaquah resident almost all my transit trips start with the 554 to Seattle. I rarely take the 271 to Bellevue as it’s a bit of a long run unless the destination is the Library or Park near Bellevue Station. Once the 554 starts stopping at South Bellevue Station it will increase my access to other frequent trips such as Wilberton (Overlake Hospital), Redmond Station (grand daughter, bike trails and beer) and other Bellevue stations with nice eating places (Spring District, Bel-Red, and Overlake Village). Hitting those other stations other than Bellevue Downtown via the Gondola would require a three seat ride. Still haven’t done a spread sheet on various travel times for these routings so I’m not sure what the benefits of the Gondola 🚠is to an Issaquah resident, although in the bigger picture of regional transport that may not be the top priority.
For an Issaquah resident it depends on where you are going. Just to back up here the assumption is that once you build the gondola, all the express buses from Issaquah go to Mercer Island (but stop at Bellevue College along the way).
So if you are going to Seattle it is faster (even with the little detour to the college). If you are going to the college it is better (it is a much shorter walk from the bus stop to anywhere on campus). If you are headed to Downtown Bellevue it is basically a wash. You are forced to transfer but there is practically no waiting (and the trip takes about as long). Whether you consider it an aesthetic advantage or not depends on whether gondolas freak you out or not (I’ve been known to close my eyes but on a nice day the views would be spectacular). If you are transferring to another bus it is better. Like the walk to the college, you avoid the walk from the freeway bus stop to 32nd (where most of the buses from the north run).
If you are at the Highlands you have an additional advantage. You would be able to take two frequent buses from Link (they would serve the same station). One would likely operate as an express (e. g. the 218) while the other would serve the main part of Issaquah* before the Highlands. This means you aim for a bus like the 218 but take the first one that arrives.
*I have friends from Issaquah but I haven’t seen them in a while and I never asked them this: What do you call the area by the library? Is it “Downtown Issaquah”? What about the rest of Issaquah — is that “Lower Issaquah”? Is it just “Issaquah” and the Issaquah Highlands are the “Highlands” (said with a sneer if you are a long time resident)?
“What do you call the area by the library? Is it “Downtown Issaquah”? What about the rest of Issaquah — is that “Lower Issaquah”?“
I hear “Front Street, Downtown, or old Issaquah” for the Library area. “Gilman Blvd” seems to be the accepted reference for the area south of I-90 between SR900 and Front Street. The area north of I-90 generally is what ever big box store you are headed for. And “ the Highlands” for the Highlands although that’s coming from us folks living south of Downtown near the The Issaquah High School. But I wonder what the Highlanders calls us down in the flats? (Sassenach?)
About to send this, I have no idea where it will end up in the queue.
Yeah it could be the magenta line! lol
I am not sure though if going to Downtown Bellevue offers much more than Link connectivity and South Bellevue offers that. Students are sometimes office workers but students are more likely going to want to connect to low cost food and drink, low cost shopping or their low cost apartments.
I see the place for that to be either in a new district within walking distance from campus — and if not there I see this as the Factoria area.
The interim Factoria stop would to me suggest going to South Bellevue. All three destinations would have a market for transit. Gondolas don’t have to negotiate traffic but they still move on the slower side.
And I certainly don’t see why a transit rider would get on a gondola at Factoria and ride slowly out of direction to Bellevue College before riding on to Downtown Bellevue.
I am not sure though if going to Downtown Bellevue offers much more than Link connectivity and South Bellevue offers that.
Wait, what? Are you saying that Downtown Bellevue is mainly just a transit center? Seriously? It is by far the largest destination on the East Side. There are both office and apartment towers. There are dense and broad apartment buildings — retail, entertainment — you name it. Yes, there is a mall but that is really a tiny part of Downtown Bellevue. Oh, and even from a transit perspective there is a lot more than just the connection to Link. It is a major transit hub for buses as well — everything from local coverage routes, RapidRide and regional express service from as far away as Lynnwood, Burien and Auburn.
And I certainly don’t see why a transit rider would get on a gondola at Factoria and ride slowly out of direction to Bellevue College before riding on to Downtown Bellevue.
They wouldn’t. At least not typically. They would take a bus to South Bellevue which would probably keep going to Downtown Bellevue. But the bus would not detour to Eastgate (like it will once the trains make it across the lake). But if they miss that bus to South Bellevue then I could see them riding the gondola all the way to Downtown Bellevue.
But from Factoria the main destination would be the college. So it is basically two different gondolas combined into one. But if you build the main one (Downtown Bellevue to Bellevue College) it then becomes cheaper to extend it (to Factoria). I think a gondola (and gondola, really) to Factoria is a stretch but I could it see it for promotional reasons if nothing else.
It would make more sense to run a gondola from the Eastgate transit center just up to the campus, and add dedicated buses running between Eastgate, the South Bellevue transit center, and the downtown Bellevue transit center.
That wouldn’t add much value. By the time a bus reaches the Eastgate Transit Center it has gone very close to the college (or is about to).
It really doesn’t address the issues in the area (which are a bit complicated). Demand is split for those coming from Issaquah — there are basically three significant destinations: Eastgate, Downtown Bellevue and Seattle. The fastest way to serve Eastgate is not via the park and ride but by using the Eastgate freeway station. Buses can serve that stop and keep going. The problem is that demand is then split between Downtown Bellevue and Seattle. The best way to serve Downtown Seattle is to connect to South Bellevue (and probably keep going to Downtown Bellevue). The best way to connect to Seattle is via Mercer Island. With the split in demand you have lower frequency.
This really does four things:
1) You have good point-to-point all-day use of the gondola. The rest of the system could be shut down and people would still use the gondola pretty much constantly when school is in session (and occasionally on weekends).
2) You have good transfers to the gondola. Both gondola stations are transit hubs.
3) You allow the bus network to be more efficient and effective. You would essentially have a frequent “bus bridge” or “spine” between the college and Mercer Island. Those buses would also continue to Issaquah. It is likely they would both serve the Highlands which means that riders there could take advantage of the same high frequency connection between the college and Mercer Island.
4) Riders heading to the college have a shorter walk from those express buses. The Eastgate freeway station is just barely adequate — going just a little ways up the hill would be much better. It is a short drive (one minute) but a long walk (6 minutes) according to Google (which sounds about right). This is not the big selling point — it is just a bonus.
It adds connectivity to Factoria much better. Sticking Factoria at the end of a gondola line rather than as its middle is an opportunity missed. Factoria is a destination for many coming from Seattle as well as students at the college.
Of course, Factoria itself needs a better pedestrian circulation concept. It feels pretty disjointed to me.
Metro will have a new bus line from Factoria to South Bellevue or you could take the gondola from Factoria to the College Station and use any of the buses to Mercer Island.
But of course you could also extend the gondola further from Factoria to South Bellevue.
It all depends on ridership and budget.
Factoria is a destination for many coming from Seattle as well as students at the college.
Yes, but it is still a minor destination compared to the college. It would be nice to connect it to the college via a gondola but one of the main benefits is that the bus wouldn’t have to then detour to the college before going to South Bellevue. But that begs the question: Why not run two frequent buses from Factoria — one to South Bellevue and one to Bellevue College? The simple answer is “Factoria is not that big”.
Nothing wrong with throwing around ideas, but this is never going to happen (maybe after the big one). This reminds me a lot of the SFU gondola.
The Simon Fraser University gondola in Burnaby BC (suburb of Vancouver) has been in talks for ~30 years and is only now seriously being considered for construction. The Benefit-Cost-Ratio is 1.8 which is ridiculously high. It would connect 2 grade separated rapid-transit lines (millennium and expo skytrain) to the 3rd largest university in BC, which is located on top of a mountain that busses struggle to get up during bad weather. When it snows the campus becomes inaccessible by transit.
Even now it’s not a sure-shot this gondola will be built in a province/country that is much more willing to invest in transit than WA is, despite the huge benefits it would bring.
If we don’t propose it, nobody will, and the public would never be able to see how this kind of transit network would serve people or be able to compare it to the status quo or other alternatives. STB exists partly to bring transit-best-practices-inspired ideas to the table, and this is one of them. We can debate whether it really is a best practice for southeast Bellevue or not; that’s what the comments are for. Deciding among ourselves whether it is a good idea, whether it’s mobility-enhancing and cost-effective, and whether the tradeoffs are worth it, is the first step before advocating it to the politicians and public. Articles like this serve as a long-term reference of what we could do, and that’s the starting point for any new kind of change.
The Simon Frasier University Gondola is a good project. The biggest problem is that Greater Vancouver has a lot of other good projects. That is not the case here. This does not compete with the likes of the Broadway Subway (which should have been built years ago) but Issaquah Link. This is really a substitute for that project (earlier versions of this post made that clear). This gets you most of what Issaquah Link would offer for a lot less money.
Is it realistic? Who knows.
Even with an investment like a gondola, Bellevue College will remain a secondary destination. The primary destination is Link.
First of all, Bellevue College is a major East Side destination. It is the second largest college in Puget Sound and fourth biggest in the state (behind UW, WSU and Western). It is quite likely the largest destination on the East Side that is not part of East Link. It is a bigger destination than many of the those stations and the only significant new destination for the proposed Issaquah Link.
Secondly, Link is not a destination. Some of the stations are significant destinations but not all of them are (e. g. South Bellevue Station is a very minor destination). Link is a way to get to destinations. But it isn’t always the best way — it depends on your destination. For example you could take a bus from Issaquah to Mercer Island and then take the train back to Downtown Bellevue. But that involves a lot of backtracking which means there are better options.
Let’s backup here and consider some goals in the area. Ideally a bus from Issaquah would enable:
1) fast trips to Seattle.
2) fast trips to Downtown Bellevue.
3) a fast trip to Bellevue College (even if it means walking a little bit).
4) frequent service.
You can’t do it all without spending more money on buses or infrastructure (e. g. a gondola). The fastest way to get to Seattle is via Mercer Island but that is slower for people headed to Downtown Bellevue. The fastest way to Downtown Bellevue is 405 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/K4VNehb3wUFioojQA) but you can’t do that while also serving the Eastgate freeway station (i. e. Bellevue College). That is also slower for those heading to Seattle. The second fastest way to get to Downtown Bellevue is to go via South Bellevue. But that too is slower for those headed to Seattle, especially during peak. Thus demand is split between buses heading to South Bellevue or Mercer Island — this in turn makes the buses less frequent.
A gondola solves this problem quite elegantly. The buses from Issaquah all head to Mercer Island and they all stop by the college gondola along the way. Riders from Bellevue College just take the gondola to downtown. Riders from Issaquah heading to Downtown Bellevue transfer to the gondola. Riders from the college or Issaquah heading to Seattle take a frequent and fast set of buses. You provide much of the value of Issaquah Link at a tiny fraction of the cost.
Had to check if today was April 1st….
You don’t even MENTION the RapidRide K Line! Why are you promoting this nonsense when we have a real genuine transit project that’s coming soon?! Why are you distracting Eastside residents with a fancy play-toy when they have a genuinely good project on the way?
Do better.
So you are saying we should completely ignore Issaquah Link because of the RapidRide K Line? We can (and have) cover both: https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/12/06/rapidride-k-winter-updates/
Earlier drafts did mention RapidRide K. Other cities wouldn’t consider a strategic gondola corridor a toy; they’d consider it a major transit innovation, and it’s heavily used. Strategic corridors are those where hills or highway barriers are especially challenging, where it’s hard for surface buses to go straight through quickly, and where underground or elevated light rail would be much more expensive. This corridor seems like one of those potential wins.
RapidRide K or another route would still be needed to serve the apartments along 140th/145th Place, and on the west side of the Connector some of the areas around Main Street and SE 8th Street. The gondola is more of an express bypass between the college hub, 116th, and downtown Bellevue.
We’re hardly harming RapidRide K. If the K is modified, it would be part of a larger decision about what all bus routes should do if the powers that be become favorable to a gondola.
A gondola also raises questions about Issaquah Link, because the gondola would rob what’s probably its largest ridership market (Eastgate-Bellevue Downtown). You can’t beat 2-minute frequency. But some of us have always been doubtful about Issaquah Link’s value and cost, and would rather see BRT. We’re assuming a BRT line that would more or less follow Link’s corridor from Issaquah to Eastgate, and then somehow go to Bellevue TC (e.g., on 405). If a gondola is added, then maybe that would suggest further modifications to the BRT idea. Issaquah Link is so far into the future, and so far beyond higher-priority ST3 projects that ST may not be able to afford anyway, that it seems like an abstraction now, not something to count on or plan around.
One of the things I notice about Metro and ST planning is that they both propose system expansion as extensions of the same concepts. ST looks to light rail with long routes (with Stride or Express as a last resort yet also with long routes). Metro wants every route to be pretty long too like RapidRide K, as opposed to having short shuttle routes that run more frequently in some places; every time Metro connects Factoria with Link in planning they propose the connection as part of much longer routes, often with much lower demand per mile, for example.
The thing that this idea introduces is adding a new service concept on top of a new technology: A high-frequency short-distance shuttle. So while the technology seems to grab our attention, let’s not overlook that it’s the different service concept that also needs to be supported.
(It’s one of the problems I also see with Seattle Subway visioning. They too want to promote long connecting lines rather than look at ideas to connect areas with high frequency short distance shuttles. )
Is there an interest is supporting more applications of the frequent, short feeder service concept to feed our rapidly growing Link system? Maybe that’s the key first step. Bus shuttles can be set up and tested rather quickly — and don’t need years of environmental studies nor a billion dollars to begin operation. Let’s simply test them out as demonstration overlay service for a year and see!
It’s too late to change what Metro will do for its Eastside restructure coming later this year (at worst early next year).
Or to put a different spin on it, if you believe that the gondola concepts are good but high-frequency short-distance shuttles are bad, I think you have fundamental dissonance in your logic. Supporting a gondola is de facto supporting a short-distance high-frequency shuttle concept — just hanging from wires rather than running on a rail or road surface.
All things being equal short routes are less productive. Sometimes all things aren’t equal and you need to fill a particular need with a tiny route. But circulators generally perform poorly. You are better off with a spine (where various longer routes overlap).
if you believe that the gondola concepts are good but high-frequency short-distance shuttles are bad, I think you have fundamental dissonance in your logic.
Not really. It is a matter of what each does best. One you build a gondola it doesn’t cost much to operate it with very frequent service. That goes with the territory. You basically have one person at each end at that’s that. In contrast if you send a bunch of buses between two places you have to have one driver per bus. This adds up. For example assume you want to run a bus express from Downtown Bellevue to Bellevue College (no stops in between). This takes about 10 minutes, or about 20 minutes round trip. Now assume you want five minute headways. Not counting breaks that means four buses. Realistically we are looking at five drivers at least. This is for five minute headways. What if we want something twice as frequent. It costs twice as much (and it still isn’t as frequent as a gondola).
It is just the trade-off with the mode. Gondolas are extremely frequent (at no extra cost) but they are relatively slow and require significant capital spending. Here is an interesting comparison chart for the Burnaby Mountain Gondola: https://liftblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/gondola-v-bus-lifecycle-cost.jpg. Notice that the bus operations exceed the gondola operations (even though the buses are less frequent). In the long run the gondola is cheaper. In the short run buses are cheaper. Trade-offs.
Though as a ferry commuter I will chime in the big trade off for the gondola is maintenence. Sure individual cars can get pulled off the line for work, but if anything needs to be done to the cable or support columns the entire system goes down, probable for a good long while, and would need to be supplemented by a temporary bus or shuttle system. Hopefully a gondola would be as reliable as a train, but the point stands.
“All things being equal short routes are less productive.”
The service concept of short distance, frequent transit is also what the monorail does. Do you think it’s less productive than it should be?
There’s an optimal distance range for bus routes where you get the highest ridership/cost, avoid excessive layovers, and avoid excessive forced transfers. The monorail is an elevated shuttle line, so it doesn’t have all the issues a bus route would have. There have been attempts or proposals for a Seaview Avenue route or a Ballard 65th loop route, but they have all failed because they’re too short to get enough riders. That’s why Metro attaches lower-ridership tails to stronger routes (the eastern third of the 62), or strings together earlier coverage segments into one route (249).
When the 14 was split, the 47 (Summit) became one of Metro’s shortest routes. It would live-loop downtown (=return without pausing) and layover in Summit. One bus could do that in 40 minutes, so it had 40-minute frequency. That’s hard for people to remember: they want to memorize that it comes at the :22 and :52 every hour. The layover was 10-15 minutes maybe. Now imagine there’s a second route the same length. You attach the two together into one route. (That’s called through-routing, regardless of whether it changes number in the middle or the whole thing gets a single number.) Now you’ve cut the total layover periods in half, so the drivers are more efficient. That’s what Metro did to save the 47 corridor: it extended some short 3 runs that terminated downtown to replace the 47. Presto: more frequent service in Summit (30-minute frequency instead of 40), at less cost to Metro.
At the other end of the continuum there’s another boundary where the route gets too long. Drivers need a break every 60-90 minutes minimum. A long congested corridor has many little slowdowns that add up, and any delays get transmitted across the entire route. The 174 used to run local from downtown to Federal Way. That was too long for reliability so it was split to the 124 and A.
On the other hand, Metro finds from the north edge of Seattle to Burien to be just the right length, so the 5/21 are through-routed, and the 28 is through-routed with half the 131s and 132s. This has a major benefit which I overlooked for years, then realized from experience how good it was. It allows people from either side to get off at any stop throughout downtown or the downtown-adjacent neigborhoods. As some people gradually get off, other people gradually get on. Some are going to downtown; others are going from north Seattle to south Seattle; others are making short hops within downtown or the adjacent neighborhoods. All these overlapping trips get the advantage of one-seat rides; bus resources are used more efficiently; and there’s no need for buses to take up space laying over downtown. I would take one of these to avoid the transfer overhead, or to transfer in north Seattle and avoid the annoying sketchy bus stops downtown.
With RapidRide K, Kirkand and Bellevue are two large downtowns that must be connected, and they’re five miles apart. Totem Lake is a regional growth center and must also be connected. Metro feels Eastgate is close enough that it can be part of the same route without it being too long. This allows people to make overlapping one-seat rides across its entire length, similar to the through-routes above.
Gondolas and the monorail and the airport subway are grade-separated shuttles with an end-to-end length of 2-10 minutes, so they just go back and forth continuously all day. They don’t have the overhead of driving on streets, waiting at stoplights, having slower boarding, or layovers. The driver is just replaced by another driver at breaktime or shift end at two fixed stations while the passengers are loading, or the line is automated, and its fast grade-separated nature means it can get the ridership of several bus routes, so that helps justify the cost of having drivers standby at the two end stations all day to relieve each other.
Does a gondola really make sense here? There’s already a transit hub at Eastgate P+R that has frequent transit to Bellevue TC. The transfer situation isn’t great, but it’s also not terrible.
After East Link is done, the 220 and 240 will run every 15 minutes during weekday hours. The lower bound for those trips would probably be something like 10-15 minutes for the 240 and 15-20 minutes for the 220. Yeah they get stuck in traffic, but I imagine that can be fixed much more cheaply (both financially and politically) than building a gondola.
And as mentioned the K line will already serve this corridor quite well, especially if the Snoqualmie River Rd project is prioritized
Somewhat related: If you’re looking for a place that needs a creative solution, I think Factoria is one of the worst-served areas relative to job/resident density. Bellevue College by comparison has much better service from the surrounding region.
The problem is not lack of service to Bellevue College. It is more about enhancing what is already there as well as improving the network. Issaquah Link would do that as well but it would cost billions more. As I wrote up above (https://seattletransitblog.com/2025/03/10/bellevue-college-transit-hub-with-gondola/#comment-952890) it accomplishes four things:
1) You have good point-to-point all-day use of the gondola. Both stops are major destinations.
2) You have good transfers to the gondola. Both gondola stations are transit hubs.
3) You allow the bus network to be more efficient and effective. You would essentially have a frequent “bus bridge” or “spine” between the college and Mercer Island.
4) Riders heading to the college have a shorter walk from those express buses.
Yes, Factoria is not well served by the buses. But there is a reason for that. Factoria is not a major destination. It reminds of the early days of Link. I told my son that they were going to build a train from downtown to the UW. I told him how important it was. His attitude was the opposite (“they already have great buses between there”). But replacing (some) bus service with a different mode is a common and standard thing to do. This is just a different way to do it. There are really four options:
1) Just run buses on the existing roadway.
2) Build a gondola.
3) Add HOV ramps to the freeway so that you can run express buses to the college.
4) Build light rail.
They all have tradeoffs. They are listed in order from cheapest to most expensive from a capital standpoint (with light rail being much more expensive than any other option). From an operations standpoint the gondola is likely as cheap as any other option if not cheaper (assuming you want a decent level of service). The main advantage of a train is capacity but we will never need that kind of capacity for trips of this nature (even if everyone transfers to the train).
If ST determined a way to add a 405 Factoria area stop on Stride, a gondola between South Bellevue, Factoria and Bellevue College could make a bit more sense.
> If ST determined a way to add a 405 Factoria area stop on Stride
The closest I’ve seen is at coal creek parkway https://maps.app.goo.gl/YU2F8HJ3zGnxasKy6?g_st=ic building a center hov ramps.
Factoria isn’t a major destination but it isn’t a small one either. There’s a high school, T-Mobile HQ, and a fairly busy mall surrounded by condos, apartments, and town homes.
Unfortunately the street geometry in the area is terrible and as far as I know they’ve never had good service to anywhere outside of Bellevue College.
Factoria does have excellent, grade separated bike/ped access to South Bellevue station. Short of an infill Stride station on 405 or 90*, I would focus on improving the bike/walk infrastructure in Factoria for last mile access.
*ST3 has a Factoria Link station, which could easily evolve into a Stride station in a future vote.
This article doesn’t even mention elevation differences.
The sense I get from Martin and other West Seattle gondola folks is they’re trying to find a form of ‘transit’ that is between grade separated rail and at grade BRT. So a solution that is grade separated but not as high capacity as rail rapid transit.
The main use case for gondolas around the world is to move people up/down steep inclines. There are also funiculars but I believe gondolas are a more ‘rapid transit’ version of that. Gondolas/funiculars provide a solution where conventional busses/rail don’t work.
What is the benefit of a gondola over a subway/elevated train that goes along the same route? Is it just cost savings while still meeting capacity needs? Would these gondolas still work during severe windstorms like the 2 we’ve had in the past few months?
Gondolas are useful not only for steep inclines, but whenever there are obstacles. A green belt like Lake Hills Blvd is a good example. A gondola can fly above, but building a rail line would be very destructive. You can build more bridges over I-405 or I-90, but it gets very expensive.
You can build a gondola far more quickly and for about tenth the cost of a rail line and it still almost as much capacity than light rail train.
Yes, you may have to briefly interrupt service in a windstorm, but even buses have gotten hit by trees. While gondolas have no issues with snow events, buses don’t do well so well in snow.
Lake Hills Connector is not an obstacle. It’s a 4 lane arterial that can, and does, carry buses.
Chaves Ravine (Dodger stadium) or Marquam Hill (OHSU) are obstacles where a gondola makes sense. West Seattle made sense when a gondola was a cheaper option than a standalone bridge across the river. There is no topographic barrier around Bellevue College.
An investment in bus priority for the 271 would be an order of magnitude cheaper than a gondola.
“Lake Hills Connector is not an obstacle. It’s a 4 lane arterial that can, and does, carry buses.”
It’s also on a hill, and the road is U-shaped while a gondola line can be straight.
“An investment in bus priority for the 271 would be an order of magnitude cheaper than a gondola.”
RapidRide K will be that investment. But Metro will never run buses at 2-minute frequency, so you’ll be waiting longer for them than for a gondola. This is an opportunity to have some first-class transit infrastructure between two of the Eastside’s largest travel areas. That may be worth the minor cost of a gondola.
What is the benefit of a gondola over a subway/elevated train that goes along the same route? Is it just cost savings while still meeting capacity needs?
The benefit is mainly cost. It would cost much, much less. It would be more frequent but slower. Capacity is unlikely to be an issue. Ridership tends to be spread out over the day. There might be some peak demand from Issaquah to Downtown Bellevue but the 556 was never very crowded (even before the pandemic).
As it follows a direct line rather than following the freeway, it might not be slower than a light rail line between the same points.
Hmmm, I think it would be. To be clear, I like the idea of a gondola here but the biggest weakness is the distance. An express bus would take five minutes (if they added HOV lanes). Keep in mind it isn’t just about avoiding traffic — it is connecting to that ramp at Eastgate. The ramp (https://maps.app.goo.gl/Heo5gy81hy59Uqvx5) puts you in the HOV lanes. But you can’t get from there to I-405. Once you merge into traffic it is too late. But if they added ramps between 405 and I-90 it would be about a five minute drive. Add a minute to get to the freeway and it is about six minutes. The light rail path probably adds another minute. So the gondola would likely take about five minutes longer than light rail. Given the dramatically lower price tag and better headways it is clearly better than light rail in every respect but one: capacity. The likelihood that will be a factor is lower than the Sonics winning the championship next year. (And yes, I realize we don’t have a team yet.)
You can get from the HOV lanes to the South Bellevue exit. I did it regularly when I worked in Bellevue and would drop/pick up my wife at Eastgate. It was an easy merge (during rush hour, both directions) because traffic was backed up at the 405 interchange but free flowing immediately after.
Regardless, WSDOT wants to build HOV/HOV interchange at 405/90. Rather than build a gondola, just leverage WSDOT to rebuild that interchange.
A center exit on Richards would probably be okay and would be much cheaper than the full I-90/I-405 interchange. Richards/Lake Hills are pretty quick and have a lot of room for bus priority
> Regardless, WSDOT wants to build HOV/HOV interchange at 405/90.
I think people are underestimating the cost of those. Those hov/hov interchanges are not that cheap, as high elevated flyovers and cost more stacked for the next set to fly over the first set.
> I-405 @ I-90 Interchange: HOV Direct Connector Ramps – Phase 1: Construct HOV direct connector ramps from SB I-405 to EB I-90, WB I-90 to NB I-405, NB I-405 to EB I-90, WB I-90 to SB I-405
(aka seattle to bellevue and seattle to renton)
Would cost ~$600 million dollars.
> : I-405 @ I-90 Interchange: HOV Direct Connector Ramps – Phase 2: Construct HOV direct connector ramps from SB I-405 to WB I-90, EB I-90 to NB I-405, NB I-405 to WB I-90, EB I-90 to SB I-405
(aka issaquah to bellevue and issaquah to renton)
Would cost $300 million dollars
As John noted, even with direct connector flyovers, it’s too close to stop at factoria. I guess wsdot could just build one set of ramps say the bellevue to issaquah one. and maybe have inline freeway bus stop at richards road.
https://www.psrc.org/media/2404
For sure the interchanges are very expensive, but if they are paid by tolls and/or gas tax, that would be better than a gondola that comes out of ST or KCM’s budget.
I like John D’s suggestion, in part because it would also significantly improve access to Factoria. Yes, it’s a walk from I-90 to the center of the business district, but no farther than the center stops to Bellevue College.
If you “Street View” from Richards Road and I-90 up to Lake Hills Connector and then along the Connector, there are NO cars in the photos of the toward Bellevue direction along the Connector. Zero. Zilch. Nada. [Well, of course, there’s implcitly the Google car] until one overtakes from the right just at the Eastside Connector bridge.
At the freeway off-ramp where the Connector turns into 116th SE, the Google car finally catches up to some traffic. It’s weird.
It’s obvious that this is a very good potential busway, if priority is provided along 116th SE, buses get some “hold” priority at the stop lights along the way, and the northbound buses get to fly over the intersection of Richards and the Connector. It’s a heck of a lot cheaper than re-creating the five-level monstrosity at I-10 and Beltway 8 in Houston.
Thanks for this insight, John.
It boggles the mind that people sit in the mess at I-405 north to I-90 east (both ways) instead of using this excellent, mid-speed bypass.
You can get from the HOV lanes to the South Bellevue exit.
Yes, it is getting from the Eastgate HOV lanes to 405 that is a problem.
WSDOT wants to build HOV/HOV interchange at 405/90
That changes everything. One of the arguments for a gondola is that it would be considerably cheaper than an interchange. But if the interchange is going to be built anyway then it is considerably easier and cheaper to just leverage it. To get a really good system (of the type enabled by a gondola) would require spending more on service but not a lot more. It is only about five minutes (by freeway) from the college to the Downtown Bellevue Transit Center. It is quite likely that any express bus would also be connected to a different bus (not just a shuttle) thus adding value. For example I could see this:
1) Send the 554 to Mercer Island. The other Issaquah express buses (215, 218, 269) would continue to go there as well.
2) Move the 240 over to Bellevue Way.
3) Have the 245 skip the Eastgate Park and Ride and instead get on the freeway and run express to Downtown Bellevue. Other possibilities would be the 223 (if they could boost the frequency) or a 223/226 combination (if they had the same frequency and were timed properly).
The only additional cost is running a bus from Eastgate to Downtown Bellevue as an express. But again, that takes about five minutes. It would not be that expensive.
But it is a huge improvement. Now you have very frequent service from Mercer Island to Bellevue College. You have frequent service from Downtown Bellevue to Bellevue College. The trip is not as frequent as a gondola bus considerably faster. The one-seat express ride from Downtown Bellevue does not end at the station — it extends into the neighborhoods northeast of there.
At that point it is difficult to justify a gondola. You might save a tiny bit in terms of service but not enough to justify the extra construction cost. The only way you would save a considerable amount of service is if they are running more express buses between Bellevue College and Downtown Bellevue. If they are doing that then riders are better off with the buses. In other words if they are running the buses every five minutes then you are *always* better off catching a bus. You can must miss a bus and have to wait a full five minutes and still get there faster than the gondola. At (a more realistic) 7.5 minutes, the bus would be faster for the vast majority of spontaneous riders. If they build the interchange then it is hard to justify a gondola.
For the same reason it would be even harder to justify Issaquah Link than it is today.
More thoughts. If WSDOT built an interchange and you did all the things I mentioned in the last comment I would still have the I-90 buses (going between Issaquah and Mercer Island) serve a little loop up to the campus. It wouldn’t go very far but a couple minute detour saves five minutes of (every unpleasant walking) each direction. I think that enough riders are headed to the college to justify the detour.
It is unfortunate that the layover is on the Eastgate side. Then all the buses that run though the college (the 220, 223, 226 and 245) could either go to the freeway (and Downtown Bellevue) or layover on the other side somewhere. But there is no nearby place on the other side to easily turn around, let along lay over.
But I could see the buses extended to Factoria. The 245 turns around in Factoria so the issue would be laying over. If they could find a comfort station somewhere in Factoria (which seems quite plausible) I could see this (in addition to the other changes):
4) Send the 220 to Factoria.
5) Have the 240 run directly from Factoria to South Bellevue.
That is more or less revenue neutral. It would mean both the 220 and 245 would run from the freeway overpass through the college. If timed property that would mean running every 7.5 minutes. It means that Factoria would have both a frequent (15 minute midday) connection to the college and a frequent fast connection to Link.
You lose a little coverage on Eastgate Way (you would only have the 226) but you could shift the 203 there if you wanted to. That would cost extra but not a lot extra. Right now service on Eastgate is somewhat wasteful, with a 15 minute bus and a 30 minute bus. With this proposal you would have either just a 30 minute bus (revenue neutral) or two half hour buses timed to provide fifteen minute frequency along Eastgate Way between the college and South Bellevue Station.
I think people are underestimating the cost of those (freeway ramps).
Not really. They are definitely expensive (and I noted that). But if you look at the costs it is:
1) Gondola: A few hundred million.
2) Interchanges: Several hundred million.
3) 1.7 billion (2020 estimates). I think it is fair to say that this would climb much faster than the other projects (3 billion seems plausible).
Obviously Issaquah Link does more, but not a lot more. Getting back to the interchanges, I like the way you word it (with cities). But only one of those is important from a transit perspective and it is the one we have been focused on (Issaquah/Bellevue). It makes sense that this would be fairly expensive. It is quite messy in there. But this solves the issue with the Eastgate freeway stop (i. e. Bellevue College). This would not just be an improvement in terms of traffic. It is also enable an express from the Eastgate freeway stop to Downtown Bellevue. You really can’t do that right now. There are only a few ways to get from the Eastgate area to the Bellevue Transit Center:
1) Head head back east to the 150th ramps and loop around: https://maps.app.goo.gl/SzqiyzA1URKeJRMo7
2) Go via Lake Hills Connector/Richards Road: https://maps.app.goo.gl/SJTKYkAYLKiSHDRw7
3) Go via Bellevue Way: https://maps.app.goo.gl/qq1F9wPVwmyKya7Z8
None of these routes are what I would call express. They all take about ten minutes (even with little traffic and no stops in between). But if you could enter the freeway there and connect to 405 it is about five minutes and it avoids traffic.
Based on those estimates it would cost somewhere less than the $640 million (of that plus the Renton/Issaquah pair). So somewhere around three or four hundred million dollars. Not cheap but also nowhere near what Issaquah Link would cost.
A 405/90 HOV to Express Lane direct access is to serve a very different purpose than this gondola. It’s to allow drivers to stay in express lanes and bypass bottlenecks.
And the bottlenecks seem to be primarily located on 405 between 90 and Coal Creek as well as traffic in Downtown Bellevue and further north. I’ve rarely seen terrible congestion on 90 except for traffic backing up to the Coal Creek bottleneck.
So I think any direct Express Lane access from 90 should be paid for by express lane tolls. And I wonder if WSDOT should redesign the segment north of Coal Creek on 405 to eliminate the weaving rather than build lots of new Express lane ramps but leave the bottleneck alone. It seems much less costly to me.
“It boggles the mind that people sit in the mess at I-405 north to I-90 east (both ways) instead of using this excellent, mid-speed bypass.”
If the Connector really is practically empty still, that’s how it was when I biked on it in the early 1980s. Non-local drivers probably don’t know about it.
Wasted of money on such kow volume system.
Just read the Wikipedia entry for the Portland Aerial Tram. Interesting numbers for construction and reasons for cost over runs as a lesson learned. Estimated at $15 million cost ballooned to $57 million but much of that was due to NIMBYism and cost escalation on the upper station structure. It sounds like WSDOT is spending $40 million on the SR520 148th interchange in comparison. The Portland Aerial Tram is about the same distance as South Bellevue to Factoria. https://wsdot.wa.gov/construction-planning/search-projects/sr-520-124th-avenue-ne-interchange-improvements-project
I think ideas like aerial tramways and Monorails are marvelous ideas and while some might list them as a “toy transit” we should not let that be the end of this idea or other creative concepts. If Kemper Freeman wanted it, it would already be under construction. And if not built by Sound Transit could be available on a schedule that would interest a lot of parties. Funding could be via a special tax district similar to the SLUT.
Portland Areal Tram: the upper station was supposed to be part of the new hospital building but this got rejected due to potential vibration. That was a big source of cost increases.
One aspect about gondola operation that I wonder about is the labor needs around it. Unlike private gondolas or gondolas in other counties, I suspect that there are factors like ADA (securing wheelchair riders), security, responding to things like a riders tripping or food/ drink spills, fare checking and other needs that need to be assumed. And then there is the issue of defining the hours of service, like whether it should run on Sundays when there is no class.
The only similar public operations in the US with the technology that I’m aware of are in Portland, in Palm Springs and for Roosevelt Island (NYC). Does anyone have knowledge of the labor requirements of those systems? I do not.
I wonder about labor costs but in general I think it is fairly cheap compared to the two alternatives (buses and trains). In the case of trains and the gondola you need to maintain the system. I would guess that maintaining the gondola is cheaper than maintaining a similar amount of rail but I don’t know. With a bus some other agency typically maintains the roadway.
In terms of regular operations the gondola is driverless while buses and (our) trains need a driver. You typically want someone at each station no matter what the mode. Overall I think the gondola is cheaper but it depends on how often you want to run a bus. If you ran the bus infrequently it would likely be cheaper.
“In terms of regular operations the gondola is driverless while buses and (our) trains need a driver. You typically want someone at each station no matter what the mode. ”
I of course realize that gondolas have no drivers on board. My query is about what other staff is needed. That’s partially decided by fare payment and by other rules like ADA, as well as security.
If there is someone at each station, that’s not much different than having two drivers in buses — except drivers probably would make more.
I rarely see RapidRide stations or even the MLK Link stations manned.
There is also the issue of maintenance. Unlike Link or Metro, some sort of maintenance facility near one station where cars land. Neither Bellevue College nor Downtown Bellevue seem great for that — and in between there’s not an apparent location. Granted it doesn’t need to be big — but it can’t be ignored either
If the region wanted to pursue gondolas, I would suggest creating several lines rather than just one. Then, the cost of specialized personnel for the mechanical maintenance can be shared among several lines.
The 2021 Kirkland gondola study estimated the cost for their 3-station line at $81m and annual operating cost at $6.7m.
Recently gondola manufacturers have added remote sensors and cameras to gondola systems to allow for centralized operation, potentially you could even monitor multiple systems from one location. Then you may only need roaming security guards to monitor the stations like ST does for Link. That would reduce the operating cost further.
You don’t need a separate maintenance facility, but one of the stations should have a place to pull cabins out of operation for cleaning and maintenance.
It’s interesting this should come up now, as the State of Utah is working on one to serve ski areas.
https://www.deseret.com/magazine/2025/03/09/canyon-gondola-controversy/
Supposed to be quite cheap to operate and maintain.
Systems with two cabins such as Portland Areal Tram and Roosevelt Island really aren’t quite the same as what is proposed here. This is more like what you see at Willowa Mountain or Crystal Mountain, or Oregon State Fair, or countless amusement parks.
That Utah project is estimated to cost about $100 million per mile to build. O & M would be cheap, but the upfront cost is enormous.
Most of Medellin’s aerial lines are short (1500/hour). They actually are the most effective transportation mode available due to the extremely steep slopes surrounding Medellin. How many passengers would this Bellevue proposal carry every hour? Is it really providing the highest benefit/cost available?
Medellin’s system is quite old by now, but you don’t even have to venture quite as far: Mexico City now runs several lines from BRT and metro stations into the neighborhoods. Line 1 and 2 have 100,000 daily riders.
https://itdp.org/2024/10/09/mexico-citys-cablebus-shows-us-the-potential-of-urban-cable-cars/
Their lines carry 4000 riders per hour in each direction, the latest gondola technology can handle even more.
“If the region wanted to pursue gondolas, I would suggest creating several lines rather than just one.”
The first step is to identify strategic corridors. Several have been suggested in articles or comments on this blog:
1. Factoria – Bellevue College – Bellevue Downtown. (Leaps over I-90 and 405 and street grid barriers, goes uphill straight over Lake Hills Connector.)
2. Issaquah – Issaquah Highlands. (Leaps over I-90 and street grid barriers, goes uphill to Highlands.)
3. Denny Way – First Hill. (Avoids Denny Way congestion, climbs steep hill, leaps over I-5.)
4. Harborview hospital – Pioneer Square. (Climbs steep hill, leaps over I-5 entrance congestion.)
5. Kirkland downtown – Stride 85th freeway station. (The City of Kirkland is considering this.)
6. West Seattle – SODO. (Much cheaper than Link, leaps over Duwamish River, medium capacity appropriate for West Seattle.)
That’s six lines right there. Other potential corridors?
A wild long list….
– Ballard to Fremont to U District
– Ballard to Queen Anne to Seattle Center (if crossing the Ship Canal is too costly)
– Alki to Admiral to Delridge (if WS Link is built)
– U District to U Village
– South Seattle College to Link
– Northgate to Lake City
– Judkins Park to Harborview
– Tacoma Dome to UWT and St Joseph
Surely sone of these seem silly— but not really that much more far-fetched than this one.
some more:
– Ferry terminal – Pioneer Sq Station – Harborview
– Kent Station – Kent Des Moines Station
– Bitter Lake – Pinehurst Station – Lake City
Until we build such lines, we can also rely upon plenty of local ski lift experience which is essentially the same as urban gondola technology. The Burnaby, Portland, and Los Angeles gondolas have been designed/maintained by WA based companies, too.
Waterfront to Westlake station was actually proposed.: https://www.seattlemet.com/travel-and-outdoors/2014/03/the-waterfront-gondola-is-really-happening-probably-march-2014
The Downtown Kirkland one would be useful to me. I live near 85th. Street east of I-405, and I’ve walked from there to downtown Kirkland for crowded events like the 4th. of July fireworks at Marina Park. Walking down the hill to there is a breeze; walking up it back home is a slog, even if the traffic means I get home more quickly than if I drove or took the bus (Redmond loans out police officers to Kirkland to help direct traffic).
why not hace a horizontal elevator?
One major obstacle I can see with this: acrophobia. A gondola may be a faster, more direct transit mode in this scenario, but a lot of people will be scared witless over the idea of being suspended over a highway by just a cable.
Not kidding. Two aunts had such a terrible fear of heights, if they were in a hotel room with outdoor corridors above the third floor and needed to step outside, they either pressed up against the wall, as far away from the railings as they could, or needed someone to escort them/serve as something to cling onto for the harrowing 30-foot walk. Needless to say, they would’ve responded to an invite to the Space Needle with a death stare.
If they were around for this Bellevue gondola, they would have much preferred to drive and get stuck in traffic for an hour, instead of taking a gondola for fewer than ten minutes and risk a heart attack because they’d be so terrified. Now, how do you sell the idea of an urban gondola as a great transit method to people who need heavy sedation before they could enter a plane? I know my aunts are extreme examples, but there are a lot of people who will not touch the gondolas at Disneyland due to similar fears, and would make up a decent part of the population in any city that wants an urban gondola.
Gondolas are a subset of cable-pulled technology. There are other types of cable technology such as funiculars and guided closed loops. There are even two different ways to have a gondola system: A reversible gondola like what Portland and Roosevelt Island have with faster speeds and bigger cars but longer waits, and a continuous cable with loops proposed here where cars are attaching when moving so cars cone much more frequently (the wait is shorter) but the travel speed is apparently much slower so the cars can more easily and safely attach and detach themselves from the cable.
To me, a gondola is a nested choice — with a decision to look at cable-pulled technology first and a decision to consider gondolas second and what type of gondola third.
Since cable-pulled cars don’t carry motors, they are much lighter so they don’t need robust structures. The BART connector is a good example of this:
https://www.flatironcorp.com/project/oakland-airport-connector/
I will note that the distance for this Eastside line is about 3 miles one way or 6 miles total. From what I read, gondolas with continuous detachable loops appear to go less than 15 mph meaning that the trip would be more than 12 minutes. (A gondola from South Bellevue to Bellevue College appears to be only a 4 to 5 minute ride.) There is industry debate about what the maximum speed could be.
Certainly installing only suspension cables rather than actual track on aerial structures is cheaper and faster. But these other cable technology types could be preferred depending on the situation.
Good information about the technology, thanks. My aunts still wouldn’t have used it because their acrophobia was so bad (when we took them to Vancouver, we only got halfway up the road to Grouse Mountain because the elevation was freaking them out), but this would be a good information piece or presentation for skittish people, if this ever gets built.
There are people that don’t like them and there are people who will go out of their way to ride them. But the folks who don’t like them will often just close their eyes (or look down at the floor). I’ve ridden a fair number of gondolas in the summer (all in Europe) and they vary. But I tend to stare out (not down) and if it gets too freaky I just close my eyes.
“It boggles the mind that people sit in the mess at I-405 north to I-90 east (both ways) instead of using this excellent, mid-speed bypass.”
Agreed but please keep this a secret!
The Lake Hills Connector reminds me of the old Robert Moses parkways on Long island or the Taconic Parkway in that it’s actually so pleasant to drive one enjoys it! And even at rush hour it flows well.
I use it twice every two weeks to travel from Issaquah to Overlake Hospital (Wilberton Station) getting off I-90 to 140th Ave to the Lake Hills Connector. Even if traffic looks clear on the normal I90 junction up to NE 8th I’ll take it just for the calming effect.
The current transit connectivity to the Hospital from Issaquah is time consuming enough that after a chemo session with resulting nausea I’m in no mood to negotiate that set of connections depending on appointment times I usually do not have access to the 556 express buses (timing) and need to take the milk run on the 271 through the tangle of BC and Eastgate P&R however once the 554 starts stopping at south Bellevue I’ll give it a whirl.
> Agreed but please keep this a secret!
> The Lake Hills Connector reminds me of the old Robert Moses parkways on Long island or the Taconic Parkway
WSDOT (and i assume most state DOT’s) plan the arterials as part of the freeway access as well. Bellevue way is the one for drivers coming from the Seattle. WSDOT is also planning on adding a lake hills connector ramp to the I-405 south. https://bellevuewa.gov/city-government/departments/transportation/projects/state-highway-projects-bellevue/south-downtown-i-405-access-study
“WSDOT is also planning on adding a lake hills connector ramp to the I-405 south.“
Interesting, the report estimates $150 million for the new on ramp.
@robert
Usually the flyover ramps cost around 100 to 200 million dollars
“It boggles the mind that people sit in the mess at I-405 north to I-90 east (both ways) instead of using this excellent, mid-speed bypass.”
It may be more pleasant but it isn’t likely to be faster. A lot of people use modern navigation systems which tend to balance things out. If a lot of people go on the bypass then the bypass becomes too crowded and staying on the freeway is faster. That being said it might be easier to add bus lanes along that corridor.
I’ve always wondered why the Lake Hills Connector is there. Lake Hills is a small neighborhood, with just a QFC plaza.
I think it’s there partly to complete the local arterial grid and partly to offer another route east from Downtown Bellevue (relieving NE 8th).
I use the Lake Hills Connector quite a lot, to get from Kirkland/Woodinville to Factoria or my dentist on 156th. St., halfway between WalMart and Bellevue College. It’s also a convenient access route to Sunset Hills Cemetery. I almost never experience slowdowns, and it’s a quite lovely drive. The slowdowns that do happen in Factoria and 156th. St. are another matter.
The only issue is a lack of floodlights, which makes visibility an issue at night.
This seems a silly gondola application. I-90 bus routes oriented to Link at Mercer Island should not deviate to such a station in BC. The project needs a station atop the freeway station; finding the pier foundations would be difficult.
The piece does address the East Link Connections network; the Metro part has been adopted by the council; the ST bus part has not been approved by the board, so there is time to impact that.
The Pagel post errors in its description of the Metro ELC; it does not add service to BC; there will be less. Route 220 will have less service than 271, 15/15 rather than 10/15; routes 245, 223, and 226 will be similar to routes 245, 221, and 226. Routes 271, 241, and 246 would be deleted. Note that routes 245 and 226-241 served the local stops on 142nd Place SE just west of the freeway station; that is a transfer point between local routes and the I-90 routes; they are routes 215, 218, 269, and 554 in ELC. New Route 203 skips Eastgate, so does not serve BC. Route 240 will have a pretzel shape; the northbound trips, with Link as its major market, will deviate to Eastgate before reaching the South Bellevue Link station.
The ELC network of Metro and ST does not use the Link and I-90 infrastructure very well. Given the center access ramps at 80th Avenue SE and 142nd Place SE, east-west bus routes should connect with Link at Mercer Island station; the scheduled running times of routes 214 and 554 demonstrate this. Compare them with the longer scheduled running times of Route 556; that route faces congestion on Bellevue Way SE, the I-90 ramps, and must weave to/from the inside lanes.
The ELC network also does not use the Eastgate local bays well. They are about 800 feet and four levels from the Eastgate freeway station just west of 142nd Place SE. Routes 220, 223, 226, 240, and 245 will serve the local bays. Route 226 will reach South Bellevue via SE Eastgate Way; Route 240 seems to serve SE 36th Street, so it will pass the freeway station. Routes 220, 223, and 245 seem to end at the local bays. So, riders wanting to reach the fast I-90 service will have to use Route 240 or walk. That is a wide seam.
So, a better ELC ST bus network would have both a Route 554 oriented to Mercer Island Link and a Route 555 between Issaquah and Bellevue via Richards Road (see pathway in about 2012). The ELC trips between Issaquah and both Mercer Island and Seattle will be at least 10 minutes slower if they go through South Bellevue rather than Mercer Island.
It is too late to improve the local network, as it has gone through council. I suggested that routes 226-241 be continued; Route 203 should have crossed I-90 via 142nd Place SE. Route 240 could have skipped Eastgate or South Bellevue, but should not be serving both.
Are there coverage holes in ELC near Eastgate? How important are they? Route 246 in Somerset and Woodridge? Richards Road? SE 36th Street businesses; Route 240 will pass by, but its Link pathway will be long. SE Eastgate Way businesses have been served by routes 217 and 271; they are deleted.
I don’t see any coverage hole at Eastgate. I may take the future 226 from South Bellevue station to 164th & Main; I hope the college area routing won’t feel unbearably slow. Otherwise I’ll take the 245 from Redmond Tech to 156th & Main, although that adds 20-30 minutes of walking. I’m glad the 226 will be extended to South Bellevue in any case.
In the past I’ve tried 245+554 from 156th & Main to Seattle, but the 554 is half-hourly even peak hours, so after trying it twice I gave up on it. With the restructure, I don’t know if the gap between the local stop and the freeway stop is significant. You won’t go that way to Seattle; it would be a three-seat ride (e.g., 223+215+Link). Instead you’d go the other way to Overlake Village or Redmond Tech stations. So the people who would suffer that gap would be those going from east Bellevue to Issaquah/Sammamish/North Bend. That’s probably few people.
Mike,
The current network with long headway on Route 554 is not at issue. Note that the ELC Route 226 will not have a proximate connection with the Crossroads Mall or the B Line.
The network’s objective was Link connections. The transfer walks are not those you and I would tolerate; I still walk at four mph; you may as well; you cite longer walks. Rather, the network should be thinking of those who walk or roll slower or who have limited sight. Then the 800 feet and four level seam matters much more. Even at Mercer Island, some transfers will have to cross North Mercer Way; this was directly caused by the bilateral agreement between the city and ST. BTC should have a new stop pair on NE 6th Street just west of 112th Avenue NE. We have long seams imposed throughout the network. In Sound Move, consider the SeaTac station or Mt. Baker; they have not been fixed. Consider the SDOT G and J lines; they impose longer transfer walks.
Note how many ELC routes will have long headway in the evening or on weekends.
An article is coming on the East Link Connections final plan, so we can continue this discussion there. I’d like to hear about all the flaws in the network. And especially any missed opportunities for extending 15-minute frequency to weekends and evenings in a revenue-neutral way, or missed opportunities for closer transfers.
I still wonder how much “access to fast I-90 services” is worth when going to downtown Seattle or Bellevue that way is a 3-seat ride.
This is not a ridiculous idea. I myself use this route very frequently. It would be much easier to get to Bellevue downtown from many places like Issaquah and Eastgate, or the Bellevue College vicinity. The 271 is alright but it wastes a lot of time.