East Link Connections

96 Replies to “East Link Connections”

1. Thanks for including the maps!

   Route 226 will be an almost complete circle of Bellevue. Just goes to show how strange Bellevue’s layout is, with low density in the geographical center, and higher density on the periphery in the west, northeast, and south.

   Does anyone know if routes on I-405 are planned to eventually use the stride flyer stops?

   1. Ordinary buses without the platform alignment technology that BRT-assigned buses have can’t safely use BRT stations, so probably not.

      1. If only a “Mind the Gap” sign was enough to stave off the liability lawyers in the USA.

      2. @tom are you sure the st expresses or king county metro buses can’t use them?

      3. @Tom Terrific

         Are those unique for some reason? RapidRide stops are used by local buses all the time.

      4. These are new freeway stations for the upcoming Stride, so they may have requirements RapidRide stations don’t. Or maybe they don’t have such requirements.

      5. My understanding is that Freeway STRide (Lines 1 and 2, but not 3) is supposed to be Gold Level BRT, which means level boarding and no steps. As Nathan indirectly noted, it’s a pretty big step down, so the buses have sensors that help the driver align with the platform at less than an inch of clearance. In some buses, they sort of take over for the last few yards, when the bus is fully in the station.

         Now, maybe Freeway STRide won’t have that technology and then I guess that regular buses could use the stations. But if so, it probably shouldn’t be called “Gold Level” (or whatever the equivalent current term is).

         John D, RapidRide is only Basic BRT. Line 3 will probably be Bronze at least but they’re bound to get BATted around by the right turners all through the line.

      6. “pretty big step down to the pavement…. Apologies for not including that phrase.

      7. @Tom — I believe you are referring to the standard for BRT created by ITDP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRT_Standard). The different levels are not based on one technology. They simply have a scorecard where the rate various things and assign points. You can see the scorecard here: https://itdp.org/library/standards-and-guides/the-bus-rapid-transit-standard/the-scorecard/. Thus you need 85 to 100 to be considered “Gold Level BRT” according to ITDP.

         Platform-level boarding is awarded at most 7 points, so even if someone gets a zero they could still be considered “gold” (if they did well on everything else). Even within the platform-level boarding category there is a range (it isn’t just 0 or 7). This section of the standard explains it: https://itdp.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/ITDP_BRTSTANDARD_APR2024_SINGLE-compressed.pdf#page=50

         I don’t think it is worth obsessing over the measurement and I doubt Sound Transit is either. They may have said they were going to build “Gold BRT” but I remember them saying we would have “world class transfers” downtown between the lines and that clearly won’t happen. But the measurements are relatively arbitrary. I applaud the agency for trying to create measurements that allow a level of objectivity in the process but whose to say why one approach is better than the other.

         In any event it would not surprise me if the buses are a bit special, but that doesn’t mean that other buses can’t use the same bus stops. At most they will use different platforms but the same basic stop. For example this bus stop is shared by the 5, 28 and RapidRide E Line. If there really was an issue then the 5 and 28 would use the section at one end and the E Line would use the other.

      8. Automatic steering has apparently helped EmX BRT in Eugene do really well in getting good alignment between the bus and platform.

         Witness the tests of this 10 years ago, and it’s far more than just approaching the platforms:
         https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_oKsleOocFM&pp=ygUMRW14IHN0ZWVyaW5n

      9. I feel like no agency in the US is trying to build “Standard” BRT. Every place adopts its own priority or trade-off based on need and financial constraint, which makes more sense than sticking to the standard 100%. Stride is simply much more BRT-ish than RapidRide.

         I’d be shocked if the frwy stop at Totem Lake won’t be open to other regular routes currently stopping there unless they will be all truncated by then…

         Even if the platform height problem is real, there are ways to mitigate it. You can have two platform heights with slope transition for the same bus stop just like some of the commuter rail-Amtrak stations do in the US.

      10. I feel like no agency in the US is trying to build “Standard” BRT. Every place adopts its own priority or trade-off based on need and financial constraint, which makes more sense than sticking to the standard 100%.

          That would make sense but I’m sure there are agencies that are trying to “teach to the test” as it were. In other words they are focused on getting a good grade from ITDP so that they can tell everyone how wonderful their system is. It may also play a part in grants (although I don’t think it does). But in general, I agree. A responsible agency will consider the standards but ultimately ignore the grading system and do what is appropriate.

          Stride is simply much more BRT-ish than RapidRide.

          I wouldn’t say that. I think they are really different things. Time will tell, but I don’t expect ridership to be very high. It only serves a tiny segment of anything urban. This is why so many of the ITDP grades don’t apply. Here is a couple promotional slides. The pictures are different but they basically show the same thing. A very urban environment with a bus running unimpeded by surrounding traffic (by running in the middle lanes). They have variations, like the one on the scorecard. That doesn’t mean that a bus *has* to have center running to be BRT. In fact it is better if it runs in its own tunnel or elevated line (i .e. is completely grade separated). But the idea is that it runs in the middle of the city and the stops are “spaced, on average, between 0.3 kilometers (0.2 miles) and 0.8 kilometers (0.5 miles) apart”. (You get two points for the spacing.)

          Stride really isn’t that. Stride 1 and 2 are essentially regional express buses to a secondary downtown. It won’t run through the downtown area. It will mostly connect park & ride lots and freeway transfer stations to Downtown Bellevue. Stride 1 will serve part of Renton but oddly enough in the middle of the route. Thus the “Open” part of it is in the middle (not where you want it). But mostly it just doesn’t serve many places. Stride 2 is similar.

          Stride 3 is the closest thing to what is typical BRT but the corridor is not especially strong. It would be one thing if it followed the current pathway to the UW. But instead it will end in the middle of nowhere, serving mainly as a shuttle bus. Meanwhile, the right-of-way improvements will be a mixed bag (like most of RapidRide). I’m not sure where I would rank Stride 3 but probably below the G, E and A (but definitely above the F).

          Stride 1 and 2 are so different it is more of an apples and oranges comparison. The whole idea of “BRT” is that you provide something similar to what a subway would look like. Does RapidRide G pass that test? Definitely. Of course it isn’t as fast, but it runs every six minutes (like a subway) and when you consider the time it would take to get to the platform and back with a regular subway a typical trip takes about the same amount of time (sometimes less). But in terms of the areas it serves it is definitely a subway-line line. In contrast Stride 1 and 2 are more like bus versions of regional rail. Very good in that respect, but a different thing.

      11. “I feel like no agency in the US is trying to build “Standard” BRT.”

          There is no standard BRT. That’s why the industry terminology is a multi-level scale based on points for certain features. Even if we take Latin American exclusive-lane, limited-stop, high-capacity versions as standard BRT, even those are probably not all the same.

      12. @Mike — I was going to write something very similar. But then I took a more liberal interpretation of the sentence. In other words, no one is trying to build to the BRT standards that ITDP specifies. The standards are fairly clear. I could easily see an agency focusing in on the standards and trying to get a 100. My comments followed that line of reasoning.

      13. @Ross Bleakney

          Good argument on which service is more BRT-ish.
          I see STRIDE being more like a regional express as an adaption to suburban freeway-oriented environment and it is part of reason why there shouldn’t be a BRT standard to follow, but I see where your point are coming from. I shouldn’t say something like STRIDE is more BRT-ish than RapidRide since there is no clear standard here.

   2. Route 226 is doing several jobs at once, so it does some of them poorly. When I grew up in Bellevue, the 226 was the route on 164th/Northup Way north of 8th, and then ran like the B and 550 to downtown Bellevue and downtown Seattle. The 249 was the route on Bel-Red Road. They’ve both been modified several times since then. The 226 is now a coverage route serving a bunch of random places. When the 2 Line Starter Line started, I wanted to transfer to the 226 at Overlake Village, but it would have been a 20-minute walk to the stop at 24th & 156th (I timed it with my stopwatch). So I looked for alternatives and settled on the 221. Then when that transfer location proved to be bad too, I switched to the 245 at Redmond Tech.

      The future 226 routing changes it again. The extension to South Bellevue station looks quite promising, and will avoid the bad transfer at Overlake Village. Someday I want to try transferring at Spring District and see if it’s a shorter walk and more pleasant (passing that park on 121st that I’ve seen once), but I’d do that westbound only to avoid a half-hour wait at a benchless bus stop. Eddiew has suggested moving the 226 to Spring Blvd, where it would go right to the Link stations, and be more in the middle of the densified neighborhood. I’m not sure if it would be more in the middle (and the upzoned area extends south to 8th & 124th where my relative lived), but it would be better for Link transfers.

      The eastern half of the 226 is not that dense. That’s where I go now. Multistory density ends at 164th & Northup Way. Crossroads is still 1-2 story. South of 8th is single-family.

   3. The 226 is effectively two bus routes, thru-routed together. The combining them is purely for Metro’s operational convenience, as, individually, they would be too short to operate efficiently (e.g. half the service hours would be spent paying the bus driver to sit with an empty bus at the layover point). It’s not for passenger benefit, and nobody in their right mind would ride this route end to end.

      1. The current routes 226 and 241 are through routed. That was implemented in fall 2011 to avoid laying buses in downtown Bellevue. There had been local route layover scattered around downtown; the system was made more efficient. Routes 226-241 lay at Eastgate and change numbers at BTC. With ELC, Route 241 will be deleted. New Route 203 will serve Factoria and Newport Way, but will not connect with Eastgate. Revised Route 226 will lose its connections with B line and Crossroads Mall; it will extend to South Bellevue Link via SE Eastgate Way, so a BTC to South Bellevue arc missing all three Link stations of Bel-Red.

      2. Yes. It is a coverage route and this is the easiest way to do coverage. A couple things worth noting. Loops are not as useful as straight lines, but the wider the loop the more useful it is. With a wide loop a typical trip resembles a straight line (and has all of the advantages). This loop is fairly wide.

         One of the big advantages of combining these routes in this way is layovers. There are no good layover spots along the way other than Eastgate Park and Ride. The bus could end there but then some other bus would have to take over the section from Eastgate to South Bellevue and the alternatives are worse. The other candidates (220, 233, 245) run more often and the corridor doesn’t need that much service. Eastgate Way will have the 226 and 203, two buses that should combine for 15 minute headways in the middle of the day.

   4. > Does anyone know if routes on I-405 are planned to eventually use the stride flyer stops?

      the 560 will be removed for stride 1 (burien via renton to bellevue).
      It’s assumed the 566 will still exist though it might be truncated at renton or bellevue. The 566 will probably share some stops

      the 535 will be removed for stride 2 (bellevue via totem lake to lynnwood).
      For the 532 it might be eliminated and hours merged with 51X to lynnwood. (travelers from everett would transfer and take stride from lynnwood to bellevue).

      There’s not many other st express buses that will share with the stride bus stop

   5. Metro buses on I-405 will be able to use the Stride freeway station platforms when they’re complete.

   6. The biggest shared stop question is usually whether a bus can safely cross lanes to use a stop. It’s an issue in lots of settings — even as basic as a bus can’t turn left after pulling out of a stop if it is loo close to where the route turns.

   7. Just goes to show how strange Bellevue’s layout is

      I had a friend once who was renting a house within short walking distance of Downtown Bellevue. This was years ago (before it got built up) but it still seemed weird. In some ways it is weirder now. You’ve got a low-density suburb (with cul-se-sac design) about a ten minute walk from skyscrapers (https://maps.app.goo.gl/o3657tpYYjtJwNheA). If the city just ended there it would be one thing. It would be like one of those small but dense villages in Europe. But instead it just seems to go back and forth at random between sprawling suburb, really big city and something in between. Yes, it is very challenging to serve with transit.

      Does anyone know if routes on I-405 are planned to eventually use the stride flyer stops?

      I don’t know for sure but I assume so. It is fairly rare for buses to skip a freeway station. It doesn’t take that much time and you gain a lot. The 271 skips the 520 stations because it enters the freeway too late. The 270 will serve them.

      For 405 it is basically split in half (with Bellevue being the dividing point). The 256 will go right by the 522/405 interchange so I assume it will stop there. It should definitely stop at Brickyard (and the existing Totem Lake) station. It may stop at the 85th interchange — it depends on whether Metro feels like there is enough room to get from there over to 520 (to get to Seattle). I think there is. As mentioned I think Stride replaces the 535. But that may not be the case for the 532 (Everett to Bellevue). I would think the 532 would stop at all those stations.

      For the south end of 405 there is the 111. It may be a challenge for it to serve the 44th Street Freeway Station unless there is some way for it to enter the freeway in the middle HOV lanes. Assuming Stride replaces the 560 that leaves the 566 (from Auburn/Kent) and I definitely think it would stop at the various freeway stations along the way.

      1. “You’ve got a low-density suburb (with cul-se-sac design) about a ten minute walk from skyscrapers”

         That was the whole Surrey Diens Link controversy. Surrey Downs didn’t want to upzone it’s 1950s single-family character, and the city council agreed, so there’s a single-family neighborhood right next to downtown Bellevue with a quarter of a Link station.

         The neighborhood asdf2 is linking to, northwest of Bellevue Square, I think it’s called Vue Crest. I had a friend on high school there I visited, and it doesn’t look like it’s changed since then. Also the area west of Bellevue Square, the West side of 100th. I think it’s one row of garden apartments, and single-family beyond that.

         Then there’s the seoarately-inccorporated towns beyond those, Clyde Hill and Beaux Arts. Bellevue has no zoning control over them. And they were incorporated a century ago or so, and don’t want to grow.

         So everyone who wants to live near downtown Bellevue or go to it has to leapfrog over those low-density areas, which have few or no vacancies to live in (and cost several million dollars now).

         NE 8th Street is in between. It’s all multifamily but lowrise. There’s one large lowrise building near 140th Michael Smith identified on the upcoming RapidRide B article. But as I said, the Spring District upzone extends to part of 8th, maybe both sides of 124th for a few blocks? Si that part could get midrises eventually.

      2. “The 271 skips the 520 stations because it enters the freeway too late. The 270 will serve them.”

         I cannot think of a use case that I have to take 270 and transfer at SR 520 fwy stations.

         If you are riding from U-District to Redmond/Kirkland, you can just wait for 542/255 I guess? If you are from eastside and going to U-District, 270 doesn’t take you anywhere that 542/255 doesn’t go, either. Am I missing any trip that has to involve 270 transferring another route at SR 520 stations?

         About I-405 Renton-to-Bellevue:

         For Route 111, you are right that the challenge is at 44th.
         There is no ETL weaving access between 112th and N 30th. Even if KCM can reroute Route 111 to use ETL between N 44th and 112th for the sake of travel time, it will still miss the N 44th STRIDE stop. N 44th interchange will be a roundabout interchange featuring consecutive roundabouts and curvy driveway, it will be challenging to put any arterial stops within walking distance of Stride stop.
         There is supposed to be another ETL direct-access at 112th, but the status of this is unknown. It is not in the I-405 RTB pavement marking plan. I just realize this today. (https://ftp.wsdot.wa.gov/contracts/9242_I-405RentonToBellevueCorridorWideningandETL/RFP/R2B_Appendices/M/M1/06PavementMarkings.pdf). If KCM 100% wants Route 111 to stop at the same stop with Stride for at least once, Route 111 has to go as south of Sunset Blvd NE (not NE Sunset Blvd) and enters Renton Highlands at NE 3rd, which is a big detour.

         Route 560 is definitely gone but I hope they can run some kind of hourly S1 spur that makes a detour to Airport.

         Route 566 may be replaced by Route 567 and shorten at South Renton. I feel like it might be a good thing to shorten 566 in exchange for more trips to Kent/Auburn from eastside.

         It will be truly a mis-opportunity if KCM/ST cannot figure out how to seamlessly transfer between regular routes and STRIDE. Without effective transfer connection, STRIDE’s ridership won’t look very good.

      3. @HZ
         > If you are riding from U-District to Redmond/Kirkland, you can just wait for 542/255 I guess? I

         One major place it’d be useful for the 270 to stop at would be the south Kirkland park and ride. That would allow the route 250 (future rapidride k) have two routes (255 and 270) head to u district. The problem is that the route there would need to back track from Bellevue way to northup way to the hov ramps

         > Even if KCM can reroute Route 111 to use ETL between N 44th and 112th for the sake of travel time, it will still miss the N 44th STRIDE stop.

         The n 44th stride stop is to the south of the hov intersection it could probably use it.

         > There is supposed to be another ETL direct-access at 112th, but the status of this is unknown. It is not in the I-405 RTB pavement marking plan.

         The etl direct access is being built but no bus stop is being built. I checked the diagram and wsdot has planned extra space for a bus stop heading north on the hov ramps. More info in the article below

         https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/09/06/stride-s1-line-updates/

      4. @Wesley Lin

         >The n 44th stride stop is to the south of the hov intersection it could probably use it.

         Apology for my reading skill here. I just want to confirm this. If you referred to the intersection with ETL direct-access when you say “HOV intersection”, then I don’t think Rt 111 can use it without making the detour.

         If Route 111 (Renton-bound) uses this N 44th Stride Stop, it will have to re-enter toll-lane south of N 44th. There will be no weaving or direct access to get out until south NE Sunset Blvd off-ramp.
         Similarly, If Rt 111 (Bellevue-bound) wants to stop at N 44th Stride Stop, it will have to enter toll lane before (south of) NE Sunset Blvd.

         KCM may be able to install stop at southbound (general-purpose lanes) on-ramp and northbound (general-purpose) off-ramp. The walking distance is not too crazy but it is not clear whether such freeway ramp stops have been designed.

         >The etl direct access is being built but no bus stop is being built. I checked the diagram and wsdot has planned extra space for a bus stop heading north on the hov ramps. More info in the article below

         I was under the same impression until I found out the 112th direct-access part was void from the pavement marking plan WSDOT published for this project’s construction contract RFP, but this could be just a contract thing.

      5. I cannot think of a use case that I have to take 270 and transfer at SR 520 fwy stations.

         It would have been more useful in the past (eddie mentioned this in a previous thread). But it will still be useful. The 256 will go from Woodinville to Downtown Seattle, stopping at all the freeways stations along the way. Thus someone could take that bus and then transfer to a bus like the 270 to get to the UW. Similarly, ST is planning on dusting off the 544, which I believe will run from Redmond to South Lake Union (via 520). Same idea. You could catch the 270 from the north end of Bellevue Way (heading towards the UW) and transfer at a SR-520 freeway station to the 544 to get to South Lake Union.

      6. HZ points out that the Route 270 alignment solves an old issue that is no longer an issue with Link. Before Link, there would have been an advantage for Redmond riders to transfer at the freeway stations. But after Link, Link will be a better connection to/from downtown Bellevue. So, this is a horse and barn door issue. The streamlining of the B Line is similar. In 2011, it was pretty dumb for the B Line to deviate to 152nd Avenue NE from 156th Avenue NE; Transit did it at the request of Redmond. Now, 152nd Avenue NE has a Link station and the deviation will be deleted.

      7. A transfer from the 256 to a U district bus makes some amount of sense in the inbound direction, but in the outbound direction, you’re waiting for a bus that comes from downtown and runs every 30 minutes, which means a rather unpredictable wait time. Assuming you reach the 256 by driving, it would be quicker overall to just drive to a different park and ride, perhaps Kenmore or South Kirkland and ride a different bus.

         And, of course, even that transfer only exists during rush hour. The rest of the day, the freeway stations are only really useful to a tiny number of people who either park a car at Evergreen Point station or live nearby.

      8. @Ross Bleakney

         Yeah when I think about how I can use that transfer, I was more thinking about route going to places east and south of Lake Union. Too bad all-day service ST 545 won’t be there after the restructure.

         I think it is reasonable they proposed thing this way for now. I hope 2 Line just quickly overcrowd after it fully opens.
         Maybe then they would consider something like Belltown-Queen Anne-SR 520 route.

      9. > I was under the same impression until I found out the 112th direct-access part was void from the pavement marking plan WSDOT published for this project’s construction contract RFP, but this could be just a contract thing.

         That was the original construction contract from 2018.

         At least when i last read on some WSTC pages they said they were going to build it
         https://wstc.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/2020-117-BP8B-I405-SR167-Update.pdf (2020)
         >> Direct access ramps at 112th Avenue SE/ Newport Hills Park and
         Ride in Bellevue

         From the other page it talked about the 112th street direct access ramp.
         https://wsdot.wa.gov/construction-planning/search-projects/i-405renton-bellevue-widening-and-express-toll-lanes-project

         Though it is a bit suspicious that in the project highlights section it no longer says 112th direct access ramp. it is still in the pictures section though. perhaps it has been cut again from the wsdot project? I’ll email them and check

      10. @Wesley Lin

          After some digging, I found a specific appendix M3 where specifically display 112th alternatives.

          https://ftp.wsdot.wa.gov/contracts/9242_I-405RentonToBellevueCorridorWideningandETL/RFP/R2B_Appendices/M/M3/

          Option112thDA.pdf is the one with the DA while Option112thML.pdf one doesn’t have the DA feature. They may have held off the 112th part of the design for some reason, but in the end it was built with other part of toll lanes. I just don’t know why they would put a STRIDE stop there. Was it because they think it does no good to ridership?

      11. *Correction

          I mean I wonder why they didn’t put a STRIDE stop at 112th. Was it because they think it does no good to ridership?

2. It looks like Route 226 has an allergy to Link, avoiding Stations zealously everywhere but at its end points.

   1. I just posted about that above. The 226 was my route until I moved to downtown Bellevue in 1983, but when it moved to Bel-Red Road I didn’t take it for decades because the B is more frequent and has fewer stops. Then around 2018 I started riding it again to 124th because a quiet, low-stress, low-congestion route has its appeal.

      So the 226 is on Bel-Red Road because of intertia. It’s on 164th/156th for several mixed reasons. The extension to South Bellevue station will make it more usable for East Bellevue-Seattle trips. Some have suggested moving it to Spring Blvd, but so far Metro hasn’t been interested in that. If it did, then the 226 would be Link’s local shadow for several stations, a role currently provided by the 249.

   2. Awesome comment, but anthropomorphic; it was planner choice to avoid Link in a link connections project.

      1. Bus lines don’t have agency? They probably can’t vote either, huh?

3. It’s a good summary!

   I’ll just note that dropping the Route 8 service between Jackson and Massachusetts doesn’t leave the area unserved. The terrain to the west to Route 8 stops on 23rd is not terribly steep, and Route 14 is just to the east on 31st (albeit up a steep hill). Finally Route 4 serves much of the area where the removed stops anre located even though the route doesn’t reach Mt Baker Link station.

   1. Agreed. The 14 complements it fairly well. It turns on Jackson, which means the gap is basically just between Jackson (with the 14) and Massachusetts (where the 8 turns). If you are close to Link then that is an option as well. The hill is a big concern, but it actually reasonably flat between MLK and 23rd. It only gets steep as you get closer to 31st. I really don’t see anything that is that bad.

      Of course there may be people have no interest in taking the 14 or Link (they aren’t going downtown) but they still won’t have to walk that far. Meanwhile, more people get the 8/48 combination for heading north along 23rd (even if it splits again). That is the benefit of consolidation. You might have to walk a bit farther but you get better frequency.

4. I’m curious. What’s the Metro hourly bus count at Mercer Island?

   It looks to me that it is well under a number that would concern the Mercer Island bus haters.

   1. I’m not sure the DAPT actually hates buses. If it was simply that, they could have asked to axe routes 204 and 630, and such wish would probably have been granted.

      It was a sideways excuse to keep suing Sound Transit. Maybe they were hoping for a settlement involving restricting the Mercer Island Station garage to Mercer Island residents. If it was about buses off-island residents use, clogging their freeway car access, they could have sued Metro directly, and asked more specifically not to have any peak-only bus routes, other than the 630.

      I wrote a post on that many years ago, and on Sound Transit’s countersuit to MI’s original suit over the loss of MI SOV access to the former HOV express lanes (now the light-rail bridge) and the new HOV lanes. I did very little follow-up research.

      If Mercer Island still wants its residents to get a leg up on use of the MI Station garage, it can ask ST to charge to park there, and then have a program to reimburse residents for parking charges.

      1. I agree that the better approach is to charge parking at MI Park and Ride. A P&R that is at that kind of location will be too popular once 2 Line fully opens.

         City of Mercer Island is building a secondary parking at northeast corner of SE 27th at 80th Ave now. Based on the location, I would imagine it is for light rail station, too. The location of this lot seems more friendly to MI residents. Based on the layout, I think it might be a gateless free parking, too.

      2. A P&R that is at that kind of location [Mercer Island] will be too popular once 2 Line fully opens.

         It depends on how full the South Bellevue Parking lot is. If you are going along I-90 from the east (e. g. Sammamish) it makes sense to park at South Bellevue rather than Mercer Island. There is a lot less driving. The only reason it makes sense for anyone to go to Mercer Island instead of South Bellevue is if they can go in the HOV lanes. That being the case they may just drive all the way to Seattle.

         Mercer Island parking is overflow parking (just like Northgate is now overflow parking for Lynnwood). But if the main parking lot fills up really quickly, folks in Mercer Island won’t care. There isn’t much of an alternative, either. I think the only option is Eastgate (and a shuttle bus). I’m not sure if the shuttle buses will be good enough though to attract significant riders. Ash Way has an excellent shuttle system now. I’m sure savvy drivers went there from the get go. And yet the main parking lot (at Lynnwood Station) was overflowing. I do have hope that the Issaquah express buses will reduce the number of people driving to the park and ride but it wouldn’t surprise me if it plays out much the same way.

         This is another example of where it would be nice to have a park and ride status page. Some app or website you could go to that would tell you how many available spots there are. This would save a lot of people from driving to Mercer Island, circling around the lot, driving through the neighborhood, finally settling on what they think is a parking spot only to get a ticket after work.

      3. Oh, I think it was pretty clear that Mercer Island didn’t want many buses on their island either. Of course they want buses like the 630. That’s different. But buses from places like Issaquah or Eastgate? No way! They didn’t want them clogging the streets.

         (Of course I’m not talking about everyone — I’m just talking about the folks that fought the plans.)

      4. Mercer Island is paying for the 630 we think, so that means they want it even if they don’t want other routes, and it doesn’t have to follow Metro’s guidelines for justified routes. It’s like how Seattle can pay for any kind of route it wants.

         But the feedback for the 204 was 68% positive, and it’s an intra-island route. Most of the support probably comes from Mercer Islanders, because it’s too minor a route and area for others to care about it or notice it exists.

5. The end result appears reasonable although I’m not a local Eastside transit rider. I would enjoy hearing from those living on the Eastside (as opposed to the blog “regulars”).

   A process question to throw out to the group:

   How long should Metro wait to tweak the new route structure? Some changes are minor but others are major. Unless there is some major operational problem with a new route design, I would think that Metro should wait at least 18 months to see where tweaks would be needed.

   1. I’m an Eastsider, but almost all of my transit trips are to Seattle, especially for events when I don’t want to mess with traffic and parking. That said, these all look like improvements for transit-minded Eastsiders. I can see myself using the improved 250 if I want to go to a nice restaurant in Kirkland or Redmond and allow myself more than one drink because I don’t have to worry about driving. Same would go for Downtown Bellevue.

      I’d like to see how well these work with Stride when it finally arrives, as I live within walking distance from the future I-405/NE 85th. St. station.

6. Does anyone know if the 225 will end (or has already ended) the crazy loop back up to 132nd it started taking to avoid going down 120th through Totem Lake Village? The negative psychological impact of literally driving in circles is hard to overstate…

   Restoring 30 min weekday service is big but I do think switching from Redmond Tech to Overlake Village might be a mistake that makes this a lot less useful for Kenmore/North Kirkland folks commuting to jobs. I wonder why that change was made.

   1. That loop is also used by Route 239; this restructure does not fix the loopiness of routes 225, 230, 231, and 239.

   2. Please write in to Kirkland city council about the 225/239 loop: https://www.kirklandwa.gov/Government/City-Council

      I’ve written in a few times over the past few years and I am sure they would love to hear from others

      1. To expand on this a bit: the detour is very bad. Not only is it long and out of the way, but it also forces people to walk up a hill to the transit center to catch a bus (which then loops up and away from the direction riders want to go…)

         My understanding is that buses cannot safely pass by one another because people keep parking poorly and jutting into the street. In the short term that could be solved by taking parking off the street; in the long term the street needs to be redesigned.

         Please do contact the city about it if it annoys you, otherwise I worry that they will wait for the K line before they do anything.

   3. Wow, that looks terrible. Google Maps implies that this is only happening one direction. Here is a northbound bus: https://maps.app.goo.gl/s2N3BszWphJSSsDr8. Here is a southbound bus: https://maps.app.goo.gl/Xg6MGmxpb8b9RyneA. Either way it is weird and messed up.

      I get some of the challenges around there. But the 225 and 239 should run on 120th Avenue NE between NE 128th and Totem Lake Boulevard. Not only would that be much faster but it would serve an area that has a lot more people. At that point it isn’t clear whether either bus should go through the transit center. They should stop close by instead. That would leave the 930 and 255 (which terminates there). But the detour to serve the transit center pales in comparison to the rest of the mess.

      1. Soon, the issue will pass to the K Line.

   4. It was Metro’s intention to run buses both directions on 120th through the Village but shortly after the March 2020 restructure implementing the new route 239 those stops were closed due to “bus safety issues” according to poster rider alerts.

      Kirkland city councilmember Jon Pascal said on Twitter (https://x.com/Finnhillian/status/1632616380427272192) in 2023 that:

      “King County Metro has informed the City that they will not run buses on 120th Avenue through the Village at Totem Lake due to narrowed lanes caused by parked vehicles that extend into the vehicle lane. New bus shelters not being used. Kirkland is evaluating improvements”

      That’s a design flaw that the street designers didn’t account for despite 120th already hosting buses long before the Village reconstruction. Most likely it will be fixed for the RapidRide K Line, which has a Village stop on 120th. Metro identified “Curb improvements to facilitate transit movement” as a speed & reliability project.

      1. Before Transit became a department, KCDOT ran subarea technical advisory committees where jurisdictional staff met and reviewed each other’s projects. Kirkland staff did not well consider the transit operating condition. Narrow lanes lead to friction and slow operation at the best; they can also lead to blockages.
         See https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=mcafee&p=you+tube+king+county+metro+sdot+bus+in+narrow+lanes&type=E210US1591G0#id=1&vid=fd23b1f8cb928ebf807071db41944917&action=click

      2. Even if buses can’t use 120th, Metro can still straighten out the routes. The only reason for all of these detours is the insistence that every bus passing through Totem Lake pass through the Totem Lake Transit Center bus bays, as if a stop a block or two away on the street is not good enough.

         Totem Lake Transit Center should only be served by routes that end there (currently just 255, I think), never thru routes. What makes the bus agonizing to ride is when Metro tries to single out one particular preferred destination and say it’s so important that people going to this one place don’t have to walk even one block that they detour everybody else on the bus passing through the area to make that happen. Lots of agencies do this, but it’s obnoxious and pushes people into private cars, which don’t have deal with these parts of detours.

7. I feel like the 270 is pointless during the periods when it’s planned to run hourly, as, with that frequency, waiting for the bus becomes slower than riding Link all the way around from UW to Bellevue TC, even with the extra walking.

   To have value, the 270 needs to run minimum every 30 minutes, ideally every 15 or better. There are other Eastside routes planned to run every 30 minutes while the 270 is reduced to hourly, and I feel that shifting a weekend evening bus from, say, the 215, would be a net benefit. (On weekends, I feel Issaquah Highlands is over served, as nearly everyone will be driving to South Bellevue to catch Link instead).

   Alternative, if push comes to shove, I’d rather than the 270 simply end at 9 PM to maintain 30 minute service all the way until the last trip, rather go into an hourly service pattern from 7 PM until 11 PM.

   1. Bellevue Downtown station is pretty far from many destinations, like Bellevue Square and other destinations further north on Bellevue Way, so Link isn’t a good replacement. But I do agree that it should be at least 30 minutes all day and evening.

      1. Yeah, exactly. If the 270 was an express (and just ran between the UW and Downtown Bellevue) then I would agree with you. There is no reason to run a bus like that infrequently. Either it should run frequently (offering those riders a faster way to get there) or not at all (and riders can take the slow route — in this case Link).

         But there will be plenty of people along Bellevue Way that will be dependent on that bus. From 24th & Bellevue Way it is a mile to the nearest bus. I agree though — it should have better service. I’m not sure who I would take it from though. Most of the routes are stretched pretty thin.

      2. “agree though — it should have better service. I’m not sure who I would take it from though. Most of the routes are stretched pretty thin.”

         There are some coverage routes planned to have 30 minute service while the 270 is hourly, so that’s a place to start. The I-90 corridor in general also feels generally over served, especially on weekends when nearly everyone will be driving to Link rather than riding the bus to Link, with no shortage of parking at the Link station.

         I think part of the problem is that there’s a gap in perception as to what this bus is for. Metro sees it as a mixture of a nonessential shortcut (you could ride Link all the way around, even if it’s very slow and you have to walk further) and a coverage route for Bellevue Way. I see it as a route focused primarily on ridership, with Bellevue Way coverage simply being incidental because it’s on the way. I expect the vast majority of the 270’s ridership to come from either places in and near downtown Bellevue, with almost nobody getting on or off the bus along Bellevue Way north of 12th St.

         That said, we should count our blessings that the 270 isn’t worse. Metro could have slowed the bus down further with a south Kirkland park and ride detour; they didn’t.

   2. The 271/270 was at the top of the list for more runs when additional hours become available. Metro said its frequency is far below standard for its corridor.

   3. This is a RapidRide candidate. so again we see the pattern of a RapidRide candidate corridor languishing with 30-60 minute service for years before it’s finally converted, as if passengers 10 years in the future are important but passengers now aren’t.

      1. The problem with RapidRide is that it’s biggest appeal is more service frequency than what would be normally considered for the corridor, but there’s no magic pot of money for more service hours, so that frequency has to come at the cost of making other bus routes less frequent.

         A lot of the root cause of this likely has to do with the cost per service hour going up and up each year, at a rate faster than inflation, so either taxes have to keep going up and up to maintain the same service, or the service has to get worse and worse. Neither can keep happening indefinitely.

8. I used to ride the 249 when I lived off 40th St and Bel-Red; it was loopy and infrequent but nice to have sometimes. The 222 would’ve been worse for me at the time, but it’s probably better for most of the people in the neighborhood.

   Cutting the 249 all the way back to Spring District, but no farther, is an interesting choice. As it is, it’s duplicative or useless between Yarrow Point and Spring District. Meanwhile, the shopping around 20th and 140th is only served by the 223 and 226 each several blocks away. I’d end the current 249 at Evergreen Point Freeway Station, and use the saved service hours to extend some other route (like the 225?) down 20th to 130th and Bel Red Station.

   1. Yes, the conversion to DART opens up that opportunity: van service might be able to use the Evergreen Point P&R loop to turn around. The part of ELC Route 249 south of BTC would be better served by retaining Route 241 and using 108th Avenue NE/SE. Either buses or vans will have to use the same roads. Deviations just delay the riders after them.

      Note that no bus routes provides proximate service to the Bel-Red station between 130th and 132nd avenues NE.

9. In this pass, I will comment on the Smith coverage. It is a valiant effort, bravo.

   Route 220. The peak period headway is longer than that of the current Route 271; current service has weekday headway of 10/15; new service will have 15/15.

   Route 223. Note the weekday headway improvement to 20/20 from 30/30. Note that 148th Avenue NE is also served by the B Line and Route 225.

   Route 226. Map at BC should be the same as Route 223; one or the other should change; see line on 148th Avenue SE. Route 226 loses connectivity with both the B Line and Crossroads Mall that is has now; it does not gain connectivity with the three Bel-Red Link stations.

   Route 249. It is extensively revised. It is now a coverage route to mitigate the deletion of Route 271 from Medina, Clyde Hill, and NW Bellevue; Route 246 was also deleted. The current pathway in Beaux Arts is suboptimal on 104th Avenue SE; it should have been on 108th Avenue SE. The DART conversion will make it less reliable and less attractive. Route 249 got hourly headway in the fall 2014 reductions; Transit did not fix it; it had 30/30 headway before that.

   Route 270 will have 15/15 headway. Route 271 has had 10/15 weekday headway.

   B Line. It will be streamlined; the deviation to 152nd Avenue NE will be deleted just as that street gets a Link station. This odd timing is similar to the Route 270 serving the Evergreen Point freeway station (but not 92nd Avenue NE) just as Link opens when that connection between BTC and SR-520 service is less important. (see horse and barn).

   Route 222. Both Education Hill and Cottage Lake have had all-day service in the past. Cottage Lake had it via former routes 251 and 931; the latter was reduced in fall 2014 and suspended with Covid. Education Hill was served by all day service; after fall 2011, it was Route 221. The connection between the two corridors required a new road.

   Route 250. Two questions: why should this route serve Bear Creek and delay Avondale riders oriented to/from Link; why does this route not serve the Spring District Link station via 120th Avenue NE?

   Route 251. This ELC route is not the first to directly connect Woodinville and Redmond. Before 2013, former Route 251 did so; after 2013, Route 931 did so; Route 931 was reduced in fall 2014 and suspended with Covid. Note that ELC Route 251 serves a rural area between Woodinville and Redmond.

   Route 256 replaces more routes than cited: 237, 252, 257, and 311. There is little mitigation for riders who used the residential tails of routes 252 and 257; routes 231 and 239 do not connect with the I-405 services at the NE 128th Street overcrossing.

   Route 237. Those oriented to/from Bellevue will have the opportunity to transfer at NE 128th Street.

   Route 240. Note indirect pathway between Factoria and South Bellevue Link.

   Route 630. Does it not seem there was planner error in the mention of Judkins Park service?

   Route 204. It misses Eastgate. Current routes 271, 226-241, 245, and 246 provided connectivity across I-90. The pretzel shaped Route 240 has this role under ELC.

   There is new coverage provided. There is old coverage lost: Route 246 has provided hourly service to Somerset, Woodridge, and Clyde Hill. The latter will be served by the revised Route 249. Route 240 has served Richards Road. Routes 212, 217, and 271 have served some employment sites near I-90. A big one has been T-Mobile. Seattle workers can use Route 203? The Route 240 pathway is out of direction. The Route 226 changes east of Crossroads is lost coverage.

   1. @eddiew

      I’m fairly familiar with the southern end of the 250; I lived in downtown Kirkland and commuted to Bellevue. 120th is a large detour. 120th/Northup backs up quite badly because there are 4 lights on Northup from 116th to 120th. I’d expect something like an extra 5-10 minutes during peak hours and 2-4 off-peak.

      That might be fine if there was a separate route between Kirkland and Bellevue, but right now the 250 is the only route between Bellevue and Kirkland, and most riders are headed from downtown to downtown.

      1. I am familiar as well; perhaps not as familiar. I rode many bus trips in the corridor and walked it when the waits were too long (e.g., routes old 256, 249, old 230-234, old 234-235, new 250). Yes, there are four signalized intersections: 116th, 116th, 24th, and 120th. So the marginal increase would be three. I looked at Google maps and clicked on the congestion factor; it did not show up as an issue. All the times I have taken the bus or waited for buses, the traffic seemed to move.

         I expect Route 250 riders would like to reach ASAP to go either east or west. Link is very important. There are very few boardings on 116th Avenue NE north of NE 12th Street.

         This is an objective question and could be tested. Note that 120th Avenue NE is pretty new.

      2. I would like some frequent service across all of central Redmond between Old Redmond Road and Fred Meyer. I don’t care about Bear Creek P&R per se but I do care about all the retail and other destinations all along it. I mentioned how I was at Downtown Redmond station and wanted to walk to Marymoor Village station, but after already walking it was too much for my arthritis, so I considered the 545, but it was about to drop to half-hourly, and I couldn’t remember if there was another route that was as frequent, but I didn’t want to get to the stop and find out there wasn’t, so I abandoned the plan and went home. This particular trip I wouldn’t be walking if Link were open, but the distance is typical of other trips I’ve made between two downtown Redmond destinations, so I want some kind of frequent service between all those trip pairs. If not the 250, then what?

      3. Mike: could Route 542 have 10 minute headway and meet that need?

      4. The issue is more to get 15-minute service evenings and weekends than it is about 10-minute service weekdays. I realize that just replacing the 545 with the 250 doesn’t help that, but at least the 250 is a primary route that might make Metro expand its frequency sometime. Or you could extend the B, in which case frequency would automatically come with it.

10. Ridership on the 270 might suffer from the mall bus stops being less convenient. The bus stop across from Nordstrom was one of the most popular stops. Easy to cross the street, and steps away from the entrance to Nordstrom. It looks like the new stops will require crossing the street twice at a busier intersection (or using the overpass with out-of-the-way street level access points) and then having to walk through the garage or walk an additional few blocks to get to the Macys entrance. Terrible for the retail workers! By the time you deal with all that, you might as well have just taken the train and walked from Bellevue downtown station, especially given the loss of ten minute peak frequency and it remaining 30-60 minutes on evenings and weekends. Remains to be seen whether the riders they pick up along Bellevue Way will make up for it, but I kind of doubt it. One consideration might be to have it cut across NE 4TH ST instead of 8th, so it can stop right in front of the mall entrances on Bellevue Way. I suspect not many people use the stops along NE 8TH ST between the transit center and the mall (correct if I am wrong), and there are also some grocery stores and other businesses on 4th, whereas 8th is mainly office complexes that you can walk to from the downtown Bellevue Link station.

    1. Yeah, the stop you mentioned at 8th & 102nd gets plenty of riders. It is used by about 200 people a day (coming from the UW) which is about as many as the next stop at 106th. Since only the infrequent 249 will cover 8th east of Bellevue Way, it might make sense to add a stop closer to Bellevue Way on 8th. Coming from the UW a bus would stop just a little way in from the corner (close to this Irish Pub here). That does mean that drivers who turn (along with the bus) would have to just deal with backup. For those heading to the UW, the could add a stop on 8th, right past the driveway but before the backup for those turning right.

       That being said, I don’t think it is that bad. To put things in perspective, the Bellevue Transit Center stop gets about 450 riders each way. So just for Downtown Bellevue this is about 25% of the ridership. For riders coming from the UW the walk is about an extra five minutes. My guess is most of the riders don’t have to walk farther than that. In other words, this isn’t an extra five minutes on top of the extra walking they have to do from the old bus stop. There is not much to the west. It is mostly just parking and low-density housing. I’m not saying people won’t walk farther than before, but not a lot of people and probably not a lot farther.

       Meanwhile, Bellevue Link is quite a ways to that old bus stop. Remember that Link is not where the transit center is — it is a little farther east. Just to walk from Link to that part of Bellevue Way is a ten minutes. It is a pleasant walk but still a longer walk. Speaking of which it is a shame that NE 6th isn’t a short transit mall between Bellevue Way and the freeway. That would allow buses to come off the freeway and basically cut through the middle of downtown before going north or south. Even local buses (or in this case the bus going on Bellevue Way) would benefit via a straightforward path. I understand why they built the pedestrian pathway (it definitely makes Bellevue more pleasant) but from a transit perspective a short busway would have been nice.

11. Route 251, is it on the road between Woodinville and Redmond that goes past the wineries, and has a couple of roundabouts? I’ve been on that road in traffic some times, the route will be useful for commuters between the two cities. It would also be good for Woodinville people who want to go to a Seattle event, as it would connect to East Link to make a simple two-seat ride.

12. This is nice, but they gave yet to complete the LLE restructure so the cart is before the horse as usual. The 372 plows on for instance.

    1. the cancelation of Route 372 awaits the shift of Route 522 to South Shoreline; ST may await the 2 Line crossing the lake.

       1. If Metro does not provide a route to backfill Lake City Way coverage, I can foresee ST waiting until the Stride 3 Line opens. Even then, there was a proposal to have some continued ST Express 522 peak service.

          In the meantime, route 65’s new path provides 15-minute headway service along NE 145th St., terminating at Shoreline South Station.

       2. the cancellation of Route 372 awaits the shift of Route 522 to South Shoreline; ST may await the 2 Line crossing the lake.

          ST has always said they will move the 522 after East Link makes it across the water. No is quite sure why, but that is the plan.

          If Metro does not provide a route to backfill Lake City Way coverage, I can foresee ST waiting until the Stride 3 Line opens.

          Metro has a route to backfill Lake City Way (the 77). They are just waiting for ST to move the bus. It is basically Sound Transit’s move next.

          Now if ST doesn’t move the 522 until after they finish Pinehurst Station things could get interesting.

          In any event the main thing I want to do is talk Metro out of the long-term plans for the 77. The route should be shorter and go no farther than the Fred Meyer Lake City Way (where the 61 lays over). Then send the 75 over to Bitter Lake and backfill service via a new bus that makes a live loop like so: https://maps.app.goo.gl/n5sf4c8d5jPSwWrP6. This would actually *save* Metro money while providing better connections to Link.

          Ideally they would find enough money to send that bus to Shoreline Community College and send the Metro 5 to Lake City. That would mean two buses connecting to the station from both sides. This would mean frequency that is twice as good. This would connect Pinehurst and Lake City with more of the north end of Seattle (directly and indirectly).

       3. The 522’s primary service area is suburban King County, and as far as I know it’s funded by the East King subarea. It’s only serving Lake City because it’s on the way to a Link station/downtown. ST has indicated repeatedly that Lake City is not Sound Transit’s responsibility. So I expect the 522 will be rerouted to Shoreline South station when the full 2 Line opens. The only reason it hasn’t happened yet was fears about the 1 Line being overcrowded in the gap between Lynnwood Link and the full 2 Line.

       4. North King does not fund any ST Express service, so yes the 522 is funded solely by East King.

       5. the 522 is funded solely by East King.

          Which just shows how ridiculous the balkanization of Sound Transit is. The 522 lies entirely within King County. The 522 gets a huge portion of its riders from within Seattle. Does it matter? No, not really. It is basically just a normal Metro route with weirdly colored buses and unusually large stop spacing.

          So where should the Stride bus go? Again, this is just a normal bus route within King County. By all means ST can chip in on both capital improvements and extra service. But it probably should be designed by Metro or at the very least they should be consulted to see if the route makes sense. But that isn’t how it worked. Instead they just picked a route and left Metro trying to figure out how to design the network around it. It was an awkward choice. You basically create a transit node at 145th & Lake City Way. This would be OK if there was layover space there, but there isn’t. That isn’t the only flaw. It just ends at the station instead of continuing to Shoreline College. It is a network mess. The whole thing becomes a little puzzle for future transit planners (“Hey kids, spot how many mistakes are within this route!”).

          I’m not saying the current network is great either. But the current routing of the 522 is one of the better pieces. It is a straightforward bus route that spends most of its time going the same direction on the main corridor. I would extend it to the U-District, but ending at Roosevelt does save money. It is really hard to find a big flaw in it.

          The problem right now is that the 372. It doubles up service on an area that has fewer people. It makes more sense for the 372 to either layover at the Lake City Fred Meyer (like it does on weekends) or be the bus providing the service along 145th (instead of the 65). Oh, and that bus (the 65 or 72) should go across to Shoreline Community College. Jeesh.

          So now the 372 will triple up service to 148th as if there is actually something there besides a Link station. The 65, 72 and Stride (all buses running every fifteen minutes or so in the middle of the day) will provide a spine of sorts along the corridor to the station between Lake City Way and the station. None will go farther. Meanwhile, only one bus will run between Bitter Lake and Lake City. At least it will keep going after it serves the station (it’s a miracle!). The problem is the aforementioned ridiculous hairpin turn it has to make — somehow managing to spend a huge amount of time in the Lake City neighborhood while providing very little coverage. But that is on Metro — not ST. I’m just saying that the provincial attitude of these little fiefdoms screws up transit in dozens of little ways. When you are somewhere else in some other part of town and wonder why your Metro bus isn’t running more often you can remember that one (small) reason is a decision like this.

       6. “It’s only serving Lake City because it’s on the way to a Link station/downtown.”

          Oh, and because its predecessor the 307 served Lake City.

       7. The reason behind Stride 3 terminating at Shoreline South station is the belief that its stakeholders (Lake Forest Park, Kenmore, Bothell, and indirectly Woodinville) want the fastest trip to downtown Seattle, and few of them care about or go to Lake City, Shoreline College, or other parts in far north Seattle. It also assumes that a Shoreline South transfer is faster than a Roosevelt transfer.

          There’s nothing necessarily wrong with that assumption or alignment. But Lake City should have more transit priority in general, and better accommodation for Lake City-Northshore trips. That could mean having a same-stop transfer on Bothell Way just north of 145th, and ensuring that both routes are ultra-frequent to minimize the waiting overhead.

       8. If a Lake City Way route can’t turn around or layover just north of 145th Street, it’s fine if it continues to Lake Forest Park. I’m not concerned about moderate-length overlappings.

13. I don’t understand why the 215 between Issaquah Highlands and Mercer Island is the same route as the 218, but then every third 215 continues on to North Bend. That just seems likely to confuse riders. Why not make the 218 all trips between Issaquah Highlands and Mercer Island while the 215 runs every 90 minutes and continues on to North Bend?

    The end result is the same in terms of trips and destinations, but there’s no confusion amongst riders because every 215 goes to Snoqualmie and North Bend.

    1. Makes sense to me. Excellent critical reading. Thank you.

    2. The feedback Metro got said the same thing. See the big “Impact Review” link page 595. Appendix B has general feedback; appendix C has the Mobility Board’s input. The general feedback was 75% for the 215, but an unspecified number wanted the short runs renumbered to 218. I don’t know why Metro didn’t do it.

       Is the 215 short variation really identical to the 218? No more stops? If there are, Metro could find a new number for the short runs.

14. The 215/208 kerfuffle… by eliminating the 208, it appears coverage to the Issaquah City Hall & Front Street area goes away for that route in favor of a Issy Highlands stop, which I get. So that leaves Issy CH/Front St partially served by the 554, or am I missing another route covering that area? I’m assuming the 554 route will remain the same since I saw no mention of it in the article, I guess since it’s focused on Metro modifications and not ST bus routes, but it would’ve been helpful to point out how routes like the 554 are changing, if they are.

    1. At closer look, the 554 shortens into a Issy Highlands to Bellevue TC route… so no more busses over the I-90 segment whatsoever, except for a peak time the 630 commuter from Mercer Island. It looks like the Issaquah Front St/Gilman segment turns into a new dead zone… since it’s covering local area between Redmond & M.I. anyway, it seems like the 269 could fill in for that corridor. Commuters needing a more direct route into Seattle could hop off the 269 at Issy Highlands and take the 218 or 554 to Eastside Link stations.

       This also begs the question of what happens when Link shuts down due to high winds on the I-90 bridge… I read somewhere the breaking point is for winds/gusts greater than 50mph, so that could mean several days, especially in the Fall. Assuming the bridge is still open to vehicles, is a shorter 550 route between M.I. or South Bellevue & the city revived as a temporary fill-in? They’d probably need to alter the 554 in that scenario as well for service from Issaquah & the foothills.

       1. High winds also close the roadway bridge too. So I-90 replacement bus service as an option may not be possible or may only be possible during very limited circumstances. Regardless, track closures do happen. This is an almost a four mile segment — so a disruption could happen for all sorts of reasons.

          It’s a reason why I keep noting that the Judkins Park station needs a place to turn around buses if not other vehicles too. Unlike other areas of SE Seattle near Link, the current local street grid near here is disrupted by the freeway and the hill. And the loop ramp there provides land inside it as a place to do something without further land acquisition.

          There is an ongoing effort to rethink the I-90 ramps, so that is the procedural opportunity to add bus reversal capabilities as part of the changes.

          It seems few besides me feel like reversal capabilities are needed. (The lack of a reversal keeps the station from being a transit route end too.) So thanks for pointing out that this situation needs a thorough strategy before it happens.

       2. If they cut 545 just because 2 Line opens, I wouldn’t hope for them to keep any all-day route across lake via I-90.

          If they would consider keeping one route on I-90, I think an all-day Rt 212 probably is a better than Rt 550.

    2. The 554 will probably be like it was in the last East Link Connections proposal, but ST is officially undecided at this point. In the past Metro led a joint Metro/ST restructure process, and the previous East Link Connections proposals included ST Express. This year ST yanked ST Express out of the East Link and Federal Way Link restructure proposals, and will instead consider them in its 2026 operating plan with a first proposal in April.

       The last few rounds of East Link Connections had a 15-minute frequent 554 from Bellevue TC, south Bellevue Way, South Bellevue station, new stops on Gilman Blvd to serve the retail destinations there, and City Hall. Then it was unclear whether all runs would serve the Issaquah Highlands or whether it would terminate at I-90. The map showed them terminating at I-90. “Select runs” would continue north to Sammamish and I don’t remember whether they’d terminate at Marymoor Village station. This would consolidate the 550, 554, and 556 with 15-minute daytime service. It would run in parallel with the 215, 218, and 268, with the 554 service central Issaquah via South Bellevue station, and the other routes serving only the Highlands P&R from Mercer Island station.

       A later map one of the editors found shows it staying on Newport Way instead of Gilman Blvd. So it’s unclear what ST will do, and ST won’t say until the first proposal in April. But now that Metro’s network is depending on what ST previously proposed, it might be hard for ST to back out now.

       ST seems to be saying it might delay the ST Express restructure until after the World Cup, so that would be Fall 2026. It may be thinking it’s better to keep the redundant capacity of the 545 and 550 in parallel with the full 2 Line as a fallback for any reliability issues or capacity spikes during the games. If that’s so, the 554 would continue going to Seattle for the first several months half-hourly, and those going to downtown Bellevue would transfer at Mercer Island.

       1. ST really hasn’t been very clear about the routing, which is part of the problem. We have read somewhat contradictory information as to whether the bus will backfill for the old 208 and 271 (providing regular service along that part of Issaquah) or whether it will go on its current route. Time will tell.

15. So, here is a themed review. My first note followed the STB piece.

    Diction. The ELC planners used the diction connect “to” Link. As the connections are two-way, “with” Link would have been better. It is possible their diction follows their thinking; they may consider inbound trips more than outbound trips. Both are important, but outbound trips are often more difficult as the local bus usually has longer headway and waits than Link. This is especially so in the evening and on weekends. Check out the headway chart for the routes. Will the scheduling of long headway local routes attempt to meet Link?

    WSDOT hardware. Several routes use the highway hardware in an awkward manner. Buses will get stuck in congestion and be slower and less reliable than they should be. Examples follow.
    – Route 270 uses the Bellevue Way NE interchange; it will have to weave to/from the center HOV lanes; it will miss the 92nd Avenue NE station. The center access ramp is at 108th/112th avenues NE.
    – Route 256 is a disaster; it is counter to 30 years of planning that aimed to shift the radial work to Link; Route 256 ignores Link and does not integrate with Link. In the p.m., it will make a difficult and congested north-to-east right turn to Mercer Street from Westlake Avenue North; also in the p.m., it will be stuck in the congested east-to-north ramp to I-405 from SR-520. The WSDOT reversible ramp will not open until about 2031, so the planners are asking it to weave across the I-5 general purpose lanes in both peak periods. Current routes 237, 532, and 535 use the I-405 HOT lanes better; they remain in them between NE 128th Street and NE 6th Street. The local network does not provide much connectivity at NE 128th Street for the riders of routes 252 and 257 that will be deleted. In downtown Seattle, SDOT has taken lanes from both 4th and 5th avenues, so they are slower for buses.
    – Route 111 will get stuck in congestion in the p.m. in the east-to-south ramps between I-90 and I-405. (This could have been avoided by using the Coal Creek interchange instead; this would have allowed it to serve Factoria as well; only the infrequent Route 203 will have a direct connection between Factoria and South Bellevue Link.
    – ELC ST Route 554 will be decided by the ST board soon. In the ELC outreach, it was oriented to South Bellevue Link. It will face congestion on Bellevue Way SE, on the ramps to/from I-90, and it will have to weave to/from the center HOV lanes. It would be much better for Route 554 to be oriented to/from Mercer Island Link. Using the ST ride guide, the ELC network will cost Issaquah riders oriented to MI or Seattle about 10 minutes per trip. So, I have suggested to ST that it split the ELC Route 554 into two, Route 554 oriented to MI and Route 555 oriented to downtown Bellevue via Richards Road; this was used by the former Route 555 until about 2012.

    There are several one-way peak-only routes. I think there should be none after Link. They are ELC routes 218, 256, and 630. Next year, look in the system evaluation report and look for rides per platform hour; they will have low numbers.
    – The deadhead for Route 218 would be very inexpensive; they could be demand to the Highlands in the reverse peak direction.
    – I covered Route 256 above. It is a bad idea poorly executed.
    – Route 630 duplicates Link. It is slower that taking an improved Route 204 and Link if wait time is added in. Route 630 will get stuck in traffic; Link will not. Several Link stations will have frequent service to/from First Hill: Capitol Hill (FHSC, 60), USS, (G Line and routes 2, 3, 4), PSS (routes 3, 4), and IDS (FHSC).

    The service guidelines discuss terminals. The best ones provide connectivity and have good bus-Link or bus-bus transfers (exchange in Canada). Two new routes have notably poor terminals when good ones are nearby.
    – Route 111 uses a revised loop in the same area that it served as one-way peak-only route. It would be much better to have the Renton Transit Center as a terminal; there would be two-way all-day demand. Route 240 will have that. Route 105 was actually the most productive local route; it would have been a better candidate to extend to East Link. The Route 111 terminal area could have been provided a local route oriented to Renton.
    -Route 222 uses Cottage Lake as a terminal. The obvious terminal would be the Woodinville P&R. That was used by Route 931 that replaced the former Route 251 in 2013. Woodinville will be served by several routes. The density between Cottage Lake and Woodinville is greater than that of the north part of Route 222. Note that Route 931 is two-way peak-only.

    The bus-bus connectivity is weak. Routes 220, 223, 226, and 245 serve the Eastgate local bays; they do not extend to the freeway station on 142nd Place SE. Only Route 240 does that in its southbound trips. Route 226 seems to serve SE Eastgate Way on its pathway to/from South Bellevue Link. There is about 800 feet and four levels difference between the local bays and the freeway station. That is a significant seam for seniors and those with limited sight or mobility. My suggestion was that Route 245 directly connect the local bays and Link at Mercer Island. Center-to-center, 142nd Place SE to 80th Avenue SE, it would be fast.

    For bus-Link connectivity, no bus route provides proximate service to the Bel-Red station between 130th and 132nd avenues NE. Why does Route 226 remain on Bel-Red Road?

    The service guidelines recommend directness. Route 240 is pretzel-shaped. Can it serve three markets well: Eastgate, South Bellevue Link, and downtown Bellevue?

    The service does not seem well-balanced in Overlake; 148th Avenue NE seems to have too much service (e.g., B line and routes 223, 225); 156th Avenue NE has Route 245. Both routes 225 and the B Line have to go through the NE 40th Street congestion.

    It was not necessary for Route 249 to become DART. 108th Avenue SE is the logical pathway. DART degrades reliability.

    Metro Flex is being applied atop the Crossroads network. The former Route 246 served Somerset and Woodridge; could they be served by Flex?

    In Seattle, Route 8 could have been made more direct. It now provides friction for the G Line on MLK Jr. Way East and East Madison Street.

16. Any idea why the 215 (or 208 for that matter) skip KC Metro’s Park & Ride in Preston? Ever since they cut the 209, there’s been no service there; getting to and from has been tough ever since. Seems like a pretty easy fix.

Comments are closed.