Link Disruptions: Spring 2025

37 Replies to “Link Disruptions: Spring 2025”

1. Nine days of 25-30 minute service? Guess I’ll be driving to work that week. Holy hell.

   I hate to see what the maintenance is going to look like on this system in 30 years if this is what it looks like now.

   1. Riders are facing these disruptions often. I don’t think many fully understand that these disruptions are nowhere near as common in other rail systems (unless they’ve lived in metros with more reliable rail).

      With every extension opening, Link shifts from being a dream to being reality. Maintaining reality will increasingly be what matters most.

      What irks me the most is that these disruptions are pitched as “surprises” that we find out about with only a few weeks notice. In my mind, the days of most of these “surprises” should not be happening as often as they do.

      Given the seemingly endless need for repairs to this fairly new system, why is there still not a comprehensive assessment and a maintenance action plan? Why is there not a clear effort to identify problems earlier, and the plan for repairs without so much disruption?

      Sadly, Board members seem still believing that dreaming is more important than operating. The Board also seems of Link as “nice to have” rather than “must operate at promised levels”. I never see them publicly pushing back on disruption schedules that seem to be needed each month. They seem to be stuck in 2015 where future stations and tracks get all the attention at meetings and existing stations and tracks get little.

      ST staff also does not count quickly planned service reductions as “missed trips” and that whitewashes the reported actual system performance. Maybe this metric needs to be redefined to more accurately reflect what riders experience. If it makes ST look bad, so be it! Missed trips are what riders experience — whether sudden or announced with a mere few weeks notice. Then maybe the Board will start to be more responsive to riders and less focused on unaffordable expansion planning.

      1. It’s politically impossible to shift away from the never ending expansion mode to operations mode until every last rail project is finished. It’s a bad way to run a transit company. I can’t blame the board members of subareas where rail projects are in the building or planning stages for caring more about their subareas than Seattle however.

         Like it or not, Sound Transit functions like it was designed to.

      2. It’s surprising how many workdays it takes to link in East Link to the tunnel, or add Pinehurst Station. There was a big Connect 2020 period that we thought was everything East Link needed, but then it turns out it needs some six maintenance periods like that. And why does it take a month’s worth of reductions to install Pinehurst Station stairs and other features?

         I guess Graham and BAR stations will have similar lengthy reductions.

      3. “It’s politically impossible to shift away from the never ending expansion mode to operations mode until every last rail project is finished.”

         I think that’s just not true.

         Most urban rail transit agency has some sort of expansion in their sights. Their boards focus on having the system run well instead. From BART (Downtown San Jose) to NYC (Second Ave Subway) to MARTA (Murphy Crossing and Armour Yards) to DART (Silver Line) to CTA (Red Line Extension southward), these agencies are driven much more by their daily operations more so that their system expansion. Sure it registers a bit on the political meter, but it isn’t the primary driver about what happens in the agency or what the Board spends a big chunk of time on..

         Even King County Metro’s upcoming RapidRide lines aren’t the main topic that the Board is worried about.

      4. The primary issue the subarea boardmembers and their respective counties/cities care about is getting “their” Link openings as soon as possible. Pierce feels like it hasn’t gotten much substantial for its ST taxes yet. Snohomish and South King feel like they’ve gotten half of theirs and they want the other half. East King is probably still adjusting to having a Starter Line, but wants Issaquah long-term so that eastern East King isn’t left out. North King, well, it’s being led by Constantine’s/Harrell’s priorities, which are West Seattle, CID/N&S, and SLU/Ballard.

         Balducci is the only one who has substantially raised the issue of passenger needs, and prioritizing reliable operations higher. Millar has been relatively good on passenger needs too. The rest are all focused on abstractions, or lines on a map. They may have feelings for passenger needs and reliable operations, but their actions aren’t making it happen in more than minimal ways.

         It’s possible that ST will evolve into more of an operations-based prioritization as it gets older. The question is whether its political structure hinders this. BART is also a consortium of counties focused on what each county wants, and it has successfully evolved into focusing on operations, but there may be structural differences that hinder ST from making that transition so completely, at least until the Spine is finished.

      5. By mid-2026, the Link expansions will be:

         West Seattle
         Tacoma Dome
         Everett
         Graham infill
         BAR infill
         4 Line

         No stations will open between 2027 and 2032 although I frankly don’t see West Seattle open until 2035-2035 at the earliest given the construction challenges of a deep station and a high bridge on unstable soil.

         Although it’s true Pierce is waiting (at least to 2035), the other subareas will have plenty open. South King will only have South Federal Way left. East asking will have only 4 Line and its pathetic ridership forecast left, North King only has the funds to build to West Seattle. Snohomish will add more stations but not until 2037 at the earliest.

         ST Link in 2016 before U Link opened had just 40K average weekday boardings. Today it’s 90K. By mid 2026 it will be hopefully 130K. In percentage terms these are big jumps. It’s more than triple just between 2016 and 2026.

         But all the extensions in ST3 added together probably won’t even double/ add another 130K. And they’ll take at least 20 years to open (say 2046). By 2036 we probably will have about 50K more riders, compared to the 90K between 2016 and 2026 — and that even assumes that West Seattle, Tacoma Dome and two infill stations can get their funding ducks in a row pretty quickly.

         We’ve had an amazing decade construction delays not withstanding. But the rapid expansion days are ending in 2026. We will have matured the system for the most part by that point.

         Every light rail system matures. It’s just the natural progression of things. We all wanted to see it! The day is coming soon. But now we and the Board will have to live with what we built — and that’s very different than living the “fun” of planning it and watch it get built.

      6. I guess the surprising bit to me is the lack of coordination.

         TriMet needed about 6 weeks to do some extensive work on the red line, but used the time to also close everything from Lloyd Center to gateway to rebuild 6 miles of 40 year old track.

         Earlier this month,TriMet was doing work in their tunnel and had to single track as well, for the entire 3 mile distance. Hardly anyone noticed because TriMet did this work spread over a longer time period, but between 10 at night and 4 in the morning, when train frequency is half hourly or not operating. The only notice was an alert basically saying if you’re one of the 4 or so people using that one station during those hours, you need to use the eastbound platform only.

         Disruptions are going to happen, but it seems like they should be able to better coordinate these or make them less disruptive.

      7. Mike Orr,

         You think Balducci really cares about Sound Transit? Or being the next King County Executive?

         If you support Balducci on the Sound Transit Board…. you’re going to cheer when she votes Dow Constantine in as Sound Transit CEO, right?

2. ah the Pinehurst station. A political per project that wasted hundreds of millions to put a station a short shuttle away across the golf course from shoreline south and that has the lowest projected ridership and tod potential of the entire system. But at least you can go from one side of the golf course to the other using link. first word problems

   1. This argument is getting tedious. The purpose of Pinehurst Station is to give two URBAN VILLAGES (Lake City and Bitter Lake) better access to Link, so that people can get to them easier and they can contribute fully to Seattle’s housing needs and economy. (In other words, to minimize the location overhead of living/working/shopping there without a car.) It’s not as ideal as the Lake City alternative to Lynnwood Link that would have put a station right at 125th & Lake City Way, but it’s better than not having a station at 130th & I-5.

      The Pinehurst upzone and existing multifamily housing, — which does exist and you ignore completely — is additional gravy that will allow a few more people to live within walking distance of a Link station. Even if the freeway and golf course can’t contribute to the walkshed.

      Pinehurst Station is a better investment than, gosh, Issaquah Link.

      1. @Mike Orr,

         Let’s be honest. The purpose of Potemkin Station at 130th was to buy an ST3 endorsement from a holdout politician and help get ST3 across the finish line.

         Dow put it into the package at an estimated cost of $240M over the objections of ST technical staff who were adamant that the station didn’t pencil out and would add zero (0) net new riders to the system. Instead they were told to “rework” their technical assessment in support of Dow’s political goals. This is why Dow’s ascension to ST CEO is so dangerous for the agency.

         And what we are getting at 130th is pathetic. It will easily be the most suburban-like of the ST stations, yet will have none of the typical suburban station accouterments. No parking garage, no bus turning loop, no bus layover space, and just one barely frequent supporting bus route. Just one!

         And even after Seattle’s anemic attempt at rezoning the station area, the TOD potential is also pathetic. A undevelopable golf course to the NE, an undevelopable ravine and wetland to the E, a freeway along the entire west side, and another park to the SE.

         But hey, the north end of the station platform will be a great place to watch golf. I might bring my lawn chair!

      2. “The purpose of Potemkin Station at 130th was to buy an ST3 endorsement from a holdout politician and help get ST3 across the finish line.”

         But WHY was that politician insistent on it? Because it’s a transit best-practice to serve all large urban villages that are close to a metro line. That’s why most transit fans pushed for it.

         The original problem was that when the representative alignment was drawn on I-5 without a 130th station, it seemed like no additional stations were possible, so it was impossible to serve Lake City well. Then in the Alternatives Analysis, ST presented four alternatives (Aurora, I-5, 15th Ave NE, and Lake City Way). The Aurora alternative had an extra station at 130th. When the I-5 alternative was finally selected, people realized that if one alternative could have an extra 130th station, another alternative could too, and that would give Lake City some better connectivity that we’d thought was impossible. So then we rushed to get 130th & I-5 into ST2, but failed.

         That politician (Juarez?) joined the push, both because it’s a transit best-practice, and because it’s her constituents that would benefit (or conversely be harmed if it’s not included). That push finally succeeded in ST3. Unfortunately it was too late to include a fully-fuctional Pinehurst Station in the original Lynnwood Link opening. So because of that, we have these reductions to retrofit it in, which wouldn’t have been necessary if it had been included in Lynnwood Link in the first place.

      3. “just one barely frequent supporting bus route”

         You only need one route for the east-west feeder. A proper grid network like Chicago has one frequent route on each east-west or north-south arterial.

         Saying we shouldn’t have 130th Station because the initial east-west route is only marginally frequent is like shooting yourself in the foot, or putting the cart before the horse. The east-west route SHOULD be full-time frequent, and hopefully it will someday. But Metro is challenged network-wide with insufficient frequency, and not enough drivers or tax revenue for the full Chicago-like frequency it should have. We shouldn’t block our long-term opportunity for a high-quality transit network (130th station + full-time frequent east-west feeder) just because the initial east-west frequency can’t be as high as it should be. You get to a better place by making incremental improvements, not by refusing to make them.

      4. I don’t understand why you completely ignore that Lake City exists and is Seattle’s fifth-largest urban village and has significant growth potential. You act like there’s nothing but low-density residential-only between Northgate Way and 145th.

      5. The proper response to “A freeway alignment and an adjacent golf course dampen the ridership and walkshed” is “Don’t build Link on I-5”, not “Don’t build 130th station”. There were two obviously better alternatives for Link: Aurora Avenue or Lake City Way. But ST selected I-5. Therefore we must make the I-5 alignment the least bad possible, the most useful it can be. Adding 130th station is doing that.

      6. The proper response to “A freeway alignment and an adjacent golf course dampen the ridership and walkshed” is “Don’t build Link on I-5”, not “Don’t build 130th station”.

         Exactly.

      7. Let’s be honest. The purpose of Potemkin Station at 130th was to buy an ST3 endorsement from a holdout politician and help get ST3 across the finish line.

         There is no such thing as Potemkin Station. You also aren’t being honest.

         130th Station is a good value because Lynnwood Link was built. The same can be said for every other station between Northgate and Lynnwood. None of them get very high ridership. But an above ground station is really not that expensive compared to miles and miles of above ground track to Lynnwood. They don’t have to have great ridership to justify their cost. Quite the opposite. Each addition in ridership (however small) helps justify the very expensive cost of the line itself. For example the case for Lynnwood Link itself it made much stronger with stations like 185th even though that station has yet to get over a thousand riders. Without the 800 or so riders a day it gets it is tougher to make the case that Lynnwood Link was worth it.

         The same is true with Pinehurst Station. Here is a little math. Lynnwood Link cost $3.2 billion. The last three months it got around 6,000 riders. That means Lynnwood Link costs more than half a million dollars per rider. The Pinehurst Station cost $240 million*. If the Pinehurst Station gets a mere 500 riders it will cost less per rider than Lynnwood Link is now and thus make Lynnwood Link a better value.

         *Wow, that is way more expensive than it should have been. ST has a definite construction problem. The station should have cost a lot less. So much for “build next to the freeway, it will be cheap”.

   2. > has the lowest projected ridership and tod potential of the entire system

      Shoreline south has the lowest projected ridership.

      It was
      * mountlake terrace 5100
      * shoreline north 6500
      * shoreline south 2600
      * pinehurst 5100
      In the original EIS

      Anyways mountlake terrace and the shoreline stations have lower ridership than the rainier valley stations. Under your logic we should close all three of those stations as well.

      1. How can Shoreline South have the lowest ridership AND be the terminus of Stride 3? That suggests Stride 3 ridership will be far below normal, or that most riders won’t transfer to Link. That contradicts Stride 3’s stated goal that the majority ridership will be those seeking the fastest way to downtown Seattle, which was the justification for not serving Lake City or Roosevelt station.

         In a normal metro+BRT situation you’d expect BRT transfer stations to have something like twice the ridership of regular stations, like a rail+rail transfer would. After all, that’s the purpose of BRT lines, to be major transit corridors. So if we take Pinehurst or Shoreline North to be a “regular station”, then a BRT transfer station should have much higher ridership that that, a combination of walk-ups, regular bus transfers, and BRT transfers. Instead the BRT transfer station has the LOWEST ridership?

      2. Mike, is anyone allowed to be out on he street in Lake Forest Park other than during commuting hours when The Help arrives and departs and Daddy heads downtown to do pleadings battke with rogue politicians from elsewhere?

         I think you’re expecting “all-day demand” from people who don’t actually want to be on transit.

      3. Stride 3 was not in the Lynnwood Link original EIS. The draft EIS was published in 2013 and the final EIS was recorded in 2015. Stride 3 was a concept proposed in 2016 when ST3 was being assembled during the project “shopping spree” that occurred.

         That said, it’s quite telling that the 18,300 of these stations combined multiplied by two (for those exiting the station) is 36,600 forecasted average weekday riders. I’m assuming that no one is riding just between the four stations, and I’m assuming that Wesley’s numbers were just boardings, by the way.

         I’m not sure why ST kept claiming it would be 47,000 to 55,000 riders by 2026 given much lower EIS numbers. And of course today it’s really at about 14,000 riders even though the Lynnwood City Center garage is declared full and people complain about trains being too crowded. I’m sure it will grow by 2026 as the 2 Line opening will double train frequency as well as connect the Eastside directly but even 20,000 riders seems to me to be a bit of a stretch now that ST reports actual data.

         As to whether a station is “worth it” I think it’s as much a function of the station design and cost. 1000 sounds like a reasonable minimum number of boardings for a surface station, but an aerial station seemingly should have more, like 2500. And for a subway station deep into the ground, I would propose a minimum more like 4000-5000. Oh, it could be argued that Shoreline north is a surface station (but not the others).

         And closing a station before it’s fully served and after being open just a year is rather foolish. The only good reason to close down a station before it’s fully served would be if it was too dangerous to be open.

      4. @Mike Orr,

         “How can Shoreline South have the lowest ridership…”

         It won’t. ST technical staff were just told to make something up to justify the addition of the station at 130th, so they basically just moved ridership on paper from Shoreline South/148th Station to Pinehurst. It was more of a bookkeeping trick than reality.

         And the reality is already different. Shoreline South/148th Station is already doing better than Shoreline North/185th Station, and often outperforming MTS too. And that is even with the construction project on 145th that has limited access and forced bus reroutes, before the ped bridge gets built, and with only a small amount of the current TOD projects on-line.

         LLE is doing just fine. Ridership has surged since LLE opened and the trains are packed. And all this is in the low ridership, winter months, and with plenty of Link interruptions too. Just wait until we get to the peak ridership summer months. Without Full ELE we are all going to have to get really friendly with our neighbors.

      5. “Stride 3 was not in the Lynnwood Link original EIS.”

         But a high-capacity transit corridor was in ST’s long-range plan, and there had previously been a Link concept (Northgate – Lake City – Bothell). Stride 3 was because Bothell Link wouldn’t be in ST3, so it needed something better than the 522 in the meantime. All this was part of the accelerating of ST3 and realizing more corridors, the same movement that brought Ballard and West Seattle Line, and north Link all the way to Everett and Paine Field (instead of just maybe Ash Way or Mariner).

      6. “Ridership has surged since LLE opened and the trains are packed. And all this is in the low ridership, winter months”

         Yet you don’t think ridership will surge at 130th too. That’s contradictory.

         Look at U-Link, RapidRide G, or the 2 Line Starter Line. Ridership on Link went up, and the buses kept most of their ridership. So that’s new riders appearing. ST may estimate no net additional riders with 130th Station, but I don’t believe that. It’s not how people behave when more transit mobility freedom appears. And ST is assuming known growth patterns from existing zoning trends and transit mode share. It’s possible that housing growth and transit preference may increase faster than that, and Seattlites will adopt more sensible European-like attitudes to housing and transit, either because the transit is improved, they get more frustrated with driving in congestion and the cost of gas and cars, or they get more concerned about carbon emissions and pollution.

      7. Anyways mountlake terrace and the shoreline stations have lower ridership than the rainier valley stations. Under your logic we should close all three of those stations as well.

         Bingo. The argument for not building Pinehurst Station applies to the other stations as well. We should have just built the line from Northgate to Lynnwood (without any stations in between).

         Of course that is ridiculous. Turns out that we wouldn’t actually save that much money by skipping stations (especially with an elevated line). Ridership on the Lynnwood Link line would go down considerably. So much so that now the line itself is a worse value. The other stations — even though they don’t perform that well — are worth it. The same is true with Pinehurst Station. It doesn’t have to perform that well to be worth it (because it is an infill station).

      8. ST technical staff were just told to make something up to justify the addition of the station at 130th, so they basically just moved ridership on paper from Shoreline South/148th Station to Pinehurst

         So let me get this straight. You are claiming that Pinehurst Station won’t lead to an increase in transit ridership because of a report you read. Then you are claiming that the same report is suspect and politically motivated. Holy cow your bias against this station shows no bounds.

      9. @Mike — ST has always had trouble with estimating bus ridership. My guess is every agency does. It is relatively easy at major nodes (like Lynnwood Station). You can look at the express ridership. But even then you have to guess whether they will terminate the buses there or not. ST doesn’t control Community Transit or Metro. Even when the buses are under their control they may not do what they planned. For example consider Federal Way Link. If the buses from the south all truncate there it will get plenty of ridership. But if they don’t, ridership will be pretty small. ST may plan on truncating all of the buses but they may also change their mind due to political pressure. To get a realistic estimate they would need to do several studies with various bus networks.

         This is part of the reason that transit estimates are so challenging. I’ve looked at some of the modeling (for the streetcar) and there are (as expected) dozens of various moving pieces. A lot of these can be evaluated different ways. This explains why the streetcar estimates were so inflated. I don’t think they did this on purpose — the modeling just isn’t that precise (or at least the standard modeling isn’t). Even if they are evaluated correctly at the time, things can change. Imagine if Community Transit decided to keep the express buses — ridership would be a lot lower at Lynnwood. Imagine if ST truncated the 510 tomorrow and stopped North Sounder. Lynnwood Link ridership would be a lot higher. The ridership on the Canada Line was way below the estimates. My guess is they underestimated the value of the grid (lots of people take a bus then the very frequent train).

         In general they tend to look at the area around the station and not the bus routes. Making matters worse, there is no bus route for Pinehurst Station. It isn’t like the express buses where it is fairly easy to calculate (I could give you a fairly accurate East Link number based on the number of people who used to cross the lake on buses). We are generally talking about buses that are going to different places. Yeah, it is easy to see how Stride 3 would lead to a lot of riders at 148th Station. But now you are estimating ridership at a station based on an estimate of the riders of a bus that doesn’t exist yet. It is quite possible they did bump the numbers — just not a lot*.

         *It is worth noting that only about 750 people a day get off the 522 at Roosevelt. About 350 boarded a southbound bus after 145th (and won’t be served by the future 522). Some of those Seattle riders never made it to Roosevelt so we really don’t know how many people from 145th (and areas north) take the bus to Link but somewhere around 500 or so. This will certainly tip the balance (and help shift ridership from Roosevelt to 148th) but it is unlikely that 148th will have the ridership of Beacon Hill or any of the Rainier Valley stations (although it might catch Rainier Beach).

      10. @Mike Orr,

          “ST may estimate no net additional riders with 130th Station, but I don’t believe that.”

          You can “believe” what ever you want to, but I prefer to leave “belief” to the realm of religion and instead stick to data on technical matters.

          The ST ridership estimates are the only real estimates available, and I see no reason to doubt them. Will it be exactly zero (0.0) net new riders? Probably not exactly, but it won’t be anything significant, and it certainly won’t create a surge in ridership like the rest of LLE has.

          “It’s possible that housing growth and transit preference may increase faster”

          Anything is possible. Heck, manna might fall from heaven. Apparently it has happened before. But there is very little developable land at 130th St Station, and that won’t change.

      11. > You can “believe” what ever you want to, but I prefer to leave “belief” to the realm of religion and instead stick to data on technical matters.

          Lazarus it was in the Eis estimates so you’re the one who is not sticking to the data on technical matters

      12. I would simply add one perspective in this topic:

          The heart of Lake City is 1.3 miles from Pinehurst Station. Because of that distance, connecting bus service is the only realistic way connect the two points. And buses do connect Lake City to other stations. Even the only planned bus connection (Route 77) goes to Roosevelt Station in addition to Pinehurst. Plus for inbound trips, Route 61 provides another option to connect to Link at Northgate.

          So I just don’t see many Lake City riders making that transfer at Pinehurst. It’s less direct, and for those inbound there will be lots more buses available for anyone waiting at a southbound stop rather than a northbound stop.

          It may be different for Bitter Lake riders.

      13. So I just don’t see many Lake City riders making that transfer at Pinehurst. It’s less direct

          Huh? You have it backwards. The fastest way to get from Lake City to Link is via Pinehurst Station (by a big margin). As I’m writing this it takes about five minutes (on the 75) to get from 125th & Lake City Way to 125th & Roosevelt. Figure another minute to get to the station (if that) or 6 minutes altogether. It takes 13 minutes to get to Northgate Transit Center. Same goes for getting to the Roosevelt Station. That is via the express (the 522). When the bus makes more stops — which it should do — it will be a couple minutes slower (or somewhere around 15 minutes). It takes about 11 minutes to get to 148th Station.

          The fastest option (by far) is via 125th. The second fastest option is to go north. But that means extra time on the train for most riders (as most are heading south). Going to Roosevelt saves a little time on Link but still not enough to make up for the extra travel time on the bus. The fastest option — by far — is to go on 125th.

          Now it is true that Metro planners may very well ignore this simple fact and completely screw up the connection from Lake City to Link, but hopefully in the future they will get it right. The 77 is an abomination — but that doesn’t change the fact that Pinehurst Link is the closest and best option for getting from Lake City to Link.

      14. it certainly won’t create a surge in ridership like the rest of LLE has.

          Lynnwood Link has increased ridership north of Roosevelt by about 1,000 riders a day. That works out to an increase of about 250 riders per new station. That isn’t much of a surge. It is quite likely those riders used to ride the express buses from Snohomish County that no longer exist. In other words, it is quite possible that Lynnwood Link has resulted in zero net increase in transit ridership along the Link pathway. A lot of people who used to take the express bus to downtown now have to ride Link. A lot of people who used to take a bus to Northgate now take a bus to a different station. A lot of people that used to drive to Northgate now drive to one of the other stations.

          If things are as bad as you suggest — if Pinehurst Station results in a minimal net increase in transit ridership — it would be no different than the rest of Lynnwood Link.

          Meanwhile, for reasons that you can’t seem to quite grasp — the Pinehurst Station will result in an improvement in the overall transit network. This will most certainly lead to an increase in transit ridership even if it doesn’t lead to an increase in Link ridership. Let’s face it, Metro has been forcing riders onto Link for a long time now (and now Community Transit has joined them). People who would much prefer the old 41 no longer have that choice. Meanwhile, those who like to park and ride have had that option since Northgate Link. Not much changed with Lynnwood Link which is why the net ridership *on Link* hasn’t changed that much despite the extension. But Community Transit saw a huge increase in ridership as they were able to shift money from the express buses to buses within Snohomish County. It is like Community Transit got a huge grant to start running a lot more buses a lot more often and they put it to good use.

          The same thing has happened with Metro. The U-Link restructure was huge, which led to very large increase in overall ridership. Yes, a lot of people switched from taking the bus to taking the train. But the number of people on the train wasn’t that much higher than the number of people on the old buses. The big increase came from people on buses that didn’t involve Link. With U-Link just about every bus in the north end went from running every thirty minutes to every fifteen. Suddenly people could get to the UW (a major destination) much faster.

          Unfortunately the Northgate and Lynnwood Link restructures weren’t as good. There have been some important improvements in the network (e. g. the new 61) but overall it pales in comparison to the bold and successful changes taken after U-Link. Similarly the 77 is not a great route but the ability to go from Lake City to Bitter Lake is still a very important change that will help increase overall transit ridership.

          You are thinking way too small when it comes to this station. You need to look at the big picture. To quote a key transit idea: It is not about the route — it is about the network. With every potential change you should be asking yourself whether it will help the network. If so, is it worth the cost. In this case the answer is clearly yes, absolutely. On the entire, massively expensive Lynnwood Link it is second only to Lynnwood Station (with its freeway intercept) in that regard. As Mike has explained (over and over) Lake City is a very populous place. Bitter Lake also has a lot of people. The corridor — with moderately-dense Pinehurst and the high school — is one of the strongest north of the U-District. It is also one of the fastest ways to get east-west in a region that has several fast north-south transit options (including Link). It is a very important network corridor and adding a station there should be obvious to anyone who even considers the potential network for five minutes. It baffles me that you still haven’t figured that out (or have no interest in even considering it).

   3. @Paul — It is really sad that you don’t bother to learn about a subject and then jump to an ignorant conclusion. There is a solution for that: Ask. Just ask someone why the station is there. It is obvious to a lot of people but clearly not to you. Here is a quick summary:

      Lake City lies to the east. Bitter Lake lies to the west. The corridor (125th/Roosevelt/130th) connects them via Pinehurst and Ingraham High School. Thus various parts of the corridor are relatively dense or attractive from a transit perspective. A bus will run between Bitter Lake and Lake City, quickly connecting those riders with Link. The station will have a very positive impact on the network. Some riders will be able to get to the station much faster while a lot of trips (not involving Link) will be better as well.

      Your criticism of the landscape around the station applies to every station north of Northgate. Every single one is close to the freeway and thus every single one has a limited potential when it comes to walk-up riders. But since Sound Transit decided to run the train close to the freeway it only makes sense to actually add stations. Since walk-up ridership will be low, every station is highly dependent on the buses. This is why Lynnwood Link has such high ridership (it serves as the main bus feeder from the north) and why 148th is so low right now (the main feeder — the 522 — doesn’t serve it yet).

      If you want to argue that Lynnwood Link was not worth it, be my guest. Maybe we could have improved the HOV connection from the north to Northgate. If you want to argue that they should have built it away from the freeway, I agree. But to argue that a station is not justified simply because it exhibits the characteristics of every other station on Lynnwood Link is just silly.

3. Thanks for the update on the Wilburton slowdown.

4. Project connect 2020 seems like a vague memory. It was totally pitched aa all that was needed to connect in the 2 lineup it was only the beginning of rhat headache. It had a nice center platform at pioneer Square that we threw away for some reason. Plus it happened right st the pandemic was starting to bite. The tale of the 2 line connection certainly is cautionary. Not at all looking forward to April and may at this point.looks like finding bus alternatives will be in order.

5. I thought the NE 130th St station was a dumb idea when it was first proposed, even though it will be the closest station to my house. But once they decided to build it, I wanted it done as soon as possible. It’s really pointless to relitigate that decision, now that the station is 90% finished. I’m now more interested in bus service from my neighborhood (Olympic Hills) to a train station, any station. Metro deleted all bus routes along 15th NE except one, the 348. And the 348 doesn’t even go to the closest station, Shoreline South. It visits Shoreline North and terminates at Northgate but skips Shoreline South, for some reason. Right now, to reach the closest station, Shoreline South, I have to walk more than halfway there to get on the Metro 65 bus, along streets without sidewalks, natch. I worry a similar situation will result with the NE 130th station and buses along 125th St. An easy solution would be to have the 348 visit the Shoreline South station, starting now.

Comments are closed.