Munich is building a second downtown tunnel for its S-Bahn (regional rail) network, to open in 2035. Here’s a map and summary. Deutche Bahn chose to build it when ridership in the first tunnel reached 800,000 and trains were running every 2 minutes. The second tunnel has 5 stations instead of 10, at the same locations as the original stations, with the same station names except one name that’s slightly different. This will allow it to be more expressful than the first tunnel.
This is an open thread.
Let’s break down the transfer situation post-opening of DSTT2.
The five lines going into and out of the downtown core will be:
UW/Everett (UW/E, for brevity)
Bellevue/Redmond (B/R)
Rainer Valley / Airport / Tacoma (RV/A/T)
West Seattle (WS)
South Lake Union / Ballard (SLU/B)
.
UW/E to B/R will be straight through without a transfer, on the 2 Line.
UW/E to RV/A/T will most easily be done at the SODO Stations.
UW/E to WS will be straight through, without a transfer.
UW/E to SLU/B would be transferring at the Westlake Stations.
B/R to RV/A/T would end up being via a bus bridge or some other faster connecting system (people mover, moving walkway, gondola, etc) between Judkins Park Station and Mt Baker Station.
B/R to WS would be via a transfer at the existing International District / Chinatown Station. This would likely be far fewer daily transfers than via the Rainier Ave People Mover.
B/R to SLU/B would likely be at the Westlake Stations.
RV/A/T to WS would certainly be at the SODO Stations.
RV/A/T to SLU/B would be straight through, without a transfer.
WS to SLU/B would also be easiest at the SODO Stations.
.
The SODO Stations would handle three of the seven transfer categories, including UW/E to RV/A/T, likely to be the most voluminous. Making those transfers as quick and easy as possible ought to be at the top of the list of priorities in designing the new station.
Westlake would handle two of the transfer categories.
The Rainier Ave People Mover and the current IDC Station would each handle one transfer category.
What do you mean by Rainier Ave People Mover?
It is just one of the possible ways to enable quick transfers between Judkins Park Station and Mt Baker Station. I don’t think the bus bridges will suffice.
I don’t think you will need it. Consider some of the transfers:
1) TIBS (or places south) to Downtown Bellevue (or places east). Stride is a better option.
2) Rainier Valley stations to the East Side. Most of the people would just take the 7 (even if there was a people mover between the stations). The 7 serves more places and the places with more people. It is as frequent as Link (and will probably be more frequent in the future). I’m not saying there wouldn’t be some who would use a people mover, but not that many. The biggest benefit would be to get close to Mount Baker Station itself (and not transfer from there) but the station is in a bad place (cut off from where the people are).
3) Beacon Hill to the East Side. The geography works but there still are not that many riders and backtracking isn’t that bad.
4) SoDo (or Stadium) to East Side. At this point it is probably best to transfer at CID even if there was a people mover.
5) TIBS (or places south) to Mercer Island. Like Beacon Hill the geography works. But I do not expect that many riders, other than those on the bus (coming from places like Eastgate and Issaquah). I don’t think there will be that many riders and if there were, it would make sense to build regional bus connections to better serve them (and other riders). For example a Renton to Issaquah express would stop at the Renton freeway station and Eastgate along the way. Then riders could take Stride from TIBS to that freeway station and transfer.
If Link was a lot more frequent and had a lot more good stations to the south I could see something like a people-mover or gondola between Judkins Park and Mount Baker. But that isn’t how they built it.
Hi Brent, I’ve analyzed something similar for the Ballard at grade and the 5th Ave diagonal articles.
> The SODO Stations would handle three of the seven transfer categories
Appreciate the bullet points above, but I think the namings a bit confusing
Generally it’s two segments going north:
* Ballard
* Lynnwood (and beyond)
Then three segments going south :
* Bellevue
* Federal Way
* West Seattle
Continuing to head “south” there’s 2×3 for 6 combinations:
(Both Pioneer square 2 and sodo can be usually be replaced with CID2 if built instead)
Ballard to Bellevue: at pioneer square 2
Ballard to Federal Way: stay on train
Ballard to West Seattle: at sodo
Lynnwood to Bellevue: stay on train
Lynnwood to Federal Way: at sodo
Lynnwood to West Seattle: stay on train
Then there’s 4 backtracking movements:
Ballard to Lynnwood: at westlake2 station
West Seattle to Bellevue: at pioneer square 2
Federal Way to Bellevue: at pioneer square 2
West Seattle to Federal Way: at sodo
3 transfers are at pioneer square 2
3 transfers are at sodo
1 transfer at Westlake
3 stay on the train.
Originally with the cut and cover cid station and lower transfer times it was imagined more with all the north/south transfers mostly taking place at cid2. There’d just be the two backtracking ones at westlake and sodo.
5 transfers are at cid2
1 transfer at Westlake (Ballard to lynnwood)
1 transfer at sodo (west Seattle to federal way)
3 stay on the train.
Why would West Seattle to Bellevue be at Pioneer Square 2?
Won’t the both be in DSTT1, transferring at IDCS?
I’m not trying to do the best wayfinding. I’m just trying to make plain how important it is to have capacity for large movements of passengers at the SODO stations.
“B/R to RV/A/T would end up being via a bus bridge or some other faster connecting system (people mover, moving walkway, gondola, etc) between Judkins Park Station and Mt Baker Station.”
If a rider is transferring twice as you describe, they can do that by transferring between IDS and SODO using the West Seattle line.
****
There is of course the potential of mix-match operations of 1 and 3 Lines. That option is unpopular to discuss here because it would mean each line would run every 12 minutes at peak. A rider would still see a train every 6 minutes — but half of the time a rider could make a transfer and the other half the time they would have a direct train. ST would have to enable track switching in SODO. And midday and evenings the wait would be 15-16 minutes for a direct train (although they would wait just 8 minutes and transfer).
As unpalatable as it may seem at first, is it better to board the first train and take 6-8 minutes to make a transfer or to wait 6-8 more minutes just standing or sitting at the same platform spot? The current proposal forces everyone to transfer where a mix-match operation would give riders a choice to wait or transfer.
*****
Staying with ST’s proposed operations patterns, I agree that the quality of the transfer is important. This is where SODO Station could be reconfigured much more cheaply than at ID or Westlake because it is above ground. It is the stubbornness of designers on the project that keeps that from being analyzed. But ST has already reported that SODO transfers between UW/T wand RV/A/T will be higher than most station boardings so it seems illogical to me to not consider it.
*****
Surely ST has received enough public comment asking for cross platform transfers at SODO. I know several people including myself who have repeatedly responded about the difficulty created by not having cross platform transfers at SODO and asked for them. Here’s a Link to a Page 2 post about it way back in 2017:
https://seattletransitblog.com/2017/10/05/providing-sodo-cross-platform-transferring/
At that time, some comments were that it was not needed. However as designs have progressed, transferring at Westlake and ID have gotten worse and worse for a transferring rider.
So the problem to me is not that ST hasn’t been made aware of it. The problem is instead that ST keeps choosing to ignore it (after years of requests to consider it) because it doesn’t matter to them. That’s apparently because the concern doesn’t come from a stakeholder or elected official with enough clout to force a change in design. And that gets into a messier topic: the charade of public involvement at ST.
I don’t really care what Munich does with their DSTT2.
As long as I can still get out to Herrsching to visit the Andechs Monestary, I’m happy.
Munich waited until they had a ridership of 800,000 to build a second tunnel. Why would Seattle need one for 100,000? In the meantime Munich built the more urban U-Bahn alternative with smaller tunnels, and shorter stations criscrossing it’s urban core. I still think a separate automated light metro system (and a First Hill tunnel) is more import for Seattle than a parallel downtown tunnel.
There are multiple U Bahn tunnels in the city core, though, and none of them were handling 800,000 riders when they were built.
The situation in Munich is more comparable to building a new Sounder tunnel that connects to a multiline Link system. Which we should probably do anyways if we want to make Sounder more useful and reroute Sounder North while we’re at it.
The situation in Munich is more comparable to building a new Sounder tunnel that connects to a multiline Link system. Which we should probably do anyways if we want to make Sounder more useful …
We would probably be thinking about it (or have done it) if this was Europe. We would have electrified the line as well. Two problems though. First, we don’t own the railroad. This pushes up the cost considerably. Second, the “cities” along the way are not very centralized. They are basically towns with sprawling towns next to them. The biggest city (Tacoma) still has a large, central core. But the main, central train station (https://maps.app.goo.gl/7MTBqA8a1oEjZeLx6) is now a museum. The new train station lies off to the side in an industrial area — closer to I-5 than downtown.
But the main thing Martin is getting at is that you can handle huge loads with a single tunnel. But if you are going to build a second tunnel, it should maximize coverage in the main downtown area, not do what this one will ( which is basically just act as a poor substitute for the existing tunnel). No one will ever transfer between tunnels to get somewhere else downtown — it just isn’t worth it.
It’s also not really relevant because the Munich S Bahn runs much larger, longer trains. Their trains are 600 feet long holding 1800 people and have the exit capacity to match.
If we went down to every two minutes and doubled the length of trains, we’d probably need better egress and I don’t think it would be cheaper or easier than the new tunnels.
> Two problems though. First, we don’t own the railroad. This pushes up the cost considerably.
Have we ever costed a new, separate electrified pair of tracks in the Sounder South ROW? GO Transit did something similar in Toronto and is now pushing aiming for all-day fifteen minute frequencies.
Sounder North I think needs a new ROW anyways, because it’s so landslide prone, unnecessarily curvy and the ROW is far from where people live and nobody rides it.
Plus we could bundle it into Cascades improvements as well, similar to the Point Defiance Bypass. It’s not like there’s any hope of running high speeds on the northern ROW.
Folks, Seattle is in America where 90% of people drive to and from work. Munich is in Germany where it’s not 90% who ride transit, but a majority which is five times as many from the change in society.
Plus, Munich is twice the population of the ST Service Area. What works very well for Munich is massive overkill for Seattle.
Martin’s comment about Seattle being well under 100K passengers per day is apt.
Given the severe constraints on transit under Der Trumpenfuhrer’s nasty regime and the financial collapse it will trigger, Sound Transit needs to go on a diet.
Yes, the local taxes will continue, but they will be less than forecast because of the inevitable economic contraction engendered by tariffs. Regardless what one UPenn “graduate” believes
So, fix the circulation issues in the existing tunnel, even if it makes the stations less attractive, add platform doors for safety and efficient boarding / deboarding, improve the power distribution and signaling systems, automate ALL operations north of CIDS, and run three lines through the existing tunnel.
Whether the Paine Field line goes to all the way to the West Seattle plateau because of local politics or stubs at SoDo, having the operators necessary in the at-grade sections of all three lines sit there for a couple of DSTT stations wouldn’t cost much at all. But it would give the boarding “southbound” operators time to get ready to take control at CIDS and saves the operational randomness of operator control in the critical tunnel.
The system is barely sustainable with one tunnel. I can’t imagine Seattle putting even more load on the existing tunnel and creating the biggest single point of failure boondoggle in the history of transit. The second tunnel is basically long overdue if not a 3rd to fix Rainier valley
I can’t imagine Seattle putting even more load on the existing tunnel and creating the biggest single point of failure boondoggle in the history of transit.
First of all, Link is small potatoes. That is part of the problem. We are spending huge sums of money and we don’t have that many riders. There are plenty of systems throughout the world that have way more trains going through a central point. ST itself says it can handle way more trains through there (https://seattletransitblog.com/2015/03/21/capacity-limitations-of-link/). The second tunnel will cost a fortune and provide very little added benefit. It would be one thing if they were focuses on additional coverage downtown (e. g. to First Hill) but they aren’t. It is just bizarre how much money ST wants to spend on something that isn’t really needed and will make transit much worse for a lot of riders.
“The system is barely sustainable with one tunnel. I can’t imagine Seattle putting even more load on the existing tunnel and creating the biggest single point of failure boondoggle in the history of transit. ”
There are many tunnels in the cities of the world that carry three rail transit lines. This one is apparently carrying 6 or 7!
The capacity issue is more how many trains an hour can be delivered. The tunnel can already handle 2.5 minutes if not 2 even today. It’s just for a short time like after a game but it can be done.
ST3 even with two tunnels promises 20 trains an hour or every 3 minutes.
Yet the demands from West Seattle and the Eastside appear to never require 10 trains an hour assumed in that 20.
20 would allow for 6 trains an hour to West Seattle, 6 to the Eastside and 8 to Rainier Vallry and the airport.
*****
Is an increase 24 trains an hour reasonable? Is 22? Is 21? That’s the first question. In decades past, major subways like Chicago and New York easily pushed under 2 minutes or 30 trains an hour. And keep in mind that doors had to stay open longer because their ridership was much heavier.
Automation also greatly increases reliability so a time cushion would be less needed.
*****
Then can the passenger loads from the three branches entering the DSTT from the south be accommodated?
Consider that ST projected crowding stress in the DSTT between University Street and CID. That same segment had buses on Third Ave and ST has not been transparent about whether their forecasts are throwing those riders into the tunnel. And wouldn’t riders simply overflow to Third Ave buses if they go too crowded?
And it’s been pointed out that the cheapest way to add capacity is simply to start buying open gangway vehicles. It easily could add 20 percent more capacity per train.
*****
There are many ways to look at train capacity and rider capacity. ST has not publicly examined what else they could do or what they actually NEED. They just fold their arms and declare “we need a second tunnel” and repeat it long enough to get people to generally believe it. That would be fine — except we are talking about spending billions of dollars and creating new, terrible transfer walking paths to get to this new tunnel three times deeper than the existing one.
I think Sound Transit is, to some degree, trying to avoid what happened with the Silver Line in DC, where they overloaded a tunnel with three lines, made a lot of people unhappy, and now the Bloop to fix the congestion is coming decades later and costs $35B.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable that by 2040 we would seriously need a second tunnel, that it would probably look a lot like the one we’re trying to build now, and would cost way more in 2040 than it would now. We already regret not building Forward Thrust 50 years ago.
“I don’t think it’s unreasonable that by 2040 we would seriously need a second tunnel”
People need to not let perfect be the enemy of good on Seattle transit projects, while there are problems I have with the current design iteration. I also believe that a second tunnel is good future proofing.
A second tunnel might be a good idea for future proofing. The proposed tunnel doesn’t really do that very well. Plus, for a $7 billion expense, it does nothing to add service anywhere.
What to do otherwise is a complex subject that could easily take several real articles rather than a comment or two.
Among other things, trains from the Eastside need somewhere else to be routed if DSTT1 is closed. My suggestion for that is to preserve the current 4th Avenue to I-90 ramps (currently used for construction access) as surface level stations to only be used on the event of tunnel trouble, or in the event of extension on the surface.
Northgate-UW-Westlake is going to be a pretty crowded section of line, and there’s no fast surface street option for a bus bridge that serves U District like the tunnel does. When I-5 gets rebuilt for earthquake resistance in a couple years, it’d be nice to also incorporate a Link line that could run express from Northgate to one of the surface entrances to connect to this 4th Ave station, or some other variant that gets a second tunnel through downtown that does more than the proposed DSTT2. This routing would add a much better backup to the existing tunnel as the part that’s slowest with surface buses (Northgate-UW-Westlake) could be bypassed.
That’s just one thought. My first thought was to build the CCC as an extension of the 4th Ave Ramps so link could go down 1st when needed, but that doesn’t seem likely with the opposition to surface lines.
The Urbanist had an interesting op-ed about a second tunnel. It suggests that a second tunnel should be for longer-distance trains and leave the current one for transit within the City.
https://www.theurbanist.org/2025/03/21/op-ed-split-sound-transit-into-urban-and-regional-lines/
The second tunnel is not like DSTT. It’s almost three times as deep! Every station will require a large hole to be excavated. The tune to get to the platform will be impractical for short trips.
If or when a second tunnel is need, it’s best to design it for longer distance trains. It doesn’t need a station every half-mile.
Finally, $7B is the cost for just West Seattle Link. The current preferred plan for DSTT and Ballard is obviously going to be much more. I wouldn’t be surprised if it reaches the $15-20B range soon. That amount of money should give anyone pause. It will not be fundable unless ST doubles its taxes on North King — and even then it’s at least 20 years away.
FUTURE PROOFING means having the best transfer possible so that you’re ready for ready for whatever ridership changes, road closures, necessity to get essential workers quickly to workstations may arise in the future.
It means having crossovers into both tunnels in case routing needs change in the future or one tunnel is inoperable.
It means having open-gangway trains to maximize capacity, rather than leaving 20% more people on the platform because your trains have internal cab ends. That would also allow people to walk from crowded cars to less-crowded cars.
It means having transfer stubs built into stations for potential future lines, most notably at U-District and Ballard.
The proposed DSTT2 doesn’t really solve the issue with a single point of failure. This won’t be like Chicago or New York where there are multiple connections between lines, allowing multiple possible routes through downtown.
Any problem with the Westlake Curves or International District? It will still disrupt everything from Redmond to Lynnwood. For Redmond and Bellevue, trains would have to turn at Judkins Park if the problem is at ID, so you’re still going to need a bus.
I don’t see anyone coming in to Westlake from Lynnwood, going 9 floors down to DSTT2, then coming back up after going 1 station. It winds up being faster to take any bus.
Most likely, ST goes with their current single twacking plan anyway, because they apparently don’t want to turn trains halfway through, so Lynnwood still gets service every half hour with DSTT2. There’s nothing in the current disruption plan that would change that with the additional tunnel. Nothing in the DSTT2 plan gives additional train turning capacity in the existing tunnel, which means any disruption there still screws over all Lynwood to Redmond traffic.
There are ways to help resolve this, especially if the budget is the several billion required for DSTT2. However, without a Chicago like system that allows subway trains to use the loop or loop trains to use the subway tunnels, DSTT2 isn’t going to solve the problem of ST wanting to single track trains around obstacles, reducing trains to 30 minute headways.
Glenn makes a great point. The only way to ease a point of failure is to not only have more tracks but ways to actually use them interchangeably. Trains cannot switch between DSTT and DSTT2 in the tunnels as currently planned.
That leaves riders having to transfer if the failure is south of Westlake. While that can ease crowding by offering redundancy, ST is not designing enough pedestrian capacity between attached station platforms to do that. And if a tunnel fails trains are going to start backing up pretty quickly so that trains won’t be able to get to Westlake from the north.
The best strategy for providing relief from a single point of failure is to instead install more crossover tracks and maybe sidings or third tracks for holding trains.
It is an important issue. I’ve often suggested that ST should analyze and recommend an action plan for every segment (between crossover tracks) if single tracking is needed. That action may involve adding additional crossover tracks and switches. It however will almost never can be “use the other Downtown tunnel”.
> Glenn makes a great point. The only way to ease a point of failure is to not only have more tracks but ways to actually use them interchangeably. Trains cannot switch between DSTT and DSTT2 in the tunnels as currently planned.
In practice I think this is way less practicable even when it’s possible. In the event that there is a disruption during peak hours, the tunnels are already full, and so rerouting trains into an unaffected tunnel just means you have all the lines through the second tunnel delayed instead of just one suspended for running. Even during off peak hours it’s not like the schedules are normally timed for this either, and so you wind up with a lot of conflicts and delays.
Most major cities, even the ones that do have the ability to reroute trains, often just suspend service between transfer stops and call it a day, even if those transfers are inadequate. In some cases I would actually argue that the transfers required are worse than what is proposed at Westlake or ID, where in NYC I’ve had to walk through long passageways or from an elevated to underground platform or some combination thereof.
The problem isn’t the tunnel; it’s Link’s infrequency and vehicles that aren’t capacity-optimized.
1. Link runs every 8-10 minutes. It was supposed to start running every 4-5 minutes in 2021, but the full 2 Line has been delayed for five years.
2. Open gangways would add 20% to the capacity by replacing the internal cab ends with seats and standing spaces. ST chose not to order those so that all cars would be interchangeable for maintenance convenience.
3. Sideways bench seating would have more capacity than 2×2 seating because more people can fit standing than sitting.
4. ST’s preferred frequency maximum is 3 minutes. Other similar metros have 1.5 minutes. ST has said DSTT1 can support 1.5 minutes with capital improvements. It has given contradictory reasons at different times for needing those improvements, from reliability (vulnerability to train bunching), inadequate signals (whatever that means), and inadequate number of egress methods on the platforms (elevators/escalators/stairs) that would raise the crowd size beyond fire-capacity maximums. So it may be any or all of those. ST just needs to identify them and do them. That would surely cost a fraction of a second tunnel.
Are you available to be Sound Transit’s CEO, O Great Panjandrum of Transit? Are you [shhhh] “Candidate C”???
Or, are you a pseudonym for Elon Musk, offering The Boring Company to drill this manifold sundry of tunnels as a benevolence? Thank you, Elon!
We are all waiting in apt silence for you to show how easy it is to build two new tunnels in downtown Seattle. And how CHEAP!
Let’s cool it with the mockery, Tom.
Noted.
So will STB reach out to Dow/Candidate C to discuss what he plans to do about ST3, since he is apparently now ST head? Presumably it’s West Seattle or bust as a first win, but what about the other parts. Can he get light rail to Ballard before 2050? Can he avoid a Chinatown/ID lawsuit when DSTT2 is built? (Not saying DSTT2 is a good idea, but Dow isn’t exactly a transit visionary.
It won’t be official until Thursday, but it would be nice to get some sort of interview with whoever the next CEO is.
It’s official: Dow is the nominee. Candidate “C”.
So now the big question is: What did Dow promise behind the scenes? And who did he promise it to?
I doubt dow had to promise anyone anything. They appointed 10 of the 18 members
@Kyle,
Quite the opposite.
Once his name was public, and the smell of a COI and general sleaze was in the air, he had to promise a lot to get his name over the line. The only question is what did he promise? And to who?
What a farce.
Dow’s backroom deals are the reason we’re doing that dumb West Seattle stub first and giving up on a true CID hub for his KC campus planning folly.
And he appointed half the people who picked him?
Where is DOGE on crap like this?
I am playing around with a map and would like to hear what people think of it (before I consider making it part of a post). First a little background. Lake City has (and will have) lots of buses which sometimes combine for good service. For example you can catch both the 65 and 75 at several bus stops. This means that people headed to the Children’s Hospital, U-Village or the UW Campus can just go to the bus stop and catch whichever bus comes first.
I really don’t like the proposed 77 for various reasons. But one of the problems is the bus stops in Lake City.
This is why I made this map.
It may be a bit overwhelming, but here is the idea:
1) Each marker represents a bus serving a particular bus stop.
2) Several bus stops have multiple markers. You may need to zoom in to see them all.
3) The colors for a particular route should all be the same (e. g. 77 is blue).
4) Different layers represent where the bus is headed in relation to Link. Thus you can remove all the buses heading to UW Station if you just aren’t interested. Or you can do the opposite and only show those buses.
Before I get into my critique of the 77 I thought I would ask what people think about the map. Is it hard to understand? I was thinking of adding a little description with each marker that basically describes the path. So you might click on a “77” marker and the descriptions would be “Heading to Roosevelt via Lake City Way”. Any other ideas?
It might be beyond what google maps can do, but I would find it very useful if actual entire route was shown when you clicked on the marker. So a line down sandpoint if you lick on the southbound 75.
I don’t think I can easily do what you are saying (which is a shame since it sounds pretty cool). I can add lines (and I may end up doing that) but they are on layers (like the markers). So lines are either toggled on or off depending on whether you show the layer or not.
I can link to things in the comments, so I could link to the route map. Do you think that would be useful?
The first impression I get from your map is mainly that it seems hard to choose the best stop in Lake City to get to a Link station. Are people dashing across streets or down the street because they were waiting at another stop?
I wouldn’t call planned Route 77 awful. It just seems rather unproductive beyond Lake City. It seems to be on hold until Pinehurst Station opens — which suggests to me that that’s the primary reason Metro sees to even have that route segment. It reveals the core problem with Pinehurst Station generally, which is that there is no there there. Of course the same thing could be said about Shoreline South — except it also has more bus routes and a parking structure. It mainly seems to need more walkable destinations in the Aurora corridor to me. It will be curious to see what strategy you propose. I don’t see an obvious solution.
The first impression I get from your map is mainly that it seems hard to choose the best stop in Lake City to get to a Link station.
Yes, absolutely. That is one of main reasons why I wrote it. But before we get into the analysis I want to focus on presentation. It seemed fairly intuitive to you but I wonder if there is more I could present. For example at first I listed the direction of the routes (e. g. 77 southbound, 77 northbound) but that added to the clutter.
I don’t see an obvious solution [for the 77]
Without spoiling the surprise, this is the easy solution:
1) Create a 77 which just goes from the Lake City Fred Meyer (where the 61 lays over) to the U-District.
2) Send the 75 to Bitter Lake.
3) Backfill service on 5th NE with a live loop that gets close to the station.
That’s it. This actually saves service money! Meanwhile, the various buses are far more straightforward. The bus stop combinations are much better.
Here is another option that builds on that and involves spending a little bit:
1) Create a 77 as above.
2) Send the 75 to Shoreline Community College (via current pathway of the 5 starting at Greenwood & 130th).
3) Do the same backfilling on 5th as above.
4) Send the 5 to the Lake City Fred Meyer (via 130th/125th).
That would mean double the service along the Bitter Lake/Pinehurst/Lake City corridor. It would mean various bus stops would have lots of options for getting to Link. It should be noted that with both of these combinations, this particular bus stop — which is in the heart of Lake City — becomes the best option for getting to Link. It is the fastest (if you catch the 75 to Pinehurst). If you end up catching the 65 (to 148th Station) it isn’t bad. If the 5 is sent to Lake City, the 5 would also be an option (to get to Pinehurst).
Oh, and I want to see whether people like this map (or not) and if so the potential restructures (mentioned above) would each have their own map. It is pretty easy to copy a map and then adjust a few things. That is why I want to get the features down first.
Are people dashing across streets or down the street because they were waiting at another stop?
It would not surprise me if people are doing that. To be clear, the map is showing the future Metro proposal — not the network as it exists now. But at noon from Lake City Way & 125th, this is what Google recommends for getting to Capitol Hill: https://maps.app.goo.gl/1iE7K3ydPYqQefyD7. As you can see it is a mix. The 522 (just down the street) seems to take the least amount of time (in part because it is an express). The 61 is significantly slower, but still a couple minutes faster than the 75. So based on Google (and just my gut feeling) I think people are walking to the 522/61 bus stop and taking whatever bus comes first.
It is worth noting that the 77 will not serve that bus stop (hopefully my map makes that clear). Thus riders will have a longer walk for that option and it won’t be as fast as the current 522. Thus the best of the current options will get worse.
In theory the fastest way to Link is via Pinehurst. But the route it takes forces riders to either sit on the bus as it makes a series of slow turns or try and catch it well after all of that. So yes, it is awful.
It is also worth considering my (cheap) proposal. Just send the 75 to Bitter Lake (via Pinehurst Station). That means that any of the westbound bus stops for the 75 would get you to Link in the fastest way possible. The bus cuts across Lake City. A lot of people are within short walking distance of those stops. Several of these bus stops would be shared with the 65. This means that if you miss the fastest option for getting to Link (the 75) you at least end up with a reasonably fast way to get there (the 65).
But wait, there is more. Under my proposal the 77 covers more of Lake City Way. So riders who are headed down the corridor can walk to the bus stop I mentioned earlier. For some trips they can take the 72 or 77 — both will get them there. If they are heading to the Roosevelt neighborhood they probably want to catch the 77 (and will have more opportunities to catch that bus). But if they happen to just miss it, they might end up catching the 61 and transferring to Link.
Overall it is just better.
The switch from Route 77 to Route 75 makes sense to me, Ross. I think any pushback would come from those living along Sand Point Way wanting a direct bus to Northgate. Metro hasn’t yet figured out that Northgate development coupled with Link opening have diminished the importance of a Northgate direct connection.
The only other suggestion that I would have would be to have a short route segment on Aurora to create an opportunity for transfers to and from RapidRide E from the same stop. For example, the route could jog down to 115th to pass by Northwest Hospital then run up Aurora to the Bitter Lake area. There’s no direct bus from Pinehurst Station or Lake City to Northwest Hospital.
There’s no direct bus from Pinehurst Station or Lake City to Northwest Hospital.
Northwest Hospital is a very challenging area to serve. I have come up with a lot of different variations and none of them are satisfying. As of right now I favor the 46 shown on this map: https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1aiyxTQSBn3SnlABGXMCAoDaBCEhQfl7t&usp=sharing. There are other aspects of that map that are different than what I am suggesting. For now I don’t want to propose a big restructure. I am focused on the 77 and related buses.
Perhaps the big advantage of Pinehurst Station is that it’s possible for a bus to merely pass by a Link station without having to go out of direction a few blocks and make 360 degrees of turns in the process. That’s the ideal setup!
Perhaps the big advantage of Pinehurst Station is that it’s possible for a bus to merely pass by a Link station without having to go out of direction a few blocks and make 360 degrees of turns in the process.
Yes, that is definitely an advantage (although I wouldn’t say it is the biggest). The biggest one is just the corridor itself. 125th/Roosevelt/130th is fast, has a lot of people and connects to all the major buses in the area. From a network perspective it is huge. You leverage not only Link, but RapidRide E as well the 5, the 348 and the various buses serving Lake City. A rider anywhere on Aurora would have a very fast way to get to Lake City. Anywhere. Getting to Bitter Lake will be dramatically faster. So would getting to Ingraham.
I can’t emphasize enough how bad it is right now. Look at this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/N2kGZjFJ11hXMUXZ7. This is a trip right by the U-District Station to Bitter Lake. It takes 45 minutes! At that particular time, Link isn’t even the best option! You are better off ignoring Link, taking the 44, RapidRide E and then just walking ten minutes. Hell, the second option involves going all the way downtown first! Look at what happens when you select “less walking”. It takes over an hour. Or how about going from Ingraham to Shoreline Community College. Quite often the fastest option is to just walk all the way over to Greenwood Avenue (a 17 minute walk) and then catch the 5 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/82ztBe1e55FR5hoJ8). The second fastest option involves walking over to Meridian, catching a bus that goes to the 148th Station and then taking another bus that goes to the college. There are dozens of similar example, for example here is what it is like to get from 155th & Aurora to Lake City (https://maps.app.goo.gl/AJLVtdQv7HR2RKVJ7). This is without any additional walking.
There is the potential to dramatically improve various trips throughout the north end, but it requires Link stations to be at the cross streets. Otherwise Metro is stuck trying to balance two different things: connecting to Link and creating a straightforward network.
“125th/Roosevelt/130th is fast, has a lot of people and connects to all the major buses in the area. ”
The corridor between Aurora and Lake City is mostly residential except for modest retail at 15th Ave NE. So a useful route would need at least an “L” on one side or the other (or both) to connect to much directly. Otherwise, a rider is looking at a double transfer — either with a north-south Metro route or Link. Of course, Metro’s planned Route 77 and your suggested Route 75 paths both have this “L”.
I see the fundamental issue is that Metro is hesitant to rethink the role of Northgate with the advent of Link and the related elimination of an express bus on I-5. Northgate Station is badly sited in that it has no direct street to access it to/ from the west that buses can use. Link will soon run every 4-5 minutes in North Seattle, so the every station will be much easier and quicker to reach (more time spent going through some stations than waiting for a train at the platform). A route just has to connect to a Link station somewhere.
I’m a big believer in tweaking route restructures a few years after a major systems change like introducing Link in a corridor. Until a rider is familiar with a new structure, they will continue to prefer the older, more familiar structure. Metro staff has its hands tied up in restructures until 2026 with both East King and South King anyway. Once those are up and running, useful tweaking in North Seattle could begin.
The corridor between Aurora and Lake City is mostly residential except for modest retail at 15th Ave NE.
Right, and Aurora is mostly parking lots except for the places that aren’t. So what? Aurora works very well for transit because it is both fast and has *just enough* density in a few places to get riders. The same is true for the 125th/130th corridor. Think of it from west to east:
1) From Greenwood to Aurora there is housing density and significant destinations (especially social services).
2) East of Aurora there isn’t much housing density but there is a high school.
3) East of the high school is Meridian, which has a crossing bus serving Northwest hospital as well as the clinics on Meridian and the college.
4) East of Meridian is an area that will soon have density (when the city finally updates their zoning plans).
5) Then you have the station.
6) Just east of the station is the same story — there is not much there now but eventually there will be more density.
7) From roughly 10th to 15th you have apartments (as well as some retail).
8) From 20th to 25th it is mostly houses (although there are a few apartments close to 25th).
10) From 28th (the library) to 35th there are apartments as well as the commercial core of Lake City. There are also a lot of intersecting buses.
So for most of the bus stops there is density. The exceptions are rare and some of them will likely have dense housing (and some retail) relatively soon. It is really only a couple bus stops between 15th and 28th that are low-density. But that doesn’t really matter because the bus travels through there quickly.
This is a fairly short and fast corridor that will perform well. Of course it isn’t ideal as a standalone route. It is too short. There are reasons why some routes are that short but you generally try to avoid that. The longer the route the more trip combinations. But the proposed 77 does a really bad job in that regard. It isn’t a logical extension in either case — the bus makes a hairpin turn. It is basically two routes smashed together — a Frankenroute.
Note that the 77 doesn’t even go along the entire corridor! It takes a hairpin turn *before* it reaches 35th. So someone in a new apartment building (right along 125th) has a long walk to the nearest bus stop (https://maps.app.goo.gl/ejEnP9byoBRkgLFq6). Same is true for all the apartments on 33rd (https://maps.app.goo.gl/P1irGmqHe9oAp4Mz8). Unless they add a new bus stop on Lake City Way (and I haven’t heard of anything) folks to the south are out of luck as well even though the bus will turn south (https://maps.app.goo.gl/Wte4vE9ncVoJjQme9).
Meanwhile, it really doesn’t add much. What significant combinations come from the combination? Bitter Lake to Roosevelt? You would be faster transferring to Link. Same goes for Bitter Lake to anywhere south of Roosevelt. Some combinations seem like a wash. From the 15th & 125th to Roosevelt you might take the looping bus but you might just take the bus the other direction and then Link. The only combinations that are significantly better using the combination are relatively minor (e. g. 15th & 125th to 20th & Lake City Way).
In contrast, sending the 75 to Bitter Lake means you cover the entire east-west corridor (and then some). Some trips — like Bitter Lake to Sand Point — are definitely best via this bus. Even Bitter Lake to Children’s Hospital or U-Village are quite reasonable. The alternative is a three seat ride (bus/Link/bus) and the trip from U-District or the UW to U-Village/Children’s Hospital is not that quick. The best bet — even to U-Village — is probably just looping around the 75.
Same goes with the 5. You provide more connections to Link but you also provide some very good one-seat rides (e. g. Phinney Ridge to Lake City). By overlapping this fairly short but important corridor you improve transit in the north end quite a bit.
I see the fundamental issue is that Metro is hesitant to rethink the role of Northgate with the advent of Link and the related elimination of an express bus on I-5.
I think that is just one issue. There are other obvious flaws (like the 333) that have nothing to do with Northgate. Just consider the plans as they evolved. The first draft included buses on both 80th and 85th. WTF! This is not only a violation of stated Metro policy it just defies common sense. Consolidate on a corridor, people. They eventually did. But there were similar bizarre suggestions. At first Lake City Way wouldn’t have any coverage between 98th and Roosevelt Avenue (next to the freeway). That is a huge gap (that accounts for a lot of 522 ridership) and yet they would have nothing. That got fixed. But it went the other way as well. They originally were going to send the 65 to Bitter Lake. This surprised me a bit (I expected the 75) but it still works. They eventually abandoned that idea. But somehow the need for service on Lake City Way got mixed in with the need for service along the 125th/130th corridor and they proposed a Frankenroute.
“Right, and Aurora is mostly parking lots except for the places that aren’t. So what?”
What I’m explaining is that any route on 130th/125th needs to be an “L” to be more useful. Even you are recommending an “L” route on 130th/125th in this thread .
The other route design choice is to have just an east-west route — and force double transfers for many riders who aren’t living near the corridor.
Further, transferring on Aurora is often rather scary because most involve crossing lots of lanes with faster traffic and waiting for awhile for a crosswalk signal.
I don’t understand your problem with these basic concepts..
What I’m explaining is that any route on 130th/125th needs to be an “L” to be more useful.
Of course an ‘L’ is more useful. It would be longer. You could say that about any route. What I objected to was your premise. Your point was that the corridor is mostly residential. Well guess what — I’m suggesting an extension of the 75 — which is also mostly residential. So what? There are also plenty of non-residential places along the way — just like this corridor. Mostly it just misses the point.
An ‘L’ makes sense, but not for the reasons you gave. It has nothing to do with the destinations (or lack thereof) along that corridor. It has everything to do with the geography of our city and the existing bus routes.
Consider a bus route from the Lake City Fred Meyer to Shoreline Community College. Pound for pound this would be one of the best bus routes north of the UW. It would be like the old 330 (a bus that performed fairly well despite its low frequency) but better. It would connect two of the three major communities in North Seattle (Lake City and Bitter Lake) along with a high school and the biggest destination in Shoreline (the community college). Thus you would have plenty of one-seat rides. At the same time, you would have plenty of two-seat rides as well, since it would connect those (relatively high) north end destinations to Link and a lot of buses. You could make a very good case that the bus should be RapidRide as it would perform better than a lot of RapidRide buses that have been proposed (as well as at least one that already exists).
Yet it would not connect to a major destination (like the UW or downtown). But a lot of the buses don’t do that. Note that in this very area the 331, 333 and 348 lack major destinations. This is just the nature of buses when you get that far north — there aren’t any major destinations north of the UW and the UW is too far away. But that doesn’t mean buses like that can’t be very successful. Connecting to Link helps, but connecting to significant (but not major) destinations also helps.
The reason I don’t propose a Lake City/Bitter Lake route has nothing to do with the lack of one-seat rides. Quite the contrary. It has everything to do with our geography as well as our existing bus network. If our street grid consisted of evenly spaced north-south corridors and evenly spaced east-west corridors then I would definitely propose a bus like that. But we don’t. The geography won’t let us build a real grid. Look at the area east of Roosevelt Avenue. Five corridors from the south converge on Lake City. Thus the buses go that way (and would go that way) even if there was nothing there. Once the buses converge there are three choices: end there; keep going north; turn west. Buses do all three. But a bus that turns (like the 75) might as well go to Pinehurst (instead of looping around to Northgate). This gets to the “existing network” thing. The 75 already goes that way, it just turns at the last second and heads south. Sending it straight across is the obvious solution. You save money! Running an extra bus (on top of the 75) would be way more expensive.
The fact that the 75 also serves a major destination (the UW) really doesn’t matter. Yes, there is an advantage to this — you do have more one-seat connections. Bitter Lake to Sand Point, Children’s Hospital or U-Village. But that is just a bonus and has more to do with simply making the route longer (since none of those destinations are that big). UW is a major destination and some riders will prefer riding the bus all the way around (instead of taking Link) but that is probably not the fastest option (and thus just a bonus). Again, the main advantage is just taking advantage of our geography and the existing bus system.
With the 5 there is a slightly different geographic issue. We don’t have a grid on that side of things either. Again, this has nothing to do with the destinations along the way. The Greenwood Avenue/Phinney Ridge is no stronger than the Bitter Lake/Lake City corridor (in terms of destinations per mile). It has everything to do with the fact that there is no grid. We lack east-west buses because we lack east-west corridors. This means that trips that would otherwise be fairly straightforward take a long time. To get from Aurora to various places on Greenwood Avenue or pretty much all of Phinney Ridge requires a very long walk (https://maps.app.goo.gl/TcvDUGE4Xzx68s2WA). This would eliminate that (and lots of similarly awkward trips). Again, it is more geography then it is the various places along the way.
I don’t think you realize the destinations that exist along this corridor. Search for “Social Services” and you will see a lot of places along this corridor. Why do you think the Four Freedoms bus stop has more riders than the bus stop inside Northwest Hospital? Of course it serves people that live there but it also serves people going to the other places around there (like the Social Security office). There is also plenty of retail and with retail you have jobs. The corridor is not a sleepy suburb (parts of it, but not all of it).
I like the idea of analyzing Lake City, what it needs, and what it could have. However, the map is organized the opposite way of my questions. The map layers show which stops go to a particular Link station. But what I want to know is, from any particular location, what options do I have to get to Link and what are their travel times?
The whole point of Pinehurst station is to offer a path with substantially shorter travel time and congestion than to Northgate, Shoreline South, or Roosevelt stations. So I think we need to estimate that route’s travel time and compare it to the others. There’s no existing route to get data from, but we can estimate it from other routes.
So I’d group it by people’s origin locations:
1. Right at 125th & Lake City Way.
2. North (LCW or 30th).
3. West (125th).
4. East (125th).
5. South (LCW).
These form “lines” extending from the origin (#1). Not “transit lines/routes”, but streets where a bus to somewhere exists. So a person can start with their location, and their ultimate destination, choose the closest line, and evaluate the transit options there.
Between the lines are four quadrants. If somebody is in the interior of a quadrant, they’ll have to choose a line and walk to it, but they’d have to do that in any case. If they’re halfway between two lines, they can compare both and take the more favorable one.
With your current map you can sort of do that by turning on all the checkboxes, but you’re left with colored node symbols not pointing to anywhere. I wish we could put letters on the markers: “N, S, P, and R” would be easier to grasp than memorizing which color is Northgate. After all, what you want is the route to the closest station, and a “P” would show that route goes to Pinehurst station.
Not all of this has to be on the map: it could be explained in the text. You might be able to use the text to make up for the limitations in the current map format.
I’m assuming a 125th route would score best for a rectangle encompassing the entire west and east, north to 130 or 135th, and south to 120th or 115th. Even at the north and south edges it would almost be favorable, except you have the overhead of walking or transferring to 125th, and that’s too much. Shoreline South has a greater pull on the North line as long as the 65 continues making an L shape.
I wish we could put letters on the markers: “N, S, P, and R” would be easier to grasp than memorizing which color is Northgate. After all, what you want is the route to the closest station, and a “P” would show that route goes to Pinehurst station.
Just to make it clear, the colors are the routes (not the destination). So every 77 has the same color. In contrast the layers are the destination. Thus you can turn off everything but “To Pinehurst Station” to get an idea of what it is like to get to that station. In that case it only shows the 77 markers (which all have the same color).
That being said I can definitely change the name or descriptions for the markers. I did just that in this version. It actually has two different ideas. With the 61 it shows the destination in the name. With the 75 it shows the description. Both appear if you select the marker. But with the 61 it also shows up on the legend (to the left). I prefer the approach with the 75 as having the destination in the name seems a bit redundant in the legend (since the markers are grouped by destination).
I’m also thinking of just making a couple maps focused on walking distance to the bus stops. It would focus on two destinations: Pinehurst and Roosevelt. That is because everything else will remain the same. There is value in considering the other options (which is what this map offers) but it gets complicated.
For example this bus stop will change. It will no longer have a bus headed to Roosevelt. If you hope for a one-seat ride to Roosevelt this is bad enough (and the walking-distance map will reflect this). But it is also quite likely that someone heading to Roosevelt (or even the U-District) just takes the first bus that arrives. If it is the 522, great. If it is the 61 then riders take it anyway and just transfer to Link. That combination will go away (unless they walk all the way south of 120th).
There are other important combinations as well. For example this bus stop. Right now it has the 65 and 75 (heading west). If you are going to Link it works, just not very well. The 65 is OK but the 75 is very slow. In contrast if the 75 went to Pinehurst Station it changes everything. Riders could use that stop (or any on 125th west of there). They might get lucky and catch the 77 — the fastest way from Lake City to Link. If not, at least they catch the 65 (a reasonably fast way).
I guess I don’t need a bus-stop map to explain all that. I may include the map in a general assessment but only as an aid. The main response that Al had (it isn’t clear what the best option is for getting to Link) is really what I was going for. The problem is not the map, but the routing. If the 77 is implemented as planned, it isn’t clear at all how people are supposed to get to Link. Even the option that folks have been using for a while now (that bus stop on Lake City Way just south of 125th) no longer works.
Ross, I really appreciate the work you’ve put into this. I think we discussed these options a few months ago (or some of them) and I couldn’t agree more that the 75 to Bitter Lake is the way to go here. My only quibble with your map is that the 75 doesn’t *really* serve UW Station; it’s a campus route with a 5+ minute walk to the station (for most probably a bit more heading up the hill, and not including actually getting in/out of the deep station) – this actually helps your point that the 75 and its riders, at least on the north half of the route, would be far better served by accessing Pinehurst Station directly than to ride it to Northgate or UW stations. Right now it has to go all the way to the far side of Northgate to access the station; it would likely be nearly as fast to that part of Northgate to ride to Pinehurst and take the train one stop.
After trying it for a while, and as a lifelong proponent of using transit, I sadly switched to driving as the 75 from the north part of Sand Point Way to Northgate Station was an immense time penalty – I either drive to the station or just drive to my destination. When the 2 line fully opens I may go back to driving to the station even though it’s still a time penalty at least in the morning – but if the 75 served Pinehurst directly it’s just about as fast as I could drive there even if there were somewhere to park.
My only quibble with your map is that the 75 doesn’t *really* serve UW Station; it’s a campus route with a 5+ minute walk to the station (for most probably a bit more heading up the hill, and not including actually getting in/out of the deep station)
Good point. It should be noted that the bus does go close to U-District Station. Either way though, it takes a really long time to connect to Link. If you are trying to get from Lake City to Link, it is clear that it isn’t the way to go. On the other hand, that is a good way to get to the UW. That is partly why I decided to add that. For example with the current routing someone who is headed from Lake City to the UW might go to the bus stop on Lake City Way & 125th and catch the first bus that arrives. It might be the 372 and they get a one-seat ride to the middle of campus. Or maybe they catch the 61 and transfer at Northgate or catch the 522 and transfer at Roosevelt. Having multiple options reduces the waiting.
But I’ve since moved away from that map. I’m going to make ones aimed at only the connections to Roosevelt and Pinehurst Station, since that is really the focus of my efforts. I will mention the combinations in the comments, but it won’t necessarily have a map for that. I think the map I made and referenced in the comments is a bit overwhelming.
Re what to do about the 77, I think the only thing we can do is to keep pushing to reroute the 75 further west, as was in earlier Metro Connects concepts. We can keep repeating this in entire articles that explain it clearly and can be linked to, like we’ve been doing for the single-tunnel and Ballard-automation issues. Maybe someday Metro will accept it, or enough people will agitate to their elected leaders to push for it.
If Metro is afraid of overserving Sand Point, then add a second route like you propose, from Fred Meyer to as far west as Metro is willing to go (ideally Shoreline College). Then the two routes would overlap from the origin and West Line, the 75 would serve the East line, and the other route would serve the North line. The south would marginally benefit by high frequency on the West line.
You’d still want a south route to Roosevelt station. But assuming the 61 to Northgate can’t be deleted, and we can’t have everything we want within the available resources, then we’ll have to prioritize which routes must be above the cutoff, and maybe the Roosevelt route is the lowest priority?
I’ve already started a (very rough) draft of the proposal mentioned up above (https://seattletransitblog.com/2025/03/23/sunday-movie-munichs-dstt2/#comment-953880). I was thinking this map might help. Now I’m not so sure.
Anyway, sending the 75 across is fairly intuitive. The planners originally sent the 65 across (which works just as well, if not better). But then people complained about the lack of existing connections to the high school and middle school (ignoring the new connections) and they decided to keep the 65 the same. Metro also forget (or wasn’t aware) of replacing coverage on Lake City Way (for the 522) and they cobbled together the 77. But the combination is just really bad for the reasons I mentioned (wasteful, slow, poor stop coverage).
Since you live in Pinehurst, maybe you could also look at the entire area from Lake City to Northgate and Roosevelt. That may be too much for a Lake City article (Lake City’s needs would get somewhat lost in it), but it could be an additional Pinehurst-area route.
You’d want to illustrate actual trips from various locations, to show the totality of what ordinary residents and visitors need (where they’re going, how often, and how important to them this trip is). People often get a reductionist view that “everybody goes downtown”, “everybody travels in the AM and PM peak”, “nobody shops at Northgate”, “secondary occasional needs don’t exist”, etc. I can only do it for areas I have lived in and observed my own experience and what my neighbors have said. So I can’t do it for Pinehurst, but you can. With my limited knowledge, my assessment would be incomplete, since I can’t think of the lesser-known or secondary trips.
This might also get at one of our areas of disagreement. You think Northgate is not a good hub, and the Northgate village doesn’t generate enough trips to make it the hub of far north Seattle. I look at it a different way: everybody needs shoes, computer peripherals, towels, or clothes, occasionally. They probably go to the movie theater sometimes, or events at the community center, or to the library, or to stroll the open space, or to a medical clinic or job or friend’s house. Northgate seems like it has the most of those of anywhere in North Seattle. Northgate pulls people from a large area, including the U-District and downtown, because it has things that aren’t available there, or anywhere in Seattle without going to a suburban mall with often less transit access. That has diminished somewhat with the stores people used to go to now gone. Still, I find it hard to believe that people in far north Seattle rarely or never go to Northgate. How is that possible? What do they do instead to make up for it?
Northgate is an important neighborhood. But so is Bitter Lake. So is Lake City. The problem with Northgate (in general) is that it is not “on the way”. There is really only one bus route that follows a straightforward path to and through the station — the 61. Every other bus either just ends there (in the middle of the city) or it curves around to get there. The 40, of course, does both.
The point is not every needs or wants a trip to Northgate. If the 75 is sent to Bitter Lake it means some of the riders have to transfer to get to Northgate. So what? Should we send the 65 to Northgate as well? What about the 372? It gets a bit silly. Keep in mind, the 348 goes to Northgate. The 61 goes to Northgate. Under my proposal you would still have a bus on 5th NE going to Northgate. That means that you really don’t have that many people without a one-seat ride to Northgate. There would be a new gap between 15th and Lake City Way along with Sand Point Way and that is about it. The former isn’t that big of a gap (https://maps.app.goo.gl/ySrbQSsFibmbRySf8) and is single family homes in the middle. The folks along Sand Point Way can always transfer to the 61. There is also another option for those along Sand Point Way: Take the bus the other direction. If you are trying to get “shoes, computer peripherals, etc.” it would make way more sense to head south, not north. I’m not saying there aren’t reasons why you wouldn’t want to go to Northgate but the same is true for Bitter Lake or some place like Shoreline Community College. For that matter, if you are headed to North Seattle Community College it is probably faster to have the bus go to Pinehurst where you can catch Link to Northgate and walk across. But if really want to go to Northgate locales (not near Link) you can always transfer to the 61. That bus is a faster way to most of the destinations in Northgate (while also covering more of them).
Every restructure has trade-offs. To paraphrase Steven Higashide (Better Buses, Better Cities) no restructure is win-win. But sometimes it can be win-win-win-lose. This is one of those times.
Depending on the 61-Ross ;) schedule and what part of Northgate you’re going to it may even be faster to connect with the train at Pinehurst to go to Northgate. For me, for example, it’s 16 minutes on the 75 to/from Northgate Station right now. It would be about 10 to Pinehurst Station, maybe a bit less. At 6 minute headways between the 1 and 2 lines, that’s an average 3 minute wait for a train. It would likely be less than 3 minutes to get from the bus to the Pinehurst platform, but even if so, it’s at worst a wash to anything around Northgate Station and NSCC. Of course, with today’s 75 routing it would make sense to stay on the bus if only to avoid the transfer. However, routing the 75 to Pinehurst Station not only gives better access to the entire region, it wouldn’t even be slower typically to Northgate than today’s one-seat bus ride. To put it another way, you’re almost always likely to get on the train one train earlier than you would today going all the way to Northgate (going north you’d likely be two trains ahead rather than backtracking to Northgate on today’s bus). For the shopping around 5th/Northgate Way – yeah, a transfer will be required – although you might choose to transfer at 125th/15th anyway even today, depending on where you were going in the Northgate area.
Depending on the 61-Ross ;) schedule and what part of Northgate you’re going to it may even be faster to connect with the train at Pinehurst to go to Northgate.
Absolutely. Consider Northgate Transit Center. My guess is almost everyone that rides the 75 there is headed to Link or the college*. For the former it would be better to head to Pinehurst Station. Like you said, you’ll catch an earlier train. In the case of the college it would probably be just as good if not better to head to Pinehurst Station.
It is really only if you are headed to the places between the station and 125th where the existing 75 might offer an advantage. Now consider the number of people who get off of a 75 bus headed to Northgate each day:
525 — Along 125th
213 — Between 125th and Northgate Station
568 — Northgate Station
In other words, the vast majority of riders are headed to somewhere along 125th or Northgate Station itself. Let me break it down even further. There are only three stops along 5th that are not also served by the 61 and 348. Those stops (combined) account for 55 riders. The stop at 112th accounts for another 71. But that stop is fairly close to the stop at Northgate Way (it is a flat 3 minute walk — https://maps.app.goo.gl/ab6dHVdJE1zJk3JV8). So only about 55 riders would definitely have to transfer.
Of course some of the people headed to Fifth might not be able to easily catch the 61 or 348. But again, not that many. When it comes to boarding (a bus headed to Northgate) the biggest stop — by a wide margin — is at 15th & 125th. It has 189 riders, which is way more than anywhere else along there. Those riders would just switch to the 348.
Of course some riders would have to transfer, but very few based on the data. Most of them would have a good alternative. Meanwhile, plenty of people would suddenly have a much faster way to get to other places.
*I can see some other possible reasons for riding the 75 to Northgate Transit Center — I just doubt they account for that many riders. You might be transferring to the 345/365 to get to Northwest Hospital or some of the clinics or apartments along Meridian/College Way. But again, you would be better if the 75 just kept going straight. Then you could take those same buses south instead of having to go to the transit center and ride the bus as it loops around via 92nd. The only other possibility is people transferring to the 40. But that is an argument for sending the 5 to Lake City (as you avoid the loopy part of the 40). It would basically be this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/Dgm3x2ZBbzVDS6Bd9, instead of what it is now: https://maps.app.goo.gl/4ZUsSEi75o5d411Z7. That is obviously a lot faster.