In preparation for the upcoming openings of Sound Transit’s Downtown Redmond Link Extension and full East Link Extension, King County Metro has outlined the planned changes to its Eastside network. Full details of the changes were previously covered on the Blog. Most of the changes in this restructure will take effect when the full 2 Line opens, likely in the fall or winter this year. This post will look at the ridership patterns for the existing routes impacted by the proposed restructure. Metro collects ridership data for most routes; however, data is not collected for routes 204, 224, 232, 630, 930, and 931.
The plots in this article show the average weekday ridership by stop in each direction, color-coded by time of day. For a more detailed breakdown of how the plots are set up, please refer to the How to Read the Plots section of the ridership patterns article discussing Route 70. Most of the plots in this post have been modified to include rectangle overlays. Red rectangles indicate stops that will lose all fixed route service and rectangles of other colors indicate stops that will be served by a different route after the restructure. Connections to Link stations are in bold and routes that will be deleted in the restructure will be marked with a strike-through.
Route 225
Route 225 will be updated to terminate at Overlake Village instead of Redmond Technology. This change will result in two stops on NE 40th St and Redmond Technology losing Route 225 service. Instead, the route now stop at 148th Ave NE & NE 37th Pl, NE 36th St & 150th Ave NE, and at Overlake Village.
Both the old stops on 40th St and the new stops on 148th Ave and 36th St are adjacent to Microsoft’s West Campus, so riders using those stops may have a slightly longer or shorter walk to their final destination. The new Overlake Village terminus is closer to the housing and retail in Overlake. Passengers needing to transfer to another route will not lose any connections as Route 245 and the B Line will be the only routes that stop at Redmond Technology and not at Overlake Village. Route 225 overlaps with Route 245 on Old Redmond Rd and with the B Line on 148th Ave.
As a result of the reroute, Route 225 will no longer serve the stops on 40th St or Redmond Technology Station. Fortunately, most of these stops will be served by the B Line (outlined in pink on the plot). Only the outbound stop at NE 40th St & 150th Ave NE is losing all service.
Route 245
Route 245 will be slightly modified to remove the current routing to Factoria. Instead, the route will terminate at Eastgate. Passengers traveling between Factoria and Eastgate will need to use Route 240 instead. The stops served by Route 240 are outlined in silver below. The current stops on SE 36th St will lose service.
Routes 221, 222, 223, 226, 251
In this restructure, Route 221 will be deleted. Four routes will replace service on different segments: Route 226 between Eastgate and Crossroads (Pink), Route 223 between Crossroads and Redmond (Orange), Route 222 between Redmond and Education Hill (Purple), and Route 251 (Green) on the west side of Education Hill.
Route 226 will be updated to follow Route 221’s path between Crossroads and Eastgate (pink section on the map). The new Route 226 routing on this segment has minimal use with just a few passengers collectively boarding or alighting at these stops per trip. The current Route 226 routing has slightly higher ridership, so these segments were likely switched to serve more riders with the new Route 223 (outlined in orange on the plot below).
Some of the current Route 226 stops on Northup Way and 8th St will no longer have fixed-route service (red). Instead, a new Metro Flex area will be added between NE 8th Ave and NE 24th St. The stops losing fixed-route service have minimal ridership.
Route 223 is a new route that combines the southern half of Route 226 with the middle section of Route 221. Stops between Eastgate and Crossroads generally have fairly low use, with a few exceptions at Eastgate P&R, 156th Ave SE & Lake Hills Blvd, and 156th Ave NE & NE 8th St. Full ridership details for this segment are outlined in orange on the Route 226 plot above.
The northern half of Route 223 is currently served by Route 221. Stops in Crossroads, Overlake, and near Microsoft’s campus have decent ridership. North of 51st St, stop use drops significantly until it picks up again at the stops along Redmond Way. Full ridership details for this section are outlined in orange on the Route 221 plot above.
The northernmost section of Route 221 serves Education Hill with a loop. In the restructure, Education Hill will be served by two routes. Route 251 will travel between Woodinville and Redmond and serve the western edge of Route 221’s current loop on Woodinville Redmond Rd. These two stops have minimal ridership.
The rest of Education Hill will be served by Route 222. Route 222 will connect Cottage Lake with Redmond Technology and will run in a zig-zag pattern in Education Hill. Ridership in Education Hill is moderate throughout the day. The stop at NE 104th St & 176th Ave NE is the busiest stop on this segment, likely due to its proximity to Redmond High School. The stops served by Route 222 are outlined in purple on Route 221’s plot above. The southern half of Route 222 will partially replace Route 249. The current stops on NE 24th St primarily see passengers board trips towards Overlake and depart trips from Overlake. This layout of Route 222 suggests this pattern will remain as the southern half of the route serves as a feeder for the Link 2 Line at Overlake Village. Detailed ridership data for the stops in this segment are outlined in purple on the Route 249 plot below.
Routes 220, 241, 246, 249, 270, 271 (north of Eastgate)
When the full East Link Extension opens, Route 271 will be deleted. Most of the current route will still be served by route 203, 220, 249, 270, or 554. This section of the article will focus on Route 271 between Eastgate and the University District. Please refer to the section below for the discussion on the Eastgate – Issaquah segment.
Between Eastgate and the University District, Route 271 will be replaced by routes 220, 249, and 270. Route 220 will run between Eastgate and Downtown Bellevue (dark blue), Route 249 will cover between Downtown Bellevue and Medina (brown), and Route 270 will serve Downtown Bellevue and the University District (pink).
Route 220 is a new route that will closely follow the current Route 271 between Eastgate and Bellevue Transit Center. The new route will cross I-405 on Main St, instead of NE 4th St (in red), likely so it can stop closer to East Main. This routing update will remove direct transit service from the retail area at 4th St & 116th Ave. Ridership along this route is oriented towards downtown Bellevue, with daytime trips getting up to 10 passengers before arriving at Bellevue Transit Center.
Route 270 will replace Route 271 between Downtown Bellevue and the University District. Rather than follow Route 271’s path through Medina, Route 270 will use Bellevue Way NE. This change will provide more frequent service to Bellevue Way and allow Route 270 passengers to transfer to other routes at the SR-520 freeway stops. Bellevue Way NE is currently served by Route 249 and this section has slightly stronger ridership than Route 271’s Medina segment, outside of downtown Bellevue. The Bellevue Way ridership is outlined in pink in Route 249’s plot below.
Route 249 will be dramatically updated in this restructure. The route will be converted into a DART route with a new DART deviation area in Beaux Arts.
Between South Bellevue and Downtown Bellevue, Route 249 will replace part of Route 241 (green). Ridership on the current Route 249 path through Beaux Arts is minimal (outlined in dark yellow on the Route 249 below). Ridership along the new Route 249 path is slightly higher, but still minimal (outlined in green on the Route 241 plot below) The primary advantage to this routing is the shorter travel time between South Bellevue and Downtown Bellevue.
West of Downtown Bellevue, Route 249 will replace part of Route 271 to Medina (brown). Ridership along this segment is decent at 8th St & 102nd Ave and 8th St & 106th Ave (outbound)/108th Ave (inbound). These stops are located in downtown Bellevue. As most riders use these stops to board inbound (to UW) trips or alight outbound trips, these passengers will likely use Route 270 after the restructure. The rest of the segment has minimal ridership. Ridership data for this segment is outlined in brown on the Route 271 plot above.
North of Medina, Route 249 will fill in a few stops on 92nd Ave NE currently served by Route 246 (cyan). The only stop with notable ridership on this section is 92nd Ave & SR 520 Ramp. This stop is located above a SR 520 Freeway stop and allows transfers to routes traveling between the University District or downtown Seattle and various Eastside destinations. Ridership for this segment is outlined in cyan on the Route 246 plot below.
Service between Spring District and Overlake will be removed with no direct replacement service (red). This segment has some ridership. Most stops along this section are walking distance to a 2 Line Station. As discussed above, the Overlake segment of the current Route 249 will be removed and partially replaced by Route 222 (outlined in purple).
As outlined in the plot below, the current Route 249 path will be truncated at Spring District and split into several routes. East of Spring District, most stops will lose service. Route 222 will fill in a few gaps, primarily on NE 24th St (purple). As mentioned above, Route 270 will replace Route 249 along Bellevue Way NE (pink). Finally, Beaux Arts will be served by a DART deviation area (dark yellow).
Route 241 will be deleted. Its northern segment between Downtown Bellevue and South Bellevue will be replaced by Route 249 (green). Service between Factoria and South Bellevue will be maintained with Route 203 (coral) and the stops along SE Allen Rd will lose service. Passengers traveling between Factoria and Eastgate or South Bellevue can use Route 240 (silver).
Route 246 will also be deleted in the restructure. A small section of the route in Clyde Hill will be replaced by Route 249 (cyan). The stops in Factoria will be served by routes 203 (coral). Passengers traveling between Factoria and Eastgate can use Route 240 (silver). Unfortunately, most of the stops served by Route 246 will lose service (red).
Route 240
Route 240 will be updated to serve South Bellevue. Its current routing on the Lake Hills Connector will be partially replaced by Route 220 (blue). The stops losing service do not have a lot of ridership.
Route 111
Route 111 will be updated to terminate at South Bellevue and to shorten its loop in East Renton Highlands. The stops that will no longer be served are outlined in red and the stops in downtown Seattle are outlined in cyan. The East Renton Highlands stops losing service have minimal ridership and passengers traveling downtown will transfer to the 2 Line.
Route 250
Route 250 will be revised to serve Downtown Redmond. Additionally, all trips will travel to both Bear Creek and Avondale. Trips that serve Avondale have up to 8 passengers.
RapidRide B Line
The B Line will be updated to extend to Downtown Redmond and to skip the Overlake Village detour. The B Line will stay on 156th Ave NE between Crossroads and Redmond Technology with a new stop at 156th Ave & 28th St. The current Overlake Village detour will still be served by routes 222, 223, 225. B Line ridership patterns were recently discussed in a separate post.
Routes 256, 257, 311
Routes 257 and 311 will deleted and consolidated into Route 256. Route 256 will primarily follow the path of Route 311, with an additional stop at Kingsgate P&R and a few new stops in South Lake Union.
Route 257 starts/ends with a loopy coverage segment in Kingsgate that is largely covered by other local routes. The highway-adjacent stops will continue to be served by the express Route 256 (blue), while the coverage segments will be only served by the local routes 225 (pink), 231 (brown), or 239 (purple). The stops with the most ridership will be served by Route 256 while the stops losing all service have minimal ridership.
While the full schedule for Route 256 has not been announced yet, the map shared by Metro suggests all stops served by Route 311 will be served by Route 256.
Routes 203, 269, 271 (south of Eastgate)
Route 203 is a new local route that will run between South Bellevue and Issaquah Highlands. Along Newport Way it will partiality replace Route 271. Ridership along this segment is minimal. Ridership for this segment is outlined in blue on the Route 271 plot below.
Between Issaquah TC and Issaquah Highlands P&R, it will replace part of Route 269. This segment has some ridership, primarily with passengers traveling to or from Issaquah TC. Ridership for this segment is outlined in blue on the Route 269 plot below.
The Route 271 stops on West Lake Sammamish Parkway will lose service because Route 203 will stay south of I-90 until Issaquah. The existing stops along Newport Way will be served, as well Issaquah TC.
Route 269‘s current routing in Redmond will be truncated at Marymoor Village. The southern end of the route will be extended to terminate at Mercer Island. As it will run as an express between Issaquah Highlands P&R and Mercer Island, Route 203 will fill in its stops along Black Nugget Rd.
Route 269’s current stops in Overlake and near Microsoft’s campus (orange) will be covered by various other routes including 222, 223, 225, 245, 250, B Line, and Link 2 Line. Unfortunately, one of the busiest stops on the segment (SR 520 & NE 51st St) will have the worst replacement service. Passengers will need to take the 2 Line to Redmond Technology then backtrack on Route 245 to access the area served by this stop. As mentioned above, the local stops along SE Black Nugget Rd and Issaquah TC will be served by Route 203 (blue).
Routes 208, 215, 218
Route 215 is a new route that will travel between North Bend and Mercer Island. Trips will run every 30 minutes between Mercer Island and Issaquah Highlands P&R. Every third trip will continue to North Bend, resulting in a 90 minute frequency between Mercer Island and North Bend. This will replace the current Route 208 that runs between Issaquah TC and North Bend. Route 218 will travel between Issaquah Highlands P&R and Mercer Island during peak periods, and will likely be timed to provide 15 minute frequency when combined with Route 215. Routes 215, 218, and 269 will all provide express service between Mercer Island and the Issaquah Highlands P&R.
As Route 215 will serve Issaquah Highlands P&R instead of Issaquah TC, Route 208‘s existing stops along NW Gilman Blvd and in downtown Issaquah will no longer be served. With this restructure, no Metro routes are planned to run along Gilman Blvd or in downtown Issaquah.
Route 8
Route 8 will be rerouted to stop at Judkins Park. The route’s 23rd Ave detour will be extended to run between Yesler Way and Massachusetts St. The ridership patterns for Route 8 were discussed in a previous post on the Blog.
This reroute will result in three stops losing Route 8 service; however, only the stop at MLK Way & Dearborn St will fully lose service as the other stops are served by either Route 4 (brown) or Route 14 (pink).
Conclusion
Metro’s Eastside restructure is focused on consolidating corridors and connecting neighborhoods to Link. This results in lower ridership routes getting cut (eg: 246). However, riders will often have a more frequent route available nearby (eg: 203, 240, 270). Downtown Issaquah is losing all Metro service in favor of serving Issaquah TC and Issaquah Highlands P&R. At this time, Sound Transit has not yet confirmed if Route 554 will run in downtown Issaquah. Metro’s focus on truncating routes at Link stations allows all-day service to more neighborhoods, such as with Route 111. Similar to previous Link-focused restructures, this restructure will connect more communities with downtown Seattle via a two-seat ride. However, fewer communities will have a direct one-seat ride to downtown Seattle.
Good post. A few thoughts and questions. Will there eventually be no bus service in Bellevue at NE 4th and 116th, or am I missing something? If so, that seems like a mistake. While I wouldn’t call those outbound and inbound bus stops busy, I regularly see people waiting at them. There’s PCC and a lot of other stores nearby.
Also, one ridership pattern post I’d like to see someday is a side-by-side before and after. So we could see how the 2 Line changes the ridership pattern of a route, like the B Line, for example. So you’d show the ridership pattern from 04/2025 vs the ridership pattern from 08/2025 or 04/2026. So we could see how either the DRLE or the full 2 Line changes the B Line ridership pattern.
It’s good to see a bus route (222) is returning to the west side of Marymoor Park.
The council adopted an amendment requiring Metro to produce a report on ridership changes after about two years. We hope the report will provide route, trip, and stop level ridership as well as rides per platform hour.
Yes, 116th Avenue NE has had ridership on Route 271 for decades.
February 10, 2025 1
Review transit network performance
Sponsor: Balducci
[mbourguignon]
Proposed No.: 2025-0056.1
AMENDMENT TO PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2025-0056, VERSION 1
On page 3, after line 46, insert:
“SECTION 2. A. To measure the success of the East Link Connections Mobility Project, the executive shall engage with Sound Transit, local jurisdictions, including the cities of Bellevue and Kirkland, and other stakeholder organizations to review the performance of the service changes approved to the transit network by this ordinance in terms of ridership trends.
B. The executive shall provide a summary of the review in a letter to the council, to be sent no later than the date of the Fall 2027 service change to the clerk of the council, who shall retain an electronic copy and provide an electronic copy to all councilmembers, the council chair of staff, and the lead staff for the transportation, economy, and environment committee or its successor.”
EFFECT prepared by Mary Bourguignon: Would ask the Executive to engage with Sound Transit, Bellevue, Kirkland, and other stakeholders to review how the East Link Connections Mobility Project transit network is performing in terms of ridership trends.
Will there eventually be no bus service in Bellevue at NE 4th and 116th, or am I missing something?
I believe that is correct, yes. The 220 replaces that part of the 271. It will cross the freeway at Main instead of NE 4th. I think there are a couple reasons why it does this:
1) It gets the rider closer to the station at Main.
2) It avoids traffic. I don’t know much about traffic patterns in the neighborhood but I would guess that NE 4th is a lot busier than Main just because it has the freeway ramps.
If I had to guess it is mostly the second reason. Yes, people will have to walk farther to a bus stop. I don’t know if Metro/Bellevue is working on putting a stop on Main (close to 116th). The existing stops are down the street a ways. The Trader Joe’s (and REI) you mentioned is pretty much half way in between bus stops. It is about an 8 minute walk to the future 220. It is about ten minutes to the Wilburton Link or RapidRide B stop. The future pedestrian bridge across 6th will help but it looks like it would still be a pretty long walk to Link (and farther to the buses). So yeah, that is unfortunate.
In an ideal world there would be a combination transit/pedestrian bridge across 6th. That way buses could cross there, avoiding a lot of traffic while also serving more of the area. I could see the 250 crossing there as well. That would make the bus significantly faster. But I don’t think there are any plans for any of that.
Oh, and in terms of ridership the 271 gets about a hundred riders there (with about 2/3 heading towards the UW and another third heading towards Bellevue College). So not huge, but definitely significant.
Proposed NE 6th east-facing access will overpass 116th and land at 120th. It was in I-405 master plan but just like a lot of other elements, nobody knows where it is in the program pipeline. I would think if Bellevue is serious about unzoning Wilburton to be just like Bellevue Downtown, this project will be fast-tracked.
In general, I don’t think Metro considers big box retail as a significant source of transit ridership, even though it does generate huge levels of car drivership. They’ll definitely serve it when it’s on the way, but they won’t go out of the way to make service to it better.
Much of this comes from the fact that people without cars tend to have different shopping habits from people with cars. Instead of traveling several miles to a big store and buying a whole bunch of stuff at once, you tend to see a mixture of walking to stores and shopping locally, plus of course, shopping online and having stuff delivered.
That’s not to say that the need to shop at places like Target or Home Depot by bus never exists (it definitely does), it just happens far less often than people with cars drive to these stores, so the data shows big box retail as being a relatively weak ridership generator, and, often, not worth the traffic delays of having the bus get stuck behind all the other people shopping at these stores by car.
In a hypothetical world where nobody had a car, I’m not sure a store like Target could even stay in business. In transit oriented European cities, for example, you don’t have big box retail. You instead have a bunch of smaller stores, most of the customer base arriving on foot rather than transit, even though the city has excellent transit. (For the minority of the people that do own cars, the big box stores will be out in the suburbs, not in the city itself).
In general, I don’t think Metro considers big box retail as a significant source of transit ridership
In this case it doesn’t matter. They know what the ridership is. My guess is they figure that is a small price to pay to make the bus faster. That is debatable, but the point is they know how many people will be negatively effected.
Non-drivers go to the big-box store or mall with the best transit access even if it’s not the closest one. That’s where the Wilburton Whole Foods has an advantage, along with Bellevue Square, Northgate, Uwajimaya in the CID, Trader Joe’s and Central Co-Op at 17th & Madison, Costco on 4th Ave S, the Fred Meyers in Lake City, Greenwood, Ballard, and Renton, Sky Nursery at 185th & Aurora, etc. Locations with little or no transit access don’t get their business, like the Trader Joe’s in Seward Park. The Trader Joe’s, REI, and Home Depot on 116th are in between without that bus stop: not an ideal walk from 8th or from 12th & Main, but not one of the worst walks either.
“I don’t think Metro considers big box retail as a significant source of transit ridership”
Where do you get this from? It sounds like just a guess. In this case the overriding factor was serving East Main station, since Metro wants to check the feeder box.
I rode a 61 eastbound from Greenwood a few weeks ago. In the past when I’ve ridden or seen it, the western half of the route was almost empty. But this time it was busy, and at least five people had come from Fred Meyer, two with a cart or wagon of groceries, and some with a spouse and/or children. They got off at different stops between Greenwood Ave and 92nd. That’s just one bus run.
I take the 131/132 to Costco a couple times a month, and a lot of the time there are 1-5 people getting on the northbound bus with their groceries, or 1-2 getting off at the southbound stop. That’s part of the reason Metro maintains 15-minute combined service on 4th Ave S until 8pm even during recessions and covid. (The fullest part of the route is between Costco and Lander Street (SODO station), although the majority of on/offs are at the stops in between.)
East Link stations that don’t have frequent routes are Marymoor Village, BelRed, and Spring District. Look at the top map, BelRed and Spring District seem a bit underserved, but I’m sure bus service will be increase in the years to come as the neighborhood grows.
Eddiew has suggested rerouting the 226 to Spring Blvd, where it would serve BelRed and Spring District. Metro hasn’t been interested in that so far. There’s a tradeoff with taking service off Bel-Red Road, and I think Metro is being cautious.
One of these days I want to take the 226 westbound to 124th and walk to Spring District station. That would go past the mini-park on 121st. (I walked from the station south to the park and back, but I haven’t been between the park and Bel-Red Road.) I want to see how long it takes and how pleasant the southern half of the walk is. I wouldn’t go to the 226 this way, because the bus stops have no bench or shelter and the route is half-hourly. But going to Link it might be a pleasant if long transfer. (There’s a complete lack of transfer at Overlake Village station: the 226 stop is a 20-minute walk away and uphill, because I timed it with my stopwatch. BelRed station looks like it may have the closest transfer, but I haven’t evaluated it yet.)
Marymoor Village station seems to be for Sammamish routes.
Anyone know why the 208 (and future 215) skip Metro’s P&R in Preston? Ever since the 209 was cut, no buses have stopped there in several years. Difficult to get into and out of Preston without a car. Looks like a really simple fix to me.
With these changes, only the short Route 249 will have a stop close to an entrance to Bellevue Square (across from Nordstrom), and avoiding long street crossings with long light cycles. This is unfortunate, since the mall stop is currently a popular stop on the 271. A simple alternative would be to have Route 270 make the turn at 4TH instead of 8TH. Then the mall stop would be at Bellevue Way and NE 6th, right in front of the Macy’s entrance and the Westin hotel. There is relatively less curb furniture there (the bollards are further north and south), so it should be possible to incorporate a bus stop, though you might lose a few shrubs. This routing would also avoid a lot of the freeway ramp traffic on 8th. Please let’s not miss this opportunity to directly serve one of the most popular destinations and biggest employment centers in Bellevue. It’s not “just a few shoppers who prefer to drive anyway”!
Exactly. The 271 restructure needs to be reconsidered. The route will be killed with these changes.
The 271 is mostly used for local destinations and long distance travel to UW.
For some reason people think that it only serves as some short bus ride to connect link stations. There are real people who live along this route and use it everyday.
The funny thing, it already is and people are satisfied with the 271/556 for transit connections. The 271/556 usually only takes 15-20 mins between Bellevue TC and the UW. I doubt the 270 will be much faster if at all.
The 550 also got half its riders at the 4th & Bellevue Way stop off-peak. The 554 will take over that segment if ST sticks to its previous proposals, and will run every 15 minutes daytime.
North Bellevue Way needs better bus service, so which other route would you propose for it? It has apartments all along it from 12th to 30th. I lived in one at 29th in high school, and in college my mom lived in one on 17th. Then the Bellevue-Kirkland bus route was on it, and I rode it to both. It needs 15-minute service because it’s full of apartments with thousands of people, and the 270 finally does this. That shouldn’t be thrown away just for one stop at Bellevue Square. Metro could simply extend the B to Bellevue Square. It may have been a mistake not to have done that in the first place.
Please note a disturbing trend between the transit agencies. For decades, their service changes were closely aligned and planned together. Today, they are too separated. With Lynnwood Link, ST forced the three phase approach: one, four stations; two, Route 522 shift to South Shoreline at an unknown time; three, opening of now Pinehurst station. With the FWLE, the Metro outreach on its route restructure does not include PT and ST bus routes. Why not? It is one interdependent network; the riders and readers need to know about all three; all three should know about the others. With East Link Connections, it was clear that cooperation was weaker; the two agencies had a different approach to the now delayed WSDOT reversible ramp between SR-520 and the I-5 reversible lanes. The King County ordinance has been adopted but the ST routes are still uncertain; their 2025 SIP is in outreach. Metro may have relied on the ST outreach for routes 542, 544, and 554. Did any one ask pointed questions about them? Route 566 should have been included in the ELC project. The ELC Route 554 is expected to provide local service in Issaquah; that may be okay. But is not okay for the Issaquah-Link (to downtown Seattle and the U District) to be about 10 minutes slower due to connecting at South Bellevue rather than Mercer Island. What is the logic for ST blue buses to provide local service on the former Route 550 pathway, only inertia? If some ST bus routes are changed, can Metro routes also be changed to complement them? I hope so. The month of the 2 Line crossing the Lake is still unknown. Will it be near a traditional service change?
The UWbus comments are also valid. Since 2010, Route 271 has provided 10/15 headway on weekdays peak/midday. Route 556 has provided a peak overlay. With ELC, Route 270 will fall to 15/15 and Route 556 will be deleted. Using the 2 Line between the U District and BTC will be about five minutes slower than by Route 271. (What is the speed difference between routes 270 and 271; we know the coverage area will be different; Route 270 will serve Evergreen Point and Bellevue Way NE). Route 220 will be less frequent than current Route 271 between BTC and Eastgate.
I noticed that the 224 no longer has the DART service area in Duvall, does that mean it’s going to be an in house route?
Nope…. The new map shows the same deviation zone as before. It will most definitely remain a DART route.
Oh, must’ve been a typo on the map I had then
It’s crazy to me that the only service in central Issaquah, south of I-90, is now at P&R and the single are of ST 554 stops near the downtown strip. That’s just really bad.
Metro has a penchant for long routes. But to me that’s not always the best approach — especially for the Eastside.
In Issaquah’s case, I think some sort of frequent local circulator with a free or reduced fare would go a long way. Relying on Route 554 to provide local service appears short-sighted. Metro is going to provide great ways to get in and out of Issaquah but getting around there isn’t so great.
I’m reminded of LADOT’s DASH program. It cost just 50 cents a ride there are now 40 routes across the city. (Note that this is just LA city and that other cities in LA County have similar services.) Paying a lower fare for a shorter trip also seems fairer; paying the same fare to ride just 3/4 of a mile as it is to go 20 miles seems to penalize short trip transit use.
https://www.ladottransit.com/dash/index.html
It still isn’t clear what Sound Transit will do. Earlier plans suggested that they would cover central Issaquah (essentially backfilling for the 271). But now it isn’t so clear. ST has been remarkably silent about the future ST plans. If they don’t then I agree — that is really bad.
Relying on Route 554 to provide local service appears short-sighted.
Why? It makes a lot of sense when you look at the network. By the time a bus reached the Issaquah Park and Ride (IPR) it has left the freeway. It is no longer operating as an express (if it ever did). If you are in the Highlands and want to get to Link then you are better off taking one of the Metro buses to Mercer Island (which are expresses). Thus the primary purpose of the route east of IPR is to provide additional trips along that corridor. It means connecting the Highlands with the lowlands. It means connecting various places in central Issaquah with Eastgate, Link and Downtown Bellevue. It just doesn’t make sense to skip stops at that point.
Now if you think the roles should be reversed, then fine. Yeah, that would probably make the most sense. ST should be running the 215 and 218 since they are more express and more regional. Metro should be running the 554 because it is more local. But for whatever reason they decided to reverse roles. But that doesn’t mean that ST should suddenly drop the ball. Just stop along the way.
@ Ross:
Have you ever spent a lot of time in Issaquah on foot?
Key destinations like the Post Office and Swedish are nowhere near a bus route. Gilman has a ton of businesses, offices and apartments yet has no bus route. There is no bus stop at 17th and Gilman so areas near that intersection are not served even though there are routes nearby. The planned route structure has the routes serving either one side of town or the other so even if there is a bus stop nearby, a rider still must transfer if by chance there is a nearby bus stop.
I get how much of Issaquah has giant parking lots in front of big retail. It’s hard to serve. But Metro has designed the system to get to and from Link and not to easily make trips around that city. Local trips are only possible if the two trip ends are fortunately along a much longer route. With a population now at 40K (from 11K in 2000), it’s no longer a hamlet and seems ready for a cohesive local bus network for local tripmaking.
Key destinations like the Post Office and Swedish are nowhere near a bus route.
Yes they are! That is the point. The 208 and 271 currently serve the post office as well as much of Gilman and get about as close to Swedish as possible.
Now look at the future map: https://cdn.kingcounty.gov/-/media/king-county/depts/metro/documents/projects/east-link-connections/maps/p4-final-east-subarea-routes.pdf. The various places in Issaquah are served, just by different buses. For example, according to the map, the 554 will run right by the post office (on Gilman). It looks like Newport Way will lose serve but it turns out it never had it (there are no bus stops along the street). So the plan for Issaquah actually looks fairly good — about as good as you can get (given the low-density, sprawling nature of the city). Some of the issues you raised are more about bus stops (e. g. adding one on 17th close to Gilman) and less to do with the routing itself. The routing as shown on that map is fine.
But now we aren’t sure if ST will actually stop there! That is the issue. It is perfectly reasonable for ST and Metro to swap corridors. But not if ST just abandons the corridor it was given! Again, we aren’t really sure if ST is going to do that. For all we know ST will follow that pathway and serve every stop along there. Maybe this is just a communication issue. Mostly it is just weird, because the obvious thing for the 554 to do is follow that pathway and stop at every bus stop it passes. To do otherwise is just a really bad idea.
I’ve taken the 554 many times to hike Tiger Mountain. It’s, by far, the easiest way for someone in Seattle without a car to get a real hike in. Even Trailhead Direct is a slower route to Tiger Mountain than the 554. It would be a real shame if this service were to just disappear.
And, no, a circulator shuttle that you have to wait 15 minutes for at Issaquah Transit Center is not a replacement. The 554, today, is a one seat ride from downtown Seattle. The replacement should at least be a one seat ride from a Link station.
We’re not sure whether the 554 will run on Gilman Blvd or Newport Way. Earlier rounds of East Link Connections proposals had it on Gilman Blvd and adding stops to serve commercial destinations. But ST withdrew from the final round and wouldn’t say what ST Express would do, because it folded it into this 2026 operations plan that is having its first survey now (I linked to it in a roundup comment). One of the STB editors found a map that seems to have been made after last year’s joint proposal, that has the 554 reverting to Newport Way like it is now. In that case it wouldn’t serve Gilman Blvd. This Metro final East Link Connections map with the 554 (which we somehow couldn’t find for the East Link Connections article, since the map we had didn’t have the 554 anymore) is not certain either, because Metro can’t dictate what ST will do, and ST has said it hasn’t decided yet and is no longer certain about what it proposed in the previous rounds.
Issaquah should have transit between all its activity centers, so that residents can get to stores and businesses without driving if they don’t live in the most hard-to-reach areas. This is one transit need. Another is to get from all parts of Issaquah to a Link station, and to get from all parts of Issaquah to the largest cities (Bellevue and Seattle). There are various ways to accomplish this, with some combination of Metro and ST local, express, and mixed routes, with some number of transfers at some locations. The point is the transit network needs to work for both intra-Issaquah trips and trips between Issaquah and the rest of the region.
Historically Issaquah has been grossly underserved by transit. Until the 554 issue is resolved, we won’t know whether there will be local east-west service across central Issaquah, or a full-time route between central Issaquah and the Highlands P&R. It’s stunning that the City of Issaquah hasn’t made this a major issue. Renton, Kent, and Burien don’t have this problem. Whatever the faults of their transit networks, at least you can get a 15-30 minute bus in all four directions from their downtowns to all their activity centers.
The City of Issaquah could step up and fund the gap for local service, the way the Seattle Transit Measure is doing to fill in frequency. Then Issaquah could have 15-30 minute local service between all its activity centers even if Metro’s and ST’s base service has gaps.
@ Ross:
The map that I was referencing was the latest map, dated January 2025. It’s at the top of the post. It’s newer than the “future” map linked in your post. Certainly staying on Gilman is better for local tripmaking.
Maybe the mapmaker made an error? The current 554 uses Newport Way so maybe the mapmaker clicked on the current version as the route layer rather than the planned route version.
That last minute change is odd, I admit. It is implied in other maps that Gilman would be served as you mention.
And of course these maps just show routes, not stops. That makes it hard to assess how accessible a route is in general.
Regardless, Issaquah has a very robust retail hub — including Fred Meyer, Costco, Hone Depot and PCC north of I-90 and Target, Trader Joe’s and lots of other retail south of I-90. There are newly built apartment buildings several stories high in several places. Plus, Costco HQ north of I-90 is reported to house 7,000 employees.
It’s also a few miles to get to the next retail cluster at Eastgate or Marymoor. All of these things suggest to me that their robust commercial district on both sides of I-90 should be served by at least one single route.
One reason I like an internal circulator is because leaving Issaquah service can also have reliability issues. Adding another route that connects to Link would duplicate service . Traffic congestion not in Issaquah creates unreliability for a longer route. So an internal loop route to connect everything could be very useful. As a shorter route, it could be done with as few as two buses and yet still offer 15 or 20 minute frequency. And as a route not created to primarily serve longer distance commuters, it would generate more all-day use.
@ Mike:
I like how you say that Issaquah should look to be more proactive and even subsidize their own service hours. As long as they rely on King County for transit, they should probably only get Link connections.
Metro does the best that they can with limited funding. All that retail in Issaquah surely helps their City’s tax base. The least that they can do is use that advantage to supplement what Metro provides for their residents — especially locals who cannot drive like their own teenagers and senior citizens.
@Mike — Exactly.
@asdf2 — So you get off the bus at Sunset & Rainier and walk to the East Sunset Way trailhead like this? If so, that makes sense. With the 215 being (a bit) more frequent than the current 215 you could make a loop (or one-way hike) by starting at this bus stop and walking up the Cable Line trail then working your way back to the more frequent 554. If the 554 skips Central Issaquah then I think you are stuck walking from the Highlands which seems to add a mile (one way). Google won’t let me complete the last little bit but it would basically be this. Yeah, that be adding quite a bit of (relatively unpleasant) distance to a hike.
Metro does the best that they can with limited funding.
Metro isn’t the issue. ST is. If ST does the normal thing — what everyone expected them to do — then Issaquah is fine. It will have decent service for the main areas of the city. But if ST drops the ball (as we fear it may do) then Issaquah is screwed. Suddenly those areas have nothing. Metro’s restructure was based on ST’s routing (and service along the corridor). If ST suddenly abandons that idea (at the 11th hour) then Metro (and/or Issaquah) is screwed.
But yes, even if ST does what they should do Issaquah won’t have great transit. The fundamentals are very poor. It is a sprawling, low-density city with destinations that are most certainly not “on the way” (https://maps.app.goo.gl/6jexdRwzayYSGvum7). Even the apartment complexes are scattered about and sprawling. You really can’t expect great transit for an area like that unless you spend a lot of money. The only way to make things better is to spend a lot extra. But that is true for much of the county (especially the East Side). Issaquah is not special in that regard.
Actually, the best way, I’ve found to hike Tiger by transit is to take the 554 to Central Issaquah and walk the Rainier Trail to the High School Trailhead. From there, I can do either Poo Poo Point or West Tiger 1/2/3. From the same bus stop, East Sunset Way Trailhead also works, but it’s not my preferred option because it has a lot of I-90 noise, plus Sunset Way itself has gotten so busy as of late, it’s not a pleasant street to walk on.
The exit 20 trailhead, I’ve used a few times, but very rarely. It’s an extra transfer to a bus that runs very infrequently, plus the first mile of the hike, I-90 noise is very bad.
Trailhead Direct is not a great option because it does a long detour around Cougar Mountain, comes from Mt. Baker, which is awkward to access from downtown and anywhere north, and is often late with no real time info on OneBusAway (because it’s technically operates through a contractor).
But, using the 554 to access the High School Trailhead from Seattle is something that transit actually does quite well, and it does so using a bus stop in central Issaquah, so that same stop serves a lot of purposes beyond just hiking.
walk the Rainier Trail to the High School Trailhead
Oh, I think I see, you basically loop around the high school (https://maps.app.goo.gl/vpNQpHGmDwTx7dos5). That looks like a nice way to go. If the 554 ends up doing what we hope it will do then it could get you right next to the Sunset Way trailhead (although you would still have to walk by the power lines for a while).
The exit 20 trailhead, I’ve used a few times, but very rarely. It’s an extra transfer to a bus that runs very infrequently
Yeah, I’m saying it will be a little more frequent and won’t require an extra transfer. It would only make sense as a one-way hike though. It is much easier to time the bus in the morning. Plus if you miss the connection you can always bail and just take the 554. I’m not sure if starting farther east gets you much. (It has been decades since I’ve hiked in the Issaquah Alps and things have definitely changed. )
“Fred Meyer, Costco, Hone Depot and PCC north of I-90 and Target, Trader Joe’s and lots of other retail south of I-90.”
How many of those can you walk to from a current bus stop? Will you be able to walk to all of them with the 203 north of I-90 and hopefully the 554 on Gilman Blvd? I’ve never gone to them because I thought there was no bus access.
I don’t think running the 215 more often than maybe once an hour is a good use of resources. Remember, this bus doesn’t just go to exit 20, it goes all the way to North Bend.
Also, even without a transfer, Issaquah Highlands is quite a bit of a detour, whereas the 554’s current path through Issaquah Transit Center to downtown Issaquah is pretty much a straight shot (it’s out of the way going to the highlands, but a straight shot to central Issaquah, the destination I care about).
That said, I think one could make a strong argument that the Mt. Si Trailhead Direct route should stop at I-90/exit 20 along the way. It’s a quick stop, has an existing bus stop there, and adds an additional hiking destination for a route whose intended purpose is a hiking shuttle.
“Fred Meyer, Costco, Home Depot and PCC north of I-90 and Target, Trader Joe’s and lots of other retail south of I-90.”
How many of those can you walk to from a current bus stop?
Fred Meyer, Costco, PCC and Costco Headquarters and the REI office will all be accessible via the 203. Target, Trader Joe’s will be accessible via the 554 if ST does what we hope they will do. Otherwise it will be a very long walk from the transit center.
Assuming ST does the right thing then coverage is actually better (in my opinion). You lose some service on Sammamish Road (between Lakemont and 17th) but gain some on Newport Way (between those two places). That is a really good trade in my estimation (a lot more apartments). I would say overall coverage is quite good given the fundamental issues with serving the area. You could maybe use another coverage route on Newport Way (making stops along the way unlike the current 554). If possible it would extend out to the high school. So something like this. The problem is what to do after that. If this was a standalone route (maybe with a live-loop) it still wouldn’t get many riders. Yet there really isn’t much to the north or east that isn’t already covered. A second route to Sammamish seems unrealistic. You could maybe do a similar loop via the Cougar Mountain Middle school (and surrounding housing complex) like so but I’m not sure how you turn around, let alone layover. That still wouldn’t perform well compared to similar bus routes in Seattle that have been eliminated or only run peak (e. g. 17) despite Seattle paying extra for service. I think the only way Issaquah gets something like that is if they pay extra for it.
I think an easy route to adjust is Route 203. It’s obviously intended to serve local trips.
Metro could adjust the routing between the Issaquah TC and Costco to run on NW Maple Street to Gilman. Then it could run on Gilman to cross I-90 on 17th Ave to continue its route, or run on Gilman to 4th Ave NW to 221st Pl SE and jog back by Costco HQ on SE 62nd to continue its route.
The only limitation is that it would add a few minutes of trip time (well less than 5 minutes and more likely just 1-2 minutes) and I’m not sure how much padding is in the driver schedules.
And if Issaquah wanted a frequent local shuttle to add frequency, they should probably find the money for it.
Metro could adjust the routing between the Issaquah TC and Costco to run on NW Maple Street to Gilman. Then it could run on Gilman to cross I-90 on 17th Ave to continue its route, or run on Gilman to 4th Ave NW to 221st Pl SE and jog back by Costco HQ on SE 62nd to continue its route.
I’m not sure if I follow you. From what I can tell the 203 will go north from the Highlands Park and Ride to Black Nugget road and then follow it west like so. So you are saying it should loop around like this? If so that doesn’t seem to get you much. Assuming the 554 does what we want, it will serve the same bus stops on Maple. If the 554 doesn’t serve those stops then it won’t even go that way and that won’t help very much (Issaquah is screwed). It would be nice to serve a different part of Gilman but I think the best way to do that is just add bus stops on 17th (e. g. here).
I could see it using 4th — that is a more straightforward route at least. The problem is then you skip Costco and PCC. To be fair, very few riders use those stops. But still, if we think of the 203 as a coverage route then it should serve unique areas (not overlap the 554).
“The problem is then you skip Costco and PCC. ”
Huh? I described the route running by the Costco HQ to reconnect with the planned route. That would occur at the Lake Drive and 10th Ave NW intersection. That’s literally in front of the Costco store.
I described the route running by the Costco HQ to reconnect with the planned route. That would occur at the Lake Drive and 10th Ave NW intersection. That’s literally in front of the Costco store.
OK, I think I follow you. Either way you want the bus to make a big detour. The second option would be like this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/xUq9CxVWBeY4nVyh7. That seems like a lot of extra work to cover an area that will be covered by a more frequent bus. Maybe if you added a bunch of bus stops by Costco Headquarters I could see it — but then it makes more sense as a commuter bus.
I don’t think running the 215 more often than maybe once an hour is a good use of resources.
Outside of peak I think it will run every 90 minutes. Yes, that is about right. North Bend is a really long ways. Exit 20 gets less than a rider a day on average.
Very few people take transit hiking. Trailhead Connect is a nice service but it is designed primarily to ease the crowding around the major trailheads. For many it is just a parking shuttle, even if folks can use to get to the mountains. Of course it only runs during summer weekends (and is probably empty on a rainy day).
The last stop for the 24 stops at Discovery Park and there really is nothing much there (besides the same sort of housing that the rest of the line covers). Yet ridership is significantly higher at that stop — so there probably are a significant number of people taking transit to go hiking (or jogging) all year round, rain or shine.
@ Ross:
Thanks for drawing it out. However I mentioned three things not in your trace:
1. It would enter the Issaquah TC.
2. It would use Maple St to get to Gilman, like Route 208 does today — with an existing bus stop on maple in front of Issaquah Target.
3. It would resume the proposed path to Issaquah Highlands in front of Costco at Lake Ave and 10th Ave North. That’s literally means it would use 10th Ave N between Lake Ave and NW Sammamish Rd (see the proposed 203 route map above with the jog to Lake Way at time point 5. It looks like Netro wants to not serve that stop next to Costco and NE Sammamish Road.
It may look a few blocks out of the way on a map — but those signals on 17th Ave can take a really long time.
For getting to Tiger, we’ve also taken the 554 to Issaquah TC, and then the 208 to I-90 & 270th Ave SE. The stop is on the off-ramp but it’s a short walk to the trailhead. It’s only doable Saturday mornings, but that lets you do a through-hike rather than a loop back to the 554.
“I don’t think running the 215 more often than maybe once an hour is a good use of resources.”
“Outside of peak I think it will run every 90 minutes.”
The 215 has two operational patterns. Every 30 minutes it will run express from Mercer Island to the Issaquah Highlands P&R. Every third bus will continue to North Bend, giving it 90-minute frequency.
@Mike — Yes, that is my understanding as well. It is a big confusing because the 215 only runs from Issaquah Highlands to Mercer Island. Why have two versions of the 218 when one of them is essentially the 215? In any event I expect that to be the pattern.
For getting to Tiger, we’ve also taken the 554 to Issaquah TC, and then the 208 to I-90 & 270th Ave SE.
Yeah, that is the “Exit 20” I referred to. Somewhere on this (very long thread) I suggested doing what you do. If the 554 runs as it is expected then doing this will be easier (since the 218 will run a little more often and will connect to Link).
However I mentioned three things not in your trace:
1. It would enter the Issaquah TC.
That was implied. I can’t get Google maps to go into the transit center.
2. It would use Maple St to get to Gilman, like Route 208 does today — with an existing bus stop on maple in front of Issaquah Target.
Yes, the map should have done that. The first version did. Sometimes it takes a little effort to tell Google to go the right way.
3. It would resume the proposed path to Issaquah Highlands in front of Costco at Lake Ave and 10th Ave North. That’s literally means it would use 10th Ave N between Lake Ave and NW Sammamish Rd (see the proposed 203 route map above with the jog to Lake Way at time point 5. It looks like Netro wants to not serve that stop next to Costco and NE Sammamish Road.
OK, like so I guess: https://maps.app.goo.gl/RuC7ANvkEwFxjpKZ9. That means skipping the stop next to Costco: https://maps.app.goo.gl/i4Xk85qjq6uBMtN66. If I made a mistake then please draw the map (this is getting rather tedious).
Anyway, assuming I have it right (or close to right) then it has the same issue. The route is going way out of its way to cover an area that will already be covered by an existing bus. If it is Issaquah’s only local bus it would make sense, but it won’t be. The 554 is supposed to cover Maple and that part of Gilman just like it is supposed to cover Bellevue Way between South Bellevue Station and Downtown Bellevue Station. If it doesn’t then things will be a mess.
Yes that looks like what I was thinking, Ross. Thanks for the revision.
That bus stop next to Costco would be eliminated in the current proposed Route 203 path as shown in the post’s diagram.
It may still look a bit circuitous on a map, but it would connect many commercial destinations in both sides of I-90. It runs by the post office and serves some apartment complexes nearby too — as well as the Costco HQ.
We will have to see what ST does. But I have to admit that having one bus route that ties in destinations on both sides of the freeway in Issaquah is somewhat appealing, especially with the dearth of stops and long signals on 17th Ave west of that (the current proposed routing).
Yup. Why are we scrapping people’s bus routes before Link is even in place? We have to wait until 2040 for Link, but we lose our bus network because Sound Transit is corrupt and wants everyone to park/ride to their new Link that crawls at 15-20 mph, adding more road traffic, transfer and dwelling times at the same time.
Sound Transit has no control over most of the bus network, so “it” is not taking it away. The 554’s routing is still uncertain, so it’s not definitely gone.
I think it is safe to say that the full 2 Line opening and this complementary restructure is a major change for Eastside transit.
I think that it is admirable to look at stop activity to gauge the implications of it. However, I think the systems change is so major that transit use could change in unforeseen ways.
With such a major change, I would expect tweaks to be made after the 2 Line and this restructure operates for one or two years. In particular, I expect to see frequencies and hours of service to be tweaked.
The cycle I’m anticipating is this:
1. Eastside residents will begin by driving to a Link station (especially South Bellevue and Marymoor Village with their large parking structures) once the 2 Line runs to and through Seattle. They will probably complain that there’s not enough parking. (Doh!)
2. After repeated frustration, they will look to connecting buses. (They will also try things like parking in nearby areas, and communities and property owners will respond.)
I think some local Eastside tripmaking may also drop in the short term as riders learn new routes.
So initially I’m thinking that Metro will be disappointed in ridership levels. It will take at least a year or two to adjust to the new feeder-to-Link reality. Metro shouldn’t let themselves be too discouraged initially.
A final point is that I think providing targeted information is critical to having this restructure attract better ridership. I’m wondering what Metro will roll out. Will they mail out route maps and schedules to residents and destinations on the route? What’s the best time to do this? Should it happen twice, with tweaked schedules in the second mailing? Should Metro be creating information teams / portable booths to personally talk with residents about the restructured system? And how should social media be used as well?
To me, the success of this restructure is as much about information and marketing as it is about urban geography. That’s because it’s not as simple as reacting to lots of new available parking spaces like Lynnwood and Federal Way extensions are, or overlaying a new way to use the local bus system to get Downtown like Northgate or U-Link extensions were. This one feels more transformational. But maybe that’s my own Seattle bias.
I don’t think bus ridership is going to change much at all with this restructure. I don’t think this restructure is a very radical departure from what we have now. The current routing is already a reorientation toward transfers. We used to have a bunch of routes that went from places all over the Eastside directly to Downtown Seattle. Now we only have a few express routes that go along 520 or 90 to Seattle, and almost everyone has to transfer to one of those.
The highest-ridership sections of the most frequent routes are not changing much. The big exception would be the 271, which is getting chopped up, but I don’t think anyone is riding it all the way from Eastgate to UW, let alone all the way from Issaquah to UW. Those people would be better served today by the 556 or 554 plus Link.
That is a good point. We don’t have as many buses going downtown as we used to. If I have the numbers right we used to have 11 and now we have 6. They also don’t carry that many riders anymore. This means the parking lots are that full. A lot of the riders that Al described probably already drive to South Bellevue and take the 554. Of course Link will attract new riders but it is quite possible that the park and ride won’t be that full.
“ A lot of the riders that Al described probably already drive to South Bellevue and take the 554. ”
Route 554 stops at Issaquah TC and Eastgate Park-and-Ride. 2 Line does not. Plus Route 554 runs every 15 minutes at peak and 2 Line will run every 8 minutes. And 2 Line will also go to UW at a very high frequency.
I expect many who park at these other places to begin to drive the short extra distance to park at South Bellevue to get into Seattle.
271 only takes 40 minutes to get from Eastgate to UW. And it serves way more homes than 554/556/Link. 556 is the slowest junk of a route I’ve ever seen. Can be hardly called express. Even 271 is faster.
This new route system will force more people to drive/park/ride which is BAD!
What is the point of removing 271? It provides zero benefit and only disadvantages. Many riders will be significantly inconvenienced and removed from a convenient route altogether (Lake hills, Medina)
Instead of making bus lanes and signal priority, the county chooses to make things harder for riders. Unsurprising. They also continue to neglect the southern part of the county with infrequent bus service and no reliable routes.
Route 554 stops at Issaquah TC and Eastgate Park-and-Ride. 2 Line does not.
Yes, absolutely. You also have the other buses I referred to. Mainly that is the 212 and 218 (the 111 and 630 aren’t relevant). So basically the 212, 218 and 554. My point is that doesn’t add up to that many riders. All the buses going over the bridge (including the 550) are less than what the old 550 used to carry.
All those buses used to carry a lot more riders. You also had the 214, 216, 217 and 219 that used to carry plenty of people (combined). Now they don’t run. There will be an impact but it may not be that big. Not like it would have been if East Link was built a few years ago.
We’ve been through this before in Rainier Valley. There was a whole “Save Our Valley” movement that opposed Link, and said they couldn’t ride it because there was no P&R for them to park at. (The latter was primarily people in the Seward Park and Rainier View areas, which had the least bus service. But even though Metro created the 50 as a Link feeder, they wouldn’t think about using it.) But over the first few years some of them eventually started taking Link and the feeders. Some said it was a nice way to avoid parking downtown or at the stadiums or Capitol Hill.
“Eastside residents will begin by driving to a Link station”
What you’re missing is there are already a lot of people on the buses. Even the apparently low-volume coverage routes (221, 226) get at least 10-20 people in Bellevue in the midday and afternoons. The total daily ridership on all the local routes in eastern Bellevue is probably 10,000-20,000. Some of them will transfer to Link if it’s going their way. The full 2 Link and restructure doesn’t just taketh away, it also giveth. New 1-seat or 2-seat rides between many origin-destination pairs that are currently nonexistent or practically infeasible. Inevitably some people will lose, and Metro hasn’t done its best to minimize that number. But many people will gain, and transit will become more feasible for them. One by one over time they’ll try transit, and some will start using it regularly, and others whenever they go to Seattle, and some to downtown Redmond.
Issaquah has a lower starting point (transit is only feasible for a minority of neighborhood/regional pairs), and the restructure will be mixed. So I don’t expect 2-seat rides or P&R trips to be as high per capita as in Bellevue or Redmond. But if the 554 proposal goes through, with or without Gilman Blvd, the total transit network will create new opportunities for people going to/from/within Issaquah, even if it doesn’t address everything. And that future network will be a starting point to improve upon. And Issaquah could provide that local loop route between all the activity centers until King County (Metro) gets around to it.
But sending it through Rainier Valley was a waste. It already has adequate bus service, and very few people board the trains there, and we add 10 mins to the commute of people trying to get home down south or to the airport.
They should consider running it parallel to a faster line that moves along I-5.
We don’t need to worry about park n riders who won’t take local feeders. They’ve got their P&Rs; that was the strategic compromise with car-oriented cities. If they take Link, that’s a win. If they take a feeder or a one-seat bus trip, that’s a bigger win because it’s harder to convince them to do that. Over the long term, transit mode share will increase. Ten or twenty years ago, many of the people who are riding transit now or living in denser housing didn’t think they would. By denser housing I mean everything from multifamily to close-together houses. (Central Issaquah actually has a lot of close-together houses built in the 00s; you see them on the 554.)
For 520 and NE 51st Street, I imagine that most riders using this stop on the 269 are transferring to the 545 or 542.
You could use it to get to the Microsoft North campus (east of 520), but I don’t see much evidence for that on the 245 chart, which has stops even closer to the campus, that have fewer passengers than the stop right at 520. If you’re going to the area west of 520, that will be continued to be served by B, of course, so you can just transfer at Downtown Redmond Station.
The westbound B line stop needs to be relocated from 120th/NE 8th to in front of Wilburton station on NE 8th. This will be a major transfer point between the main Eastside bus line and regional rail to Seattle. You shouldn’t have to walk 600 ft for the transfer when the bus goes right past the station anyway.
Bus-Rail connection at East-Main is sort of pointless.
+1; I’m sorry they’re taking service away from a part of 116th with a lot on it.
Yeah, that just feels like they are breaking many legs so they can check bus-rail transfer at East-Main off the buckle list.
Right now all the plans (eastside restructure and K Line) both create connection with Light rail from/to north/east and bus from/to south, but I think the real benefit for East Main is the other way around. No matter you are from You don’t need to transfer bus at East Main to go to Eastgate or Issaquah, you can do that in South Bellevue or Bellevue Downtown.
You are more likely to ride bus from north of Bellevue like Kirkland and transfer 2 Line at East Main if your bus doesn’t run through Bellevue Downtown or South Bellevue.
KCM should use this additional transfer point to route certain route out of Bellevue TC so they can better cover places like Bellevue Square or 116th while still maintaining the transfer to other eastside bus routes and light rail.
As I wrote up above, I doubt they are changing the route just to connect to East Main. I think it is to avoid traffic.
Removing Route 271 is a grave mistake. It is one of the most popular routes and why are we splitting it into 5 different routes? No one wants to wait 10 mins for a transfer. At the very least it should be run from Eastgate through U District, and it should pass through Medina like before. The Bellevue Way route seems useless and serves less students. It won’t even save time since it has to drive a longer distance and there are more useless freeway stops that are already served by 255/542.
Why is King County not transparent about these idiotic route changes? There will be significant outrage. I ride the 271 often and it is always packed. Many students use it all the way through Eastgate.
Some comments on here suggest that 554/556 is better for traveling to Eastgate.
1. It drops you off at the freeway station, which is slightly less convenient.
2. Those buses are always 10-15 mins late (yes, I’ve seen 40 minutes late before) and get stuck in Bellevue Way traffic. 271 has always been a better and faster option.
270 is a pathetic useless route that NOBODY will ride. Who is even going from Bellevue TC except transfers? Doesn’t 556/271 already do a good job for that? Send 556 through that route, and add bus lanes to Bellevue Way. Instead we make useless changes that nobody wants.
Doesn’t the 270 cover the highest ridership segment of the 271? I thought 271 ridership drops off dramatically east of Bellevue TC.
RE: 554/6 to Eastgate, remember that Link bypasses much of the Bellevue Way congestion. Yes, the buses grind through rush hour traffic as the freeway onramp essentially backs up all the way to Main street, but if a rider is transferring at the South Bellevue station then the vast majority of the congestion is bypassed; eastbound the bus runs in mixed traffic for ~1K feet between S Bellevue station and getting on the HOV on-ramp.
At rush hour, you are much better off walking to a Link station and riding it a short distance. When there is little or no congestion, then sure you’d catch the 554/6 closer to downtown.
For people who are working, yes, 270 covers the appropriate route. But for students who rely on the bus route many people need to get off at Medina or the Eastgate hill areas. Bellevue Square Mall is no longer an option either. Now that option is gone and they’re forced to transfer to a different bus, potentially wasting 5-10 minutes of their time. I don’t see why there is any benefit to removing the 271 as it is. While peak ridership gets off at BTC, there are still many people who use the other stops. If people need an express route that is maybe 2-3 minutes faster, why not add it in addition to 271 and also send 556 through the new route?
Also do you know how slow Link is? I’d rather speed across the 520 on the bus than take Link any day.
But for students who rely on the bus route many people need to get off at Medina or the Eastgate hill areas.
Those are two different areas. Medina has very few riders. Even “Greater Medina” has very few riders. The stretch between UW and Bellevue Square only has about 50 riders a day heading to the UW and 30 riders a day heading to the rest of the route. This is for a fairly frequent bus that connects to of the three big destinations in the state (UW and Downtown Bellevue). The bus will get a lot more riders along Bellevue Way.
Eastgate is different. Greater Eastgate (which includes the college) has lots of riders. But it is assumed that anyone who is trying to get from Bellevue College (or Eastgate) to the UW will take one of the many express buses to Mercer Island followed by Link. The main loss is between Eastgate and Downtown Bellevue. While there are more riders here than in Greater Medina, there still aren’t a lot. Not that many people are going to transfer to the 220.
I think the bigger problem is what asdf2 alluded to. Moving over to Bellevue Way is the right decision. You also don’t lose that much by skipping the Lake Hills Connector. But what do you actually gain? If the 270 ran a lot more often I could see it. If the 270 went south on Bellevue Way to South Bellevue Station (instead of the future 554) I could also see it. If it went along NE 8th to Crossroads (taking over from the RapidRide B) I could see it. But it seems like they truncated the bus for nothing. If you can’t find a better place to go then just go where you’ve been going for a while now. The future 220 is not particularly long. I get why the bus doesn’t go all the way to Issaquah any more, but combining the future 220 with the 270 seems like a pretty good pairing even if not that many people ride end to end. There is a very minor difference in service.
The only thing I think may be a consideration is that they want to eventually run the 270 a lot more often. I get that. It should run a lot more often. But having the schedule based on the hope that someday in the future we will get adequate funding seems like the tail wagging the dog.
The point of the split, ideally would be to allow the higher ridership segments to run more frequently. The problem is they aren’t doing that. The 270 and 220 both run just as often as the 271 currently does.
That said, a trip from Eastgate to UW should be faster taking a bus to south Bellevue or Mercer Island and switching to Link vs. riding all the way on a bus.
If the 270 frequency is increased to 5-7 minutes, and it passes through the Medina route instead of Bellevue Way, I wouldn’t have as much of an issue with it
However, as you stated, it is being split and there is no effort being done to improve the frequency or speed of the routes. BAT lanes on Bellevue Way won’t do anything unless there is signal priority. You’re adding a mile to the route as well, and forcing it to stop at redundant freeway stations.
I’m disappointed at the 220/270 split too, but I don’t see why serving Medina would be helpful. Which students live in Medina? Where?
Ever rode the 271? Every time there are students who get on and off there. And the Medina route is actually fairly fast and is usually free of traffic. Going through Bellevue Way and using the freeway stops will be more of a headache and probably even slow down the route.
Bellevue Way has way more people than Medina/Clyde Hill. Less than a hundred people a day take the bus between the UW and Bellevue Square. That is both directions. If they want to run an express from the UW to Downtown Bellevue then it should just stick to the freeways. But Metro only has so much money. They have to serve Bellevue Way and figure it is worthwhile to provide some service to Medina. So they did the right thing and put the frequent bus on the route with a lot of riders and the infrequent bus through a coverage area. They should have done that a long time ago.
The only real drawback is that it won’t stop at 100th & 8th (which has a fair number of riders). But that should probably just be an extension of a bus coming from the east (just like the 550 extends north from the transit center). For example the 220 could go to the transit center and then just keep going up and around Bellevue Square. You could probably find layover space on NE 8th close to the mall and it seems like a comfort station wouldn’t be hard to find.
“Ever rode the 271? Every time there are students who get on and off there.”
Yes, I’ve ridden the 271 and its predecessors for fifty years. The number of people who get on/off in Medina is 0-3. And far from taking 15-20 minutes from Bellevue TC to UW Station (where I transfer to Link), it takes 20-40 minutes between early afternoon and early evening. I thought it would be a fast way to Link, until I realized that the past few times it hadn’t been.
“No one wants to wait 10 mins for a transfer.”
The existing 271 makes you wait 10 minutes at Bellevue Transit to ride through anyway ( at least on weekends).
Not true on the weekdays.
I guess his point probably is you won’t be always unlucky to see the previous bus leave in front of you. So statistically, you expected waiting time won’t be 10 minutes if the schedule headway is 10 minutes.
“it should pass through Medina like before. The Bellevue Way route seems useless and serves less students.”
You’re defending Medina? One of the lowest-density, lowest ridership, highest billionaire areas in the Eastside? You could probably fit the entire population of Medina four times over in the apartments along north Bellevue Way. Where do you think students live? A lot of them live in apartments. 98% of them can’t afford a Medina house, and even if they could, there are only a few vacancies, enough for one row of chairs in one lecture hall.
I look at it the other way round. Why is the rest of Bellevue forced to go through Medina to the last freeway entrance before the bridge to get to UW? That has bothered me for fifty years as one who had to ride through it. It’s a legacy of 1970s thinking, back when all the Bellevue-Seattle routes did that except peak expresses.
The Medina route is simply faster and heads directly to the freeway with little traffic. I agree with the Bellevue Way if they add bus only lanes and signal priority.
Also it seems like a far off idea for students to live along Bellevue Way. If a student commutes by bus, they likely live with their parents. If they need an apartment, there are options in Seattle. So Eastgate and Clyde Hill are locations I’ve seen students board.
Even if not many, this is a bus to UW. The Link would better serve other demographics if they need to get to Seattle, so why are we changing the buses? The 271 is a destination bus, not a connector bus like you and many others seem to believe. We already have the 556 for connection purposes. However 271’s frequency might be why it’s used that way right now…but Link will change that. If we need more coverage and frequency, just set up another route that connects Bellevue Way to the freeway stops which are picked up by 255/542 very frequently.
Also the bus is packed full during peak hours. I’ve rode it again this week, and many people used the stops before Bellevue Way. Not “0-3” like you’ve exaggerated. Obviously even peak stops will have fewer people get off during certain hours.
Additionally, it doesn’t take 20-40 mins to get to Bellevue TC. Another exaggeration on your part. The scheduled arrival time is always between 15-20. It could take closer to 25 mins due to downtown traffic that takes place closer to the transit center itself. That would not be avoided by 270, and perhaps it’d be even worse since the route has to stop at every freeway station AND bear through more traffic signals along Bellevue Way.
So if we want to serve Bellevue Way, I think it should be a smaller bus route that can transfer at the TC or Yarrow point station. However, if they change Bellevue Way to be more transit friendly (BAT, signal timing) then I’d be more accepting of this change.
Also note that the 556 takes longer than 271 to get from the UW to Bellevue TC, despite taking an “express” shortcut through a low traffic road.
The 270 would be significantly slower given it would take Bellevue Way and still incur extra driving distance as the 520 turns north for a bit.
“Why is King County not transparent about these idiotic route changes?”
There were some four rounds of proposals and public hearings over 2-3 years. We covered them on STB. All the agencies have trouble reaching people who don’t see their announcements; they even ask us how they could reach more people. And Seattle Times coverage has gotten more comprehensive on transit issues thanks to Mike Lindblom.
The idea of mailing a postcard or brochure to everybody is a good one. Seattle does that with street projects in the neighborhood, and ST sends these Link-project marketing flyers. So that’s a starting point.
The public feedback stage for the most recent round of TriMet changes were announced by an extra-large postcard (5 x 8.5 or something, basically a #10 envelope as a single sheet), some newspaper ads, and at least some ads on the buses. Also, email to those with HOP card accounts.
You need to reach all members of the public, including those that don’t currently ride.
Has ST begun a public process on changes to their bus routes around the 2 Line?
It started Wednesday. This phase is a general survey on current conditions and usage. The first route-network proposal will come in June-July.
Who uses the 271 in Issaquah, and how to they get to it? It terminates at the TC in the middle of nowhere in western Issaquah, and doesn’t reach any of the activity centers or residential areas. The only transit to the rest of Issaquah from there the half-hourly 554 or less-than-hourly 208, so you may be waiting twenty or forty minutes for a transfer. I can’t imagine many people do that. So do people mainly drive to the P&R to take the 271? That would be an unusual case of driving to a P&R to take a slow local bus, and the only destination with a short travel time is Bellevue College. So who in Issaquah rides the 271, and how do they get to it?
People live in Newport Hills and some of the communities along the South shore of Lake Sammamish…
Definitely low ridership though and I agree cutting it past Eastgate.
I’m excited to see all-week service in areas that have not had it in a long time (if ever). In particular, the 222 opens up some hikes along Avondale like the Pipeline Trail (used to require walking in the shoulder from the 250 or whatever DART service predated it), and the 111 should give good access to the eastern part of the Cedar River trail.
Trailhead Direct is nice but its coverage has shrunk and only works during the summer. Regular transit service to hikes has a place too.