A walk around Zürich interviewing transportation engineering professor Norman Garrick. (Active Towns) Two rides on very different funiculars at 2:05 and 52:23. The first part of the video is the old town and, at the other end of the first funicular, a university. The middle part after that is a walk through a cemetery, which may be a little slow, but at 39:07 he talks about what North American cities can learn from Zürich. Other points talk about Zürich’s tramways and signal priority (44:17), trolleybuses (46:08), and a suburban tram line (56:30). What strikes me the most is how Zürich puts its inhabitants’ convenience and non-car mobility first; then everything else falls into place. And when it has a specific problem, it keeps trying different things until something works, rather than pointing fingers and not doing anything. Zürich’s population is 450K; the “urban area” is 1.5 million; and the metropolitan area is 2.1 million (defined as within an 80-minute drive from the airport).
This is an open thread.
I am hoping for three specific “new” all-day, every-day ST Express routes to be in the 2026 service plan, which I will refer to as ST Express routes 517, 557, and 597, just to give them numbers.
.
ST Express 517 would be just like ST Express 512 is today, except it would skip Ash Way Park & Ride. CT route 201/202 provides frequent service to Ash Way and Mariner P&Rs already. The 517 would replace the 512 as the all-day express route between Lynnwood Station and Everett Station, but now just having stops along the way at South Everett Freeway Station and on Broadway in Everett, none of which add much travel time. By replacing route 512, route 517 would reduce operational costs in perpetuity..
There is no reason this particular piece of route restructure should have to wait for the Great Conjunction except that the planning process takes this long.
.
Route 557 would replace the Bellevue portion of the 550, the eastern portion of the 554, and the southern portion of the 556, from Downtown Bellevue Station on down. These three routes could and should go away with the first service change after the Great Conjunction.
Some early maps have called this new route 554, even though it is entirely within the path of the current 556. That suggests that Metro and/or ST is hoping the northern portion of the 556 sticks around. I hope Metro offers to increase peak-direction frequency on the proposed new route 270 (the northern portion of current route 271), to enable the elimination of the northern part of the 556. The 271-north is faster than the 556-north based on the schedules, and serves more stops along the way. Unless the schedules are misleading, replacing the 556-north with 270 trips appears to be a no-brainer.
.
Route 597 would be today’s route 594, with a stop added at Federal Way Station. Mike Orr was the first I can recall proposing this route. It would replace routes 574, 577, and 594, but with improved frequency. It would also enable truncation of the 578 at Federal Way, with more frequency added to the surviving tail.
While I would love to have a Federal Way – Olympia route, there still seems to be resistance to allowing the masses to get to the Capitol easily via public transit.
I agree with you about your 517. The ST express bus from Everett should skip Ash Way. I would change the northern tail. I would make the detour to the station, go north to Pacific and cut over to Colby. Then I would go north on Colby to the college. With enough stops this would replace Everett Transit 19, allowing that (cash strapped) agency to put money into other routes.
I’m confused about the 557. The 554 and 556 cover different parts of Issaquah. Both leave the freeway to serve the transit center. The 554 continues through central Issaquah to serve Sunset Way before serving the Highlands. A lot of us hope that the future 554 will serve more of central Issaquah. At one point it looked like it would — now it isn’t so clear. In contrast the 556 only serves the transit center before getting on the freeway and serving the Highlands.
The idea of modifying the 594 by adding a stop at Federal Way (and running it more often) has been around a while. It is fairly intuitive so I’m sure a lot of people have suggested it independently. Federal Way Link is very well suited as a connection point. Buses can stop there and keep going to downtown. The express bus will be much faster to Seattle than Link. But Link is faster for trips to SeaTac, Highline College etc. Thus you don’t need the 574 anymore. Likewise with the 594 stopping at Federal Way you don’t need the 577.
But it gets complicated after that. For example 578 runs express from Puyallup, Sumner, Auburn and Federal to Seattle. You want to make that connection to Federal Way but if the bus continued to Seattle you have a lot of buses going to Seattle (that seems like overkill). Maybe just end at Federal Way and have a different express bus that kept going north (to Kent) and then express to downtown (so Puyallup/Sumner/Auburn/Kent/ Seattle). Hard to say.
I wrote up a proposal a while back: https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/02/25/regional-transit-after-federal-way-link/. It called for a relatively unusual approach: don’t run the express buses to Seattle during peak. The idea being that this is the one time when Link is competitive from Federal Way and also the one time when Sounder is running from Tacoma. However I would probably back off on that just to keep things simple. There really aren’t that many express buses during peak anymore so the savings are not huge. There is a fair amount of flexibility to be sure.
Since we are on the subject, I’m not sure if ST is well suited to run the future 554. It really isn’t that much of an express. It will run on I-90, but not for very long. It will spend a significant amount of time on Bellevue Way and maybe in central Issaquah. In contrast some of the Metro buses stay on the freeway between the Issaquah Highlands and Mercer Island (stopping only at the Eastgate Freeway Station). Those seem more like express buses. I’m not suggesting they switch. I think the simplest thing would be to just have ST pay Metro to run the bus. Metro would make all the usual stops in Issaquah.
If ST is looking for an additional express bus, this is what I propose: A bus from UW Bothell to UW Seattle, running every fifteen minutes. It would stop at all the usual freeway stations. For riders in Totem Lake this would be much faster than the 250. It would also mean that riders taking Stride could transfer to a bus headed to the UW. Another alternative would be to run the bus from Woodinville. There are already plans to run a bus from Woodinville to Downtown Bellevue during peak and from Woodinville to the 522/405 interchange off peak. The second bus could just keep going. That would mean a longer walk for those headed between campuses but Woodinville riders would get a one-seat ride to the UW. A third alternative would be to run it from the Totem Lake Transit Center. You would still stop at the freeway stop (to better serve people to the west) but the transit center is close to a lot more people.
Metro is already operating all ST Express routes that are entirely within King County, except a few PT may operate due to lower labor cost. So turning the 554 completely over to Metro would just mean a different driver pool (potentially straining Metro’s driver shortage), a 2xx number, and a different bus color.
I’m agnostic on whether the BRT-ish route between Lakewood and downtown should keep the downtown Tacoma loop.
I am downright ignorant on the details of the eastern portions of the 554 and 556. I have rarely visited the eastside.
I go to Everett a few times a year, so have at least some feel for how much the Ash Way P&R stop negatively impacts ST Express 512. Everett is a much more real transit destination than the P&Rs are. It merits a real express connection to the 1 Line for reasons beyond the needs of Everett commuters.
@Ross
Another option might be to run “express” between Totem Lake and Downtown Kirkland, then take over the southern portion of the post-K 255. That would let the bus take express lanes for most of the route, except when serving downtown Kirkland. Labeled “SK” below:
https://imgur.com/a/3TimLZR
Rough time estimates from Totem Lake to UW:
– Peak: 49m (255), 26m (311), 34m (ST K)
– Noon: 43m (255), 24m (311), 32m (ST K)
So turning the 554 completely over to Metro would just mean a different driver pool (potentially straining Metro’s driver shortage), a 2xx number, and a different bus color.
It is the same driver pool. It would be a different bus pool (likely not an issue) but more importantly it would mean that the bus makes all the stops. This isn’t an issue with Metro. It is a major issue with ST.
@John — Interesting idea. That would create an express route from the north (Woodinville or Bothell) to Downtown Kirkland. But that is still a pretty slow route from Totem Lake to the UW.
I’m not sure the best approach for Juanita after the K. I can see several options (including yours). Here are three more, all of which would include the express route I mentioned.
1) Extend the 245.
2) Truncate the 250 at Downtown Kirkland and shift the 255 to run on Lake Washington Boulevard.
3) Variation on your idea. Run the 250 as you suggest. Just have the 255 end at Downtown Kirkland.
Your idea saves money. You aren’t running additional service from 85th & 405 to the UW. That is about ten minutes of driving each way (https://maps.app.goo.gl/w9xJT9okSD939Q748). Much of my thinking is based on the assumption that ST can afford it, given all the money they have put into other express projects. It is also based on the assumption that there is enough potential ridership to warrant an express. I think there is.
Options 2 or 3 enhance the express buses. For both options the K Line connects to it at 85th. This means riders from the north (along 124th NE) can head south and then transfer for a fast express to the UW. For Option 2 (which would be my choice) you get some riders from the truncated 250 to the east. Not a huge amount since once you get far enough east it is faster to go the other way and catch the 542. The third option would also mean that folks from Juanita would lose their one-seat ride to the UW but have a fast two-seat ride. You would increase ridership on the express (even though some people might prefer the one-seat ride).
My impression of the earlier proposal was that it was called 554 simply because that’s the all-day Issaquah route, and the 556 would be deleted in any case. So ST Express would withdraw from the Bellevue-UDistrict market. There will be Link between them, and the 270 will probably be a bit faster than the 271 because it’s not going through Medina on a smaller street.
Metro adding frequency to the 270 depends on service hours available, and this was a revenue-neutral restructure. So I wouldn’t expect much if any increase.
I don’t remember if I originated the idea of adding a Federal Way stop on the 594, but we’d long argued to consolidate the 510 and 511 off-peak for 15-minute frequency, and this would be parallel. ST finally created the 512 Sunday only, then it spread to all off-peak, and frequency increased to 15-20 minutes. Adding a Federal Way stop to the 594 would replace the 577, not the 574. The 574 bypasses downtown Tacoma, so replacing it with the 594 would add significantly to travel time. I saw that when I rode the 594 from Lakewood to Seattle and saw that downtown Tacoma creates a time-consuming loop in it. So what you should have is two routes south of Federal Way: one to downtown Tacoma (590) and the other to Lakewood (594). I won’t get into which of them if any would continue to downtown Seattle. A 574/590 pattern would eliminate half the 594’s loop on 705, so that would save a few hours. It would eliminate a one-seat ride between Lakewood and downtown Tacoma, but I’m not sure if that gets much ridership anyway. The 594 stop is in east Lakewood. Route 3 is in west Lakewood, and is probably closer to where more people live.
I have a hard time keeping track of the numbers. But here is how I see it. You want a bus to go from Downtown Tacoma to Downtown Seattle. You might as well extend it to Lakewood. This is a baseline level of service and it already exists as the 594. It should stop at Federal Way (along the way) and run every fifteen minutes throughout the day. It connects the key points (Downtown Tacoma and Downtown Seattle). It connects Lakewood with Tacoma and Downtown Seattle as well. Not necessarily in the fastest possible way but given the overall ridership in Lakewood this is quite reasonable. For Lakewood, Sounder is likely faster but outside of peak riders can catch the 594.
At that point everything else is a bonus. Does Lakewood need an express that skips Downtown Tacoma? Maybe, but only if there are enough riders. Quite likely that would be at peak (and only at peak). That is when Sounder runs. The 592 serves Lakewood Station and the park and ride at SR 512. There isn’t much by the park and ride. It is a transit hub though so it is possible that some riders are transferring from other buses. But again it seems like not enough to justify an express all the way to Seattle.
The bigger issue is Dupont. There is no Sounder Station in Dupont and yet the 592 serves it (with every bus). This could be a tipping point of sorts. I could easily see ST deciding to continue the express from Dupont to Seattle (stopping at Lakewood along the way) given the ridership is decent and there aren’t that many buses.
That leaves midday service for Dupont (which is pretty much nonexist right now). There is also an issue with the Lakewood Transit Center, which is served by the 574. I could see Sound Transit modifying the 594 to serve both Dupont and the Lakewood Transit Center. This could be done by having the bus take a detour (like so). Another alternative is to have a split. One branch goes to the transit center while the other goes to Dupont. The folks at the Lakewood Station (and the SR-512 park and ride) would have fifteen minute service while Dupont and Lakewood Transit Center would have a bus every half hour. Given that currently Dupont doesn’t get much midday service I could also see the bus always going to Lakewood Transit Center and then every half hour (or even every hour) it would extend to Dupont. Outside of peak that would be an improvement in service (for everyone) while keeping costs low.
A lot of the basics are fairly simple but it gets complicated as you get into the details. This is all for the I-5 cities. The Sounder cities not on I-5 (Puyallup, Sumner, etc.) make things even more complicated.
“There is no Sounder Station in Dupont”
Not yet, but it has been in ST’s long-range plan for a long time.
The ST park-and-ride in Lakewood is in a pit of despair, ringed-in by Hwy 512, I-5, and STW/Pac Hwy. It is so incredibly car-oriented that just about the only people using it are commuters who drive to the park-and-ride and go to Seattle on the 594.
Nobody (except me) would ever walk there.
If I lived in Lakewood I would find the dispersed nature of their transit nodes incredibly frustrating. The ST park-and-ride, the Sounder station and the Lakewood Transit Center are all less than a mile from each other, but extremely hard to get to outside of driving to them. They need to center their transit and make it accessible for people outside a car.
“You want a bus to go from Downtown Tacoma to Downtown Seattle. You might as well extend it to Lakewood.”
I don’t think it’s a “might as well”. Extending the route means traffic jams on I-5 at Lakewood make the bus late for Tacoma-Seattle passengers. Anecdotally, this means less reliable service for the bulk of the ridership to avoid a transfer for a relatively small group of people.
My father grew up in southwest Lakewood across from Clover Park High School and my uncle still lives there, and we had land there until the 1970s. So when I went down there in the 2000s and spent ten seconds thinking about living there if I could get a certain special condo deal related to that legacy, I was frustrated that the 574 was on the other side of I-5 in the middle of nowhere, with no transit to it. Instead I looked toward the Lakewood Transit Center with the 3, a 10-minute walk away from west 112th. (I never did take a bus to there; we went in a car, because I was with relatives who wouldn’t spend two hours on transit to get there.)
Agreed on how unreliable the I-5 buses are between DuPont and Tacoma. The times I’ve attempted to take an I-5 bus between Tacoma and Seattle, it was 20+
minutes late getting to Tacoma.
This is the type of operation where some places in Europe would put in a Regiobahn and have it be cheaper than previously existing buses: parallel publicly owned track that’s under-used, use equipment capable of single operator service so labor costs about the same as the previous bus, and faster service so fewer hours per trip, reducing actual labor costs.
It’s probably not possible in the USA, but some places in Europe would at least be looking that way.
I’d like to see numbers, but my guess is that, outside of peak, very few people are riding the bus at Lakewood. Sending both the 574 and the 594 to Lakewood all day long is probably overkill.
I’d like to see numbers, but my guess is that, outside of peak, very few people are riding the bus at Lakewood.
ST no longer publishes stop data. But in 2019 here were the northbound numbers for Lakewood:
574 (to Federal Way and SeaTac):
Lakewood Transit Center and SR-512 Park and Ride: 431
592 (to Seattle — bypasses Tacoma):
Lakewood Station and SR-512 Park and Ride: 355
594 (to Seattle via Tacoma):
Lakewood Station and SR-512 Park and Ride: 217
Sounder:
Lakewood Station: 402
Interestingly enough the 574 carries more riders to Federal Way/SeaTac from Lakewood than Tacoma (which had only 413 riders). About 100 riders are going between Lakewood and Tacoma on this bus.
Way more people ride the 594 from Tacoma than Lakewood (about 800 versus 350). Only about 25 ride the 594 between Lakewood and Tacoma.
So outside of peak folks from Lakewood are riding the ST buses — they are just riding it to Tacoma, Federal Way and SeaTac. It is also worth pointing out that the 592 can be considered a loss leader. Folks commute from Lakewood to Seattle (using Sounder or the 592). But then they take the 594 in the middle of the day (when neither Sounder or the express is running). Eliminate 594 service to Lakewood and ridership on Sounder and the 592 would probably go down.
I would say the only surprising thing to me is how few people ride between Lakewood and Tacoma on the 594. Hard to say why. It serves a different stop (Lakewood TC instead of the station). Local buses (like the 3) may have something to do with it as well.
In any event I think the general approach I outlined makes the most sense. Start by getting rid of the 574. Continue to run the 590 and 592 peak and the 594 off-peak. Have all the buses stop at Federal Way. The 594 would run every fifteen minutes. If ridership at Lakewood is really low on the 594 then half the runs can just end in Tacoma.
During peak that gives Lakewood riders an express to Federal Way and Seattle. Outside of peak they go through Tacoma. With the 574 gone you wouldn’t have peak service between Federal Way and Tacoma. For that riders have the Pierce Transit 3 (which goes between Lakewood Transit Center and Downtown Tacoma). It runs every half hour during peak and every fifteen minutes midday. ST could just give Pierce Transit the money it saves by not running the 574 between there. Or it could run a separate peak-only bus between Lakewood and Tacoma.
This would probably mitigate the traffic problem between Lakewood and Tacoma. The 574 wouldn’t run during peak. It is worth noting that WSDOT plans on extending the HOV lanes to Lakewood (but there is no schedule yet). If and when that is done it will still be challenge to go between there as there are no HOV ramps to Downtown Tacoma (or the Tacoma Dome). If midday traffic is a major issue then I think the best option would be this:
Run the 590 all day and the 592 during peak. Outside of peak just run a bus from Lakewood to Federal Way. So basically this would be like the future 592 but truncated in Federal Way. This is less than ideal because you are duplicating service between Tacoma and Lakewood to Federal Way (on I-5). But again, this is assuming that traffic is really bad between Tacoma and Lakewood. My guess is it wouldn’t be an issue.
I’m not sure if “Lakewood Transit Center” means something at the town center retail district on the west site where the 3 is, or the 574’s stop at a P&R on the east side. They’re vastly different places, and no easy way to get between them. While I’ve been to 112th several times and the 574’s stop at least once, I haven’t seen the town center.
I also thought I took Sounder southbound and the 594 back northbound. But how can that be if the Sounder station and ST Express stop are at at different places? But my memory says I did: I arrived at the Sounder station and walked to the 594 stop, and while the stop wasn’t right next to the train, it was only a few minutes’ walk. Or do the 594 and 574 go to different parts of east Lakewood?
“I would say the only surprising thing to me is how few people ride between Lakewood and Tacoma on the 594. Hard to say why.”
The most likely reason is that they all have cars and Tacoma is neither far enough nor the parking expensive enough to make riding the bus worth it. Downtown Seattle is, but outside of rush hour, the travel time incentives favor driving to Tacoma Dome for the bus to Seattle, to avoid the downtown Tacoma time sink, so that’s probably what most do.
Also, the Lakewood-Tacoma section of I-5 is congested during large swaths of the day – even on weekends – not just during peak. I’ve gotten stuck in traffic there many times during non rush hour periods, even with passengers in the car giving me nominal access to HOV lanes.
In the meantime, the amount of time the 594’s extension to Lakewood actually saves Lakewood commuters is little to nothing because the slog through downtown Tacoma itself takes about the same amount of time as the wait time would be to switch buses. It’s only people traveling between Lakewood and downtown Tacoma who really benefit from it, but the number of people doing that are tiny, and they’d still have the 574+ option. In return for not having the 594 go to Lakewood, you save service time, which means the bus can run slightly more often, perhaps every 20 minutes rather than every 30 minutes for at least parts of the day. Tacoma-Seattle is where the real ridership is, and that is where the focus should be.
“I would say the only surprising thing to me is how few people ride between Lakewood and Tacoma on the 594. Hard to say why.”
The most likely reason is that they all have cars …
Yeah, but there are plenty of riders taking the 574 from Lakewood to Tacoma. That was my point. I think it has to do with the fact that the 574 serves Lakewood Transit Center while the 594 serves the station. There are also more riders heading to the Tacoma Dome then heading back. Maybe they take the 574 if it is there but if not they take the 3.
(FYI: I forgot to link to the data: https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/2020-service-implementation-plan.pdf). Pierce County data can be found by downloading one of the documents on this page: https://piercetransit.org/public-documents/. The 3 carries about 1,500 a day.
… the number of people doing that are tiny, and they’d still have the 574+ option …
All of this is after Federal Way Link (nothing is going to change before then). At that point it doesn’t make sense to run the 574 in the middle of the day. Instead you would have buses running from Lakewood and Tacoma to Seattle, stopping at Federal Way since it is on the way. Folks headed to SeaTac transfer there. The only time it would make sense to have a bus like the 574 is very early in the morning, when Link isn’t running.
the amount of time the 594’s extension to Lakewood actually saves Lakewood commuters is little to nothing because the slog through downtown Tacoma itself takes about the same amount of time as the wait time would be to switch buses.
Maybe, but in general people don’t like transfers. It is a bit much to ask Lakewood 574 riders (which remember outnumber Tacoma 574 riders) to transfer twice just to get to SeaTac when they have been taking one bus there for years. If we are willing to bite the bullet and just assume that riders will find other ways from Lakewood to Tacoma and we assume that getting to Tacoma from Lakewood is just too damn unreliable then the thing to do is just run express buses from Lakewood to Federal Way (when the express from Lakewood to Seattle isn’t running). It costs more but it isn’t clear that it costs that much more. If traffic is a big issue then the worst part is likely this section here when the bus can no longer travel in the HOV lanes but must leave them just to get to the Tacoma Dome: https://maps.app.goo.gl/QqWdgRP35hPRS7UC7. That is probably when the bus is quite slow and there is no hope for that section in the foreseeable future. In contrast there are HOV lanes from South 40th Street to Federal Way and eventually there will be HOV lanes from Lakewood to Federal Way. So just to review here there would be four buses:
574: Runs only when Link isn’t running.
590: Same as today but stops at Federal Way along the way.
592: Same as today but stops at Federal Way along the way.
598: Runs from Lakewood to Federal Way (does not stop in Tacoma). Only runs when 592 isn’t running.
But that does come with a cost. Despite staying in the HOV lanes it is probably more expensive to go all the way to Federal Way rather than ending in Tacoma. That could mean the new 598 doesn’t run as often. That may be a small price to pay given the longer the trip the less important frequency is. I could also see them extending the 594 to Lakewood southbound but not northbound. That would delay riders to Lakewood but it would mean a continuation of one-seat rides from Seattle to Lakewood.
Of course the long term solution would be to have bidirectional HOV lanes to Tacoma itself. It is bizarre to me that they added all of these HOV lanes in the area but didn’t make that key connection. All the while they assume they want to spend billions running a train to the Tacoma Dome. What then? How do folks get from Lakewood to Link, let alone Downtown Tacoma? On buses stuck in traffic just getting from the HOV lanes to Tacoma itself.
Or do the 594 and 574 go to different parts of east Lakewood?
Yes, they do. They both serve the park and ride at SR 512. So does the 592. It also serves the Pierce Transit 3 and 4 as well as buses from Olympia.
The 594 then goes on to serve the Lakewood Station. In contrast the 574 serves the transit center. It is quite a walk between the station and the transit center (https://maps.app.goo.gl/m3UmoYtjfw5ewPxA6). The transit center is served by a plethora of buses, including the 3 (which goes into Downtown Tacoma). Tacoma Transit map: https://piercetransit.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5e122c82aab449f9acf4ce14b596d394.
The intense duplication between Everett and Lynnwood between CT and ST is a prime example of the lack of coordination between agencies. Having worked at two public transit agencies, I can attest that though agencies say “we work together”, it’s always an after-thought. These agencies don’t share planning roundtables and come up with a single vision as a whole.
Simply put, ST should eliminate the 512 and CT should have frequent 10-15 min daily service the 201/202. The only difference between the two agencies is one serves Mariner P&R and a few more stops while the other doesn’t. But because of rigid ideology and planners who have been on the jobs for way too long (and need to leave), we have fragmented service in some parts and duplication in others.
When all is said-and-done, CT will have the “Gold Line” running between Marysville and Everett only. This means they will have to get off at Everett and transfer to a ST Express bus to Lynnwood to catch the Link.
I think there is another factor at play, too: The boundary of the ST taxing district. Places like Maple Valley, North Bend, Arlington, Maltby and Lake Steven’s are outside of it.
That makes it awkward to look to ST Express to connect areas outside of the district. (It also is a factor to ponder for Sounder service and station structures.)
Added to that the greatly increased taxes and fees from ST3. The result is that outer communities will likely fight getting annexed into the ST taxing district – mainly to help pay for a second unneeded deep Downtown Seattle tunnel.
It’s a systems conundrum.
It could be overcome for ST to simply subsidize local bus routes run by Metro, PT and CT. However, that would be abdicating control of the routes and schedules.
I think it will happen one day. But, as with any jurisdictional issues, it will be messy and take some time to sort out.
My friend lives a 40-minute walk northwest of Ash Way P&R, with 119 that only goes halfway (now half-hourly weekdays, hourly weekends/evenings), so I wouldn’t want to lose the 512/201/202 ultra-frequency to make an already time-consuming schlep worse.
The Gold Line will force CT to truncate the 201/202 at Everett and obviate the reason for two numbers, so that may trigger a larger rethink of all the routes. ST’s tax district ends at Everett on the north, Bothell on the east, and probably Mill Creek in between. Anything beyond that CT would have to pay for. CT may eventually bow out of the 201/202, but maybe not until Everett Link or an interim 128th/Mariner Link phase.
I’m so happy that Snohomish County is finally getting 15-minute service in more corridors, and better-than-15-minute service in the Lynnwood-Everett express corridor, that I can’t begrudge it maybe overserving one corridor. It helps mitigate the decades where Snohomish County was egregiously underserved. Well, it still is egregious, but it was doubly egregious then.
Maybe CT 119 merits reaching Lynnwood Station without a transfer at Ash Way P&R. Heck, it could take I-5 between the two.
We don’t make the 594 solve all the local connectivity needs between South King County and Downtown. Why should the 512 continue to be hamstrung by similar local routing issues?
ST should eliminate the 512 and CT should have frequent 10-15 min daily service the 201/202
I wouldn’t go that far. Sound Transit has the money and mandate to run express buses. There is something to be said for running an express that serves Ash Way and one that doesn’t. I think the main weakness is that the 512 is mostly just a subset of the 201/202. I think the only stops that it serves (that the 201/202 doesn’t) are the South Everett Freeway stop and some stops in Downtown Everett. But those stops are very close to the 201/202. If the bus run through Everett in a different manner it would give more riders a chance to catch a direct express to Lynnwood (and thus Seattle).
There are more efficient alternatives. Years ago I wrote this: https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1jSsFs-bi6avJgCRGRRQBzbqIKfMHUiwv&usp=sharing. The 201/202 ends at Ash Way Park and Ride while the 512 avoids it. I’m not sure if that is a great idea. Someone in Everett likely benefits from having both buses. If you miss the express (the 512) you can take the other bus that isn’t quite as fast, but still pretty fast. Of course you would want them timed from Lynnwood (heading north) and timed from Everett Station (heading south). That is where the coordination comes in (and it wouldn’t surprise me if its lacking).
I wouldn’t want to lose the 512/201/202 ultra-frequency
I get that, but I don’t think this is essential nor is it necessarily best if the 512 provides this (as Brent mentioned). Even if you think it makes sense to provide this level of service between the Ash Way Park and Ride and Lynnwood Transit Center (and personally I don’t it is) there are better ways to do it. Brent mentioned the 119. The 109 is another option. Both just end at the Park and Ride. Both could be extended and it would save money (because the 512 doesn’t have to detour to get to the park and ride). The only drawback is that the 109 is hourly. At worst you could just run an express from Ash Way Park and Ride to Lynnwood TC. This express is meant only to get the timing right between Ash Way Park and Ride and Lynnwood. It would run consistently every hour in the middle of the day but it could also smooth any issues during peak (when you also have the 513). So with this change you have the same functionality of service (8 buses an hour from Ash Way Park and Ride to Lynnwood in the middle of the day) but the 512 is faster.
Yet it would essentially be free. This is something that is not obvious. The problem is not getting from Ash Way Park and Ride to Lynnwood, the problem is getting from Lynnwood to Everett. It takes about as long for the bus to exit the freeway and loop around as it does for a different bus to just go from the park and ride to Lynnwood Transit Center. Thus even though you are running more buses to Lynnwood TC, it doesn’t cost anything.
Meanwhile, you have provided different functionality that I would argue is better. The 109 only runs hourly but it would be nice for those riders to get a one-seat ride to Lynnwood. Likewise the 119 runs every half hour and some of those riders would appreciate that connection as well. It is worth noting that the 119 and 103 run along 148th between 52nd and 35th. The 103 goes to Lynnwood Transit Center. If the 119 also went to Lynnwood Transit Center that would mean fifteen minute service to Lynnwood TC along that section. Overall it is a big improvement (and one that doesn’t require a major restructure, just a couple of simple extensions) and it basically free. The only people that lose out are those going from Ash Way Park and Ride to Everett. Instead of eight buses an hour they get four.
Which begs the question: How many people are making that trip? Back when the 512 carried a lot more people only about 30 riders a day took the bus north from Ash Way (https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/2020-service-implementation-plan.pdf#page=98). It seems like a small price to pay for all the benefits that would come from this change.
But now you get into the issue that Jordan mentioned. If this was one agency it would be trivial to make this change. But since there are two agencies CT (which doesn’t have a lot of money) would have to come up with extra money for those extensions to Lynnwood TC. They aren’t that expensive but they aren’t free. This is a change that would save ST a little money and cost CT a little money (exactly the opposite of what makes sense for Snohomish County).
The 512 would also be more useful if it actually served downtown Everett, rather than just ending at a giant parking lot. Yes, there’s connecting buses, but a 15 minute wait to go the last mile shouldn’t be necessary.
The 510 used to serve downtown Everett, and it’s weird that the 512 doesn’t. If the 512 skipped Ash Way, perhaps the saved service time would be enough to extend the route at least a half mile into part of downtown Everett, at no net additional cost.
Extending the 119 would be a godsend for my friend since she would be on it anyway, and it would give her more of a reason to wait for it rather than walking because she’d be on it for more than a mile. It would extend 2-seat Link rides to many people in northwest Lynnwood. (You can take the 119 the other way to Mountlake Terrace station, but that’s a gargantuan detour; it’s not designed for people in the northern third of the 119.)
I’m not sure when the 510 ceased serving downtown Everett.
Most of the ET bus routes connect Everett Station to some part of downtown Everett. In a few years, that will include a Gold or Blue SWIFT bus every 5 minutes on weekdays.
Which part of downtown Everett would you have STX 512 serve? What would take its place when Everett Light Rail Station opens?
The 510 ceased serving downtown Everett as part of the service restructure that created the 512.
As to the 5-minute “ultra” frequency, you don’t really have it. Swift Blue runs every 15 minutes, not 5. Everett Transit buses run once per hour, so don’t provide any sort of consistent frequency. The Swift Gold will also be every 15 minutes, but likely not coordinated with Swift Blue, so it will likely be closer to 2 back-to-back buses every 15 minutes than one bus every 5 minutes.
@asdf2,
Small correction: Swift runs every 10 minutes most times of the day.
Swift is the closest thing this region has to a real BRT network. And the Swift connections to Link that were created when LLE opened have been extreamly successful – both for Link and for Swift.
Credit to CT for all that.
The 512 doesn’t just end at Everett Station. It serves several more stops after that: https://www.soundtransit.org/ride-with-us/routes-schedules/512. Personally I would send it up Colby to the college (to complement the 201/202 which serves Broadway) but at least the bus continues after the station.
Swift is the closest thing this region has to a real BRT network.
By “region” I assume you mean Snohomish County. Otherwise your statement is absurd. Swift Blue lags RapidRide A and E by every metric. It runs less often, serves fewer places along the way and gets a lot fewer riders (even though the corridors are similar). Swift is more of a limited-stop express.
The whole idea of BRT is that it is basically a metro but with buses. I don’t think any of our lines quite reach that but the RapidRide A and E at least resemble light rail. The stop spacing is similar and while neither have 100% BAT lanes they at least have a lot.
I would say that RapidRide G is probably the closest thing we have to BRT in the state. Imagine they ran a metro along the same corridor. Who would switch? Not that many, really. The trips are short enough that the penalty for getting to and from the platform would erase the speed advantages most of the time. If it ran like Link (every ten minutes midday) then the G is a lot more frequent. Then you have stop spacing. If it had the same stops it would not be that much faster. You would have to skip some stops to make up for the extra waiting and the extra time spent going deep into a tunnel. But if you skipped some stops you wouldn’t get that many riders. RapidRide G is the bus route that best competes with a metro, so in that sense it is by far the closest thing to BRT in the state.
Does it matter? Not really. There is a strong argument to be made that America’s obsession with BRT is misguided (https://marcochitti.substack.com/p/down-with-the-brt-long-live-the-bus). I agree. BRT is just another in a long misguided attempt to build proper transit systems in the city. We look at what they have in the rest of the world and think “Hey! We should build that!” while completely ignoring why it makes sense there and doesn’t necessarily make sense where we want to put it. Monorails, streetcars, light rail, BRT, S-Bahns — they become fads embraced for one shining moment before the local agency realizes that it didn’t really work and people are still just taking the regular buses (hoping they came more often or weren’t stuck in traffic).
The point is we should make buses faster and more frequent. By all means we should have off-board payment when it is practical. But focusing on a handful of routes and saying “these are special” is not a great approach. I understand why agencies do it (they are chasing the federal matching funds and they like the ribbon cutting) but ultimately it won’t lead to a great system. To create a great network you need to make your efforts a lot more widespread. A bus like the RapidRide D (as good as it is) should not be considered one of a handful of special high-end routes. It should be ordinary, one of dozens of similar routes spread out throughout the city.
Sound Transit extends a few late night trips to downtown Everett in order to provide some service there when nothing else is running. During the daytime, the 512 ends at Everett station.
@Brent….you are right about the 119. Route 109 should also terminate at LTC. It makes no sense for riders to double transfer at both LTC and Ash Way.
SWIFT beats RapidRide in some categories. RapidRide beats SWIFT in others. Who has the most real BRT network doesn’t interest me.
“The 109 only runs hourly but it would be nice for those riders to get a one-seat ride to Lynnwood.”
It would be nice to give riders a one-seat ride from Lynnwood because it’s hourly. All the transfer waits add up, so 10 minutes at Lynnwood and 40 minutes at Ash Way is a total of 50 minutes. And they might have made additional transfers in Seattle.
“SWIFT beats RapidRide in some categories. RapidRide beats SWIFT in others.”
That’s the fundamental nature of transit. Local routes are best for short trips. Limited-stop routes are best for medium-sized trips. Long express segments are best for long trips. The problem with Ross’s argument is it says short trips are the only ones that matter, and it ignores the needs of people making 10-mile or 20-mile trips. Even 3-5 mile trips are better on a limited-stop route if you can. The limited-stop stations are located at the largest activity nodes/transfer points that are most likely to be somebody’s endpoint because there are more people there. Even if they’re not, it may still be worthwhile to walk a bit further to a limited-stop station because it’s more performant and pleasant — you aren’t sitting aggravated through a continuous slow trickle of stops and stoplights.
BRT means it’s more frequent and faster than a regular bus route. Limited stops are part of what makes it faster. Even the G, which is not limited-stop, is still more stop-dieted than surrounding routes. Between Terry and 17th are only two stops: Boyleston and 12th. That makes a trip from the library to Trader Joe’s or from Boyleston to Trader Joe’s pleasantly fast, a much better experience than the Pine Street routes or James Street routes. If downtown were flat it would have fewer stops there, but the steep hills cut the walkshed in half.
“That’s the fundamental nature of transit. Local routes are best for short trips. Limited-stop routes are best for medium-sized trips. Long express segments are best for long trips. ”
I agree with this. A challenge is when agencies don’t coordinate with each other. For example, the Bothell Way corridor. ST decided to move to BRT with limited stops and higher frequency. Then Metro said that since ST is doing that they will cut their local service entirely. The overall result is less frequent service along the corridor with some useful stops being closed entirely. It’s a net loss unless you live near 1 of the retained stops AND are just looking to get to Link as quickly as possible.
Ross, San Francisco has all-door boarding with validators onboard, which for the majority of stops is just as fast (the driver is not involved) and a lot cheaper to implement systemwide. There are fewer buses in the fleet than stops they serve.
Muni does have off-board validators at busy stops to make boarding a bit quicker.
As Puget Sound becomes more and more digital payment, I would suggest doing the same thing, for Metro at least.
Sound Transit extends a few late night trips to downtown Everett in order to provide some service there when nothing else is running. During the daytime, the 512 ends at Everett station.
OK, I stand corrected. I misread the schedule. I looked at the map and assumed that the bus used the bus stops in Downtown Everett all day long but apparently they don’t. That explains the weird routing. But I agree, that is definitely a flaw. All the more reason for the bus to go up Colby to the college. There are a fair number of decent bus stops along the way. There is the main high school, a fair number of apartments, auditoriums, and a lot of shops.
Ross, San Francisco has all-door boarding with validators onboard
Yes, I know. If you read the comments in the essay I referenced you will find mine. In there I point out how RapidRide is rather arbitrary. The one thing that sets it apart is that it has off-board payment (i. e. all door boarding). But using that distinction the entire San Fransisco bus system is BRT. This is what the author of the essay is getting it. Would San Fransisco have done better by focusing on only a handful of routes, giving them colorful buses and fancy bus stops to do along with the off-board payment? No, of course not. The particular aspects that make a bus BRT can (and should) be applied system wide. Bus lanes, signal priority, off-board payment — these are all good things and ideally they are applied as much as possible across the entire region.
“The one thing that sets it apart is that it has off-board payment (i. e. all door boarding).”
You miss the most important things: a commitment to 15-minute weekend/evening frequency, and next-arrival displays. Off-board payment isn’t that big a deal, especially now that the pre-covid commuter crowds have disappeared. I would get really frustrated waiting 25 minutes for a bus and not knowing whether it’s on time, while one person taps the off-board reader every five minutes.
SWIFT beats RapidRide in some categories.
Like what? RapidRide E beats Swift in terms of total ridership, ridership per service hour, frequency of service, late night service, coverage, pretty much everything. Since Swift is fairly fast in places it is tempting to assume that it performs better in terms of passenger miles per platform hour. But the E Line does quite well in that regard since it runs on the fast part of Aurora which means a lot of riders get an express to downtown Seattle. Thus it is quite likely that by every measurement RapidRide E outperforms Swift Blue (and every other Swift route).
RapidRide A line performs better than the E in terms of ridership per hour but lags the A Line in passengers per platform hour, but only by a little bit. My guess is RapidRide A performs better than every Swift line as well.
This makes sense when you consider how each bus operates. For the most part RapidRide E has standard international stop spacing north of Green Lake. The A Line is similar most of the way as well. Thus these buses do especially well with trips that aren’t too far. These are the trips that most people take.
Swift Blue is basically a grand compromise. It is a limited stop express which means that many trips along the corridor just don’t work. Those riders have to ride another bus. As a result it has a shadow much of the way (the 101) which means that it doesn’t run as frequently as it could. It works well for long distance trips but not between the main destinations (Downtown Everett and Link). It is an express but during much of the route it isn’t particularly fast. There are traffic lights pretty much the entire way (there is no equivalent of the section of Aurora between Green Lake and downtown). So basically it works well for longer trips but not that many long trips.
People have a tendency to focus on longer trips even though fewer people take those trips. According to this study more than half of all auto trips are less than three miles: https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1230-march-21-2022-more-half-all-daily-trips-were-less-three-miles-2021. About 2/3 of the trips are less than five miles. There are similar numbers for transit. For example way more people ride local buses and the local metro trains (if they exist) than ride commuter rail. Yet trips on those buses and metro lines tend to be short.
But people still focus on longer trips. Maybe because they like the idea of going fast. This explains the infatuation with high speed rail even though high speed rail systems don’t carry that many people. Someone in Seattle is way more likely to want to take a trip to Tacoma than they are Portland.
You miss the most important things: a commitment to 15-minute weekend/evening frequency, and next-arrival displays.
But those aren’t unique to RapidRide. Plenty of buses that aren’t RapidRide run every fifteen minutes. Likewise there are plenty of Next-arrival displays that aren’t tied to RapidRide. What does RapidRide offer that no other bus does (other than different colored buses)? Off board payment.
It is actually one of the few arguments for RapidRide. We can’t afford to add all-door boarding for the entire system (we aren’t San Fransisco). Enforcement becomes too difficult. So let’s pick a handful of buses and provide it on those. I disagree (I think we should be like San Fransisco) but it is a reasonable argument.
I disagree about the importance of this. Average dwell times go down with off-board payment even when you don’t have a lot of crowding. It is just that you notice it more with a really crowded bus. But if it is more important in more crowded areas then this is another argument for off-board payment in crowded stops (not just focused on a particular bus).
I also think that next-arrival displays provide the most value when there is more than one bus. If I’m standing on Aurora and the only bus is the E it is nice to see when it will arrive but it doesn’t change my behavior. I look up the street to see if it is coming, sit down and wait. In contrast if I’m at Northgate Transit Center and just got off the train I may have to make up my mind in a few seconds. Do I take the bus that is just arriving even though it is a longer walk or do I wait for the other bus? If the reader says it will be here in a couple minutes I wait.
That is the bigger point. The improvements should be distributed where it will do the most good for the least amount of money. That is likely focused in a more widespread fashion — not with a handful of routes.
Of course the problem is that federal matching funds are based on routes. Add a streetcar and you can get federal matching dollars even though it doesn’t perform any better than the bus it replaced. Same goes for BRT. Provide some worthy improvements (bus lanes, off-board payment) as part of a “BRT” bus line and you can expect the feds to chip in some bucks. But make a more wide spread improvement and you are on your own.
“a commitment to 15-minute weekend/evening frequency, and next-arrival displays.”
But those aren’t unique to RapidRide. Plenty of buses that aren’t RapidRide run every fifteen minutes.”
Those aren’t guaranteed. They can go away when there’s a recession, the Seattle Transit Measure fund changes its mind, or Metro pulls the hours for equity elsewhere. And most of those 15-minute routes are 20-30 minutes evenings or Sundays.
RapidRide is a decision that this corridor will have 15-minute full-time service long-term, not just this year. The route gets next-arrival displays at most stops, not just one or two if it’s lucky. It comes with capital funds to speed up its street lane. My friend likes the bright lighting at RapidRide G stations and says it feels safer in the evenings.
“The improvements should be distributed where it will do the most good”
That’s what the RapidRide route selection is. There obviously needs to be north-south trunk routes in Ballard and on Aurora, and something to West Seattle. Pacific Highway is the highest-volume corridor and the one with the most growth potential in South King County: that’s why the A was chosen.
“That is likely focused in a more widespread fashion — not with a handful of routes.”
You need entire routes to be upgraded in order to be really effective, and to serve people that aren’t at the one or two stops that get spot treatments. The G is so popular because the entire route was upgraded. People take it from the library to Trader Joe’s or Boyleston to Trader Joe’s because all those stops were upgraded, the area in between got transit-priority lanes, it runs every 6 minutes weekdays and Saturdays, and it has displays that tell you how long you’ll be waiting (semi-reliably). If just one or two of the stops were upgraded, one or two queue jumps somewhere, if there were gaps where frequency was lower, people wouldn’t ride it as much.
RapidRide is the basic level of service all core routes should have, so that neighborhoods and districts aren’t left out of comprehensive mobility. But Metro can only do so much at a time, so it started with five RapidRide lines and is gradually adding others. The county could help with a funding boost, but it hasn’t gotten around to it yet.
“Swift Blue is basically a grand compromise.”
It’s a lower-cost alternative to intra-Snohomish streetcar or light rail lines. You should applaud the fact it chose the lower-cost option that allows it to have more corridors.
“It is a limited stop express which means that many trips along the corridor just don’t work.”
Those are a minority of trips though.
“Those riders have to ride another bus. As a result it has a shadow much of the way (the 101) which means that it doesn’t run as frequently as it could.”
It’s not Swift’s fault that CT doesn’t have enough resources to run all routes at the optimal frequency. There shouldn’t be a tradeoff between Swift or a local shadow or another route elsewhere: they should all be fully funded. Saying we can’t have robust reasonable-speed transit somewhere until we have perfect local routes everywhere just perpetuates the car dependency, low ridership, and little regard for transit that the US is plagued with. We need to dig ourself out of the hole by at least providing better transit in some corridor somewhere.
“I also think that next-arrival displays provide the most value when there is more than one bus. If I’m standing on Aurora and the only bus is the E it is nice to see when it will arrive but it doesn’t change my behavior.”
It changes how you feel. That’s important too. It tells you how aggravating the wait will be, whether you should get out your book, whether you can dip into a convenience store, whether it’s worth it waiting for the bus (otherwise you might abandon the trip, go later, or decide to go somewhere else instead), and looking at the minutes periodically helps dispel feelings of boredom and frustration.
It seems to me that after the 2 goes to Seattle, Issaquah still needs at least two express routes: one that goes to Bellevue (connecting with another bus to UW Seattle), and one that goes to Mercer Island (connecting with Link to Downtown Seattle). But maybe a (more frequent) route that just went from Issaquah to South Bellevue Station would be better.
The portion of the 554 that goes through Sammamish doesn’t really make sense to me as part of an express route. There is no highway there. There is already a local bus that covers this route.
ST is trying to continue serving the local 550 stops in south Bellevue. If only Metro had a route that performs that purpose…
But this is kinda like the Lake City Way conundrum.
The current 554-Sammamish service has really weird hours: 4-5am toward Seattle, 7:30pm-1am toward Redmond. That must be filling in for a span Metro doesn’t cover, or simply be to get buses to their bases. The 43 also has seemingly-random late/early runs: those are to get the 44 to/from the only trolley base, and it stops along the way because it’s going through there anyway, to mitigate earlier service loss (the all-day 43) or underservice (lower Broadway). The 554 may be doing this too. Or it may be filling in before/after a Metro route begins/ends.
Sammamish is in the ST tax district, so it expects some kind of regional ST service. This is it, alongside the adjacent Issaquah Highlands P&R and soon-to-open Marymoor Village station/P&R.
The ST tax district ends at Everett-Bothell-Kirkland-Redmond-Issaquah-Renton-Kent-Auburn-Sumner-Puyallup-Orting-Spanaway-Dupont.
These are lopsided between the counties: Snohomish County has the least exurban area: not Marysville, Lake Stevens, Snohomish city, or Monroe. King County is in between: not Covington, Maple Valley, or Snoqualmie. Pierce County has the most: everything south of Puyallup and Parkland, all the way to Dupont (the county border toward Olympia).
ST’s earlier East Link Connections proposal said that “selected trips” on the 554 would continue to Sammamish and Marymoor Village station. It never defined when that would be, so it may or may not be the same as current service. I assume there will be peak service to Marymoor Village station for those going to Microsoft or vicinity.
The 550’s predecessors (226 and 235) served the south Bellevue Way area (although not on that street; they were on 108th and 104th). When the 550 was created, ST asked the community whether to serve south Bellevue Way or use the faster 405 alternative. The majority of feedback was for Bellevue Way, because it was the densest area in Bellevue at the time (apartments all along it).
Later it became obvious that the stop at NE 4th & Bellevue Way was especially important, because half the off-peak riders come from there. Main Street is probably the third-biggest stop in the Eastside segment. (Although the Link transfer at South Bellevue may have overtaken it; it’s what I use.)
The Link alignment has several drawbacks, because it doesn’t serve the Bellevue Way stops at NE 4th or Main. Instead it skirts low-density Surrey Downs.
ST is trying to continue serving the local 550 stops in south Bellevue.
Yes, it serves Bellevue Way, a key corridor that ST currently covers. Like much of the route it makes more sense as a Metro route but someone has to serve it. But there is also value in having a one-seat ride to Downtown Bellevue from Issaquah.
this is kinda like the Lake City Way conundrum.
Yes, although I think the Lake City Way/Bothell Way problem is worse. The route of the new proposed 554 is fine. The only issue is stop spacing. In general it is pretty good but I would have the bus stop at Bellevue Way and SE 6th (https://maps.app.goo.gl/VgudvCkKe5wJA1zUA) since it will be the only bus along that corridor in the future and it should have a decent number of riders. But that’s about it. The route and the stop spacing are pretty good (assuming it serves the bus stops in Issaquah).
For the most part the stop spacing on the future 522 is OK as well. ST will inexplicably skip some fairly high quality bus stops (in Kenmore) with the future Stride Line. But the 331 already serves those stops (with the last restructure). The bigger problem is that the routing is flawed. It would be OK if there was layover at 145th & Lake City Way but there isn’t. So instead you have two many buses running along 145th and no bus running from Bothell Way to Lake City Way (i. e. Kenmore to Lake City). Thus both ST buses might as well be Metro buses but it really isn’t an issue as long as ST just serves the bus stops along the way. The future 522/Stride has an additional problem though: the routing is poor. The current routing of the 522 is better.
There will doubtless be people going from Issaquah to Bellevue Square, since there are people going from Seattle to Bellevue Square. They will appreciate the Bellevue Way routing.
There will doubtless be people going from Issaquah to Bellevue Square, since there are people going from Seattle to Bellevue Square. They will appreciate the Bellevue Way routing.
Yes, and plenty of people not from Issaquah will use those stops as well. It will be a fast way to get to the college (if you don’t mind walking) or Eastgate. But plenty of people will use those stops and never ride the bus west of 405.
Back in the olden days (when ST published stop data) ridership along Bellevue Way was quite respectable. A lot of the trips were both directions. For example at Bellevue Way & SE 3rd over 75 people took the bus heading towards Downtown Bellevue and over 100 people took the bus heading towards Seattle (https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/2020-service-implementation-plan.pdf#page=138). With the addition of East Link and more buses to Downtown Bellevue I would expect those numbers to grow. The new 554 may get a lot of riders even if it doesn’t get that many from Issaquah.
“at Bellevue Way & SE 3rd over 75 people took the bus heading towards Downtown Bellevue and over 100 people took the bus heading towards Seattle”
Of course. That’s the Bellevue High School stop, and students take it northbound to go home. I lived on 102nd around SE 5th, and took its predecessors south to Seattle and north to my job at Wendy’s on NE 10th, or to transfer to other routes at Bellevue Transit Center.
In the spirit of the video and a recent polling about gondolas, I have to ask:
Would Seattle benefit from any public funiculars? There are several private ones on the estates of some Eastside Lake Washington mansions but no public ones.
It would be interesting to also know what the full cost allocation of their construction, operation and maintenance are.
I’ve been wondering the opposite, whether a gondola might be more ideal for the second funicular’s route. It would have less obtrusive infrastructure (no ground tracks, smaller stanchions), it could have several cabs instead of two (increasing frequency), and the cabs would look nice hanging in the air.
The funicular was built in 1900, so one question would be whether gondolas existed then and what they were like. Would a 1900-era gondola be more obtrusive, louder, or less reliable?
Good point, Mike!
There are both aerial tramways and gondolas. They operate differently.
I think of an aerial tramway like a funicular. It’s also sort of like a diagonal elevator that is exposed to the elements.
I think if a gondola as a series of smaller vehicles that hook and unhook from a cable as needed.
I see advantages and disadvantages to both. But the latter has a technology different than the former, which is very much like a funicular.
Maybe I should have asked about either a funcicular or aerial tramway.
Yeah, I think that gondolas (that cars that hook and unhook) are especially well suited for longer, more complex systems. For an aerial tram the car is fixed onto the cable. These can work in any system but are especially well suited for short, point to point trips. To quote Wikipedia about the one in Portland:
Two tram cars operate in a pendular mode on parallel track ropes and are pulled in unison by a haul rope which is driven by an engine at the lower terminal; when one car is at the upper terminal, the other is at the lower terminal, and vice versa.
Since the trip only takes three minutes it means riders have to wait at most three minutes. You can more tram cars but it means each tramcar waits while people board. Thus aerial tram cars tend to be bigger and the trips tend to be shorter.
I was surprised at the short distance between stations. It almost didn’t seem worth it to wait for and board a funicular for that, especially if you’re going only one station. But I’m probably underestimating the steepness of the hill. Although if the hill is so steep you need to take a funicular between every row of houses, or just three or four short stops to a transfer to the rest of the world, I probably wouldn’t want to live on that hillside.
Outside of the SLU-Cap Hill corridor that’s already mentioned, perhaps a gondola version of the 4 from Pioneer Square to Garfield (via Harborview, Broadway/Jefferson, and Swedish)?
That’s a very slow corridor with proven all-day ridership. I don’t see it getting any faster unless the freeway ramps are closed.
Outside of the SLU-Cap Hill corridor that’s already mentioned, perhaps a gondola version of the 4 from Pioneer Square to Garfield (via Harborview, Broadway/Jefferson, and Swedish)?
That’s a very slow corridor with proven all-day ridership. I don’t see it getting any faster unless the freeway ramps are closed.
Metro and SDOT actually came up with a good solution but they backed out because too many people wanted the current routing. The idea was to use Yesler and 9th instead. This would not only speed up the bus but improve service to Yesler Terrace. But too many riders complained about losing service to 5th.
Assuming we can’t fix the pathway both directions on the James, maybe we can fix it westbound. If so then we could make service along James be the tail of a route. For example instead of ending at Main the 70 could turn on James and head up the hill and end up there. If it is stuck in traffic, so be it. This would only effect people headed to those stops. The key would be making it fast westbound so that there would be no delay for riders on the rest of the route.
The 70 is about to become RapidRide I. There was no First Hill extension in the project.
“Metro and SDOT actually came up with a [Yesler plan for the 3/4] but they backed out because too many people wanted the current routing.”
Where “too many people” means a few activists for the jail stop.
A nice design feature of funiculars are when they are stair stepped inside, which allows for level boarding (as opposed to boarding at an angle). That makes it easier for wheelchairs, strollers, bicycles and luggage.
However it does create a boarding challenge because once in the vehicle, a rider must walk up or down steps to get to other sections of the vehicle.
I love-hate the new pedestrian & bicycle design along the waterfront.
I work for a private transportation firm and I have spent many work hours at Piers 55 and 66. Though I am 100% in favor of increased pedestrian space and mobility, the bicycle design seemed … perhaps confusing? It was very easy, as a pedestrian, to walk along the bike path without knowing you’re on a bike path. We had 5 private buses load/unload guests for Argosy Cruises and congregated in the bike path – to the frustration of a few cyclists. The landscaping, though pretty, blocked access from the pedestrian path to the curb, so we had dozens of people climbing over the plants. Plus, the cyclists seemed to never stop for pedestrians crossing the path to cross the street. There are no stop signs for cyclists (unless I missed them).
But the biggest concern is the newly planned bike path at pier 66 – directly in front of the main cruise terminal. Literally hundreds of large motorcoaches, Ubers/Lyfts, taxis and semi trucks use this space to transport up to 5000 people per boat. To place a bike path in front of the cruise terminal is like putting a path in front of the terminal along the airport driveway.
Could there be a better design for the bike path along the waterfront?
Yeah the bike path by the waterfront is okay but has a lot of conflict points.
The bike path by Pier 66 will be closed when cruise ships dock, and riders will need to cross the street. See:
https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/programs/bike-program/protected-bike-lanes/alaskan-way-protected-bike-lane
I liked the bike path, but it isn’t for the sweaty. It only works well and safely at a mosey. Weekend warriors can’t keep it under 10mph need to get in the street or stay uphill.
There aren’t bike stop signs, but there are bike stop lights.
I have been biking on the waterfront since the beginning of passenger only/water taxi service to Vashon. The current waterfront bike way is a vast improvement from the viaduct days but it is still very busy with many crosswalks and signals. So many that I suspect most cyclists and all the folks on scooters will just ignore them. Pedestrians too for that matter. The utter disregard for traffic lights by the rolling community in Seattle is utterly astounding!
The new trail to the sculpture park will be great but only if they repave the road surface. The current surface is bone jarring!
@ Oz… agreed that cyclists/scooters mostly disregard signs and signals. This infuriates me as a pedestrian and motorist.
I’m getting frustrated at the increasing number of blocked sidewalks happening lately. People are leaving their Line scooters and bicycles blocking sidewalks more often these days. If people won’t quit being so irresponsible with leaving them, the City is going to have to create and enforce laws to deal with the blockages.
Another thing that would help are designated pads next to sidewalks for these. It’s staggering how many square feet we allocate to bicycle lanes that these rented scooters and bicycles are using — yet not spending any money to provide just a few more square feet to park them.
14 different bike lights between Alaska near the aquarium and the Water Taxi Terminal. Some tall some short but the majority are associated with distinct crossings.
The amount of pit bulls I’ve seen on buses lately is nuts. Guarantee we are going to have some sort of incident onboard with a rider being attacked. These are dangerous dogs to begin with, then barely handled by some druggie street kid onboard a jam packed bus.
Funny you should mention that. I was on the 101/150 from SODO to IDS and there was a gargantuan pitbull at the foot of its owner in the articulated mid=section. It started barking at a passing rider. This was a couple days ago.
I’ve read that pitbulls as a whole are no more violent than other dogs.
Yes, that’s true. But I’d rather be bit by a corgi rather than a pitbull. I think that’s where the fear is often perpetuated cuz they historically been used for protection.
My nephew has a pit bull. It’s a very affectionate, quiet dog. It is a bit scary to look at — but that’s because of the bias created by public perception and their sturdy build. They also seem more easily trainable and loyal, so I can see why some people train them to attack.
But there are many loyal breeds that can be trained as attack dogs. Picking on just pitbulls seems rather specific and a canine version of racism.
I see the bigger issue as dogs on transit generally. There seems to be lots of people who want to take their pet everywhere. It’s a complicated issue but transit agencies need consistent rules to protect overall rider safety. Trying to manage policies that let some non-service dogs on transit but not others seems difficult. What driver would deny someone boarding with their dog? What about situations where all-door boarding and tap-on at the stop happen — like on light rail?
And several years ago, some rider dropped their Komodo dragon lizard on a Metro 2 bus I was on, and it went sliding all the way to the back of the bus as it went up a hill. The handler just picked it up and nothing else happened.
Bulldogs’ build makes them prone to breathing difficulties. They need more genetic diversity to revert to an anatomy that’s healthier for the dogs. So the issue with bulldogs is not what they do to people. but what we’ve done to them.
I think it’s important that well behaved pets be allowed on transit. To prohibit it would effectively force anyone who owns a pet to own a car. Considering how expensive cars are, and that a large percentage of people have pets, I don’t think that’s reasonable.
Some cities have rules requiring pets on transit to be enclosed in a carrier, but even that, I think is unreasonable, as it would require the rider to lug the carrier around everywhere they go for the entire trip. This might be ok for a trip to the vet – if the vet is located very close to a bus stop – but is impractical for recreational trips. For instance, if I take my dog to Marrymoor Park, I’m not going to lug a pet carrier all the way from the nearest transit stop. Again, such a rule effectively requires that all dog owners buy cars.
Obviously, any pets on transit need to be well behaved, but it’s important to be reasonable.
Portland is starting an extensive reconstruction of the 82nd Ave MAX station.
https://news.trimet.org/2025/04/trimet-prepares-to-keep-riders-moving-during-major-renovation-of-ne-82nd-ave-max-station/
Sadly, as best as I can tell, this doesn’t include adding a second elevator and staircase on the west side of 82nd Ave.
Glenn, I often look at Google Maps of cities and fantasize implementing rail lines in areas that seem dense – without knowing any context behind each neighborhood. When it comes to PDX, would i make sense to place a subway underneath Division St or Powell Blvd?
When I look at potential rail corridors I look at two key things — destination activity and parking cost first.
A street can be lined with 5-over-1 apartment buildings. But will that result in ridership? To me, it depends on lots of factors. But unless there is a dense and especially costly-to-park destination that it’s oriented to, it’s only going to increase transit use in a modest way (proportional to the increased density) rather than in a big way (where residents profoundly change modes from driving to transit).
And for a much more costly rail line investment, I think a community needs to “earn” a station by imposing on-street paid parking and other similar parking rules. If someone has to pay a transit fare, they will mostly choose to drive unless that trip also involves paying to park in time (effort) and money. To me, this is more so when high viaducts or bored tunnels/ deep stations are involved.
There are many miles of light rail around the US built that have terrible ridership. ST right now has some of the best if not the best number of boardings per mile so we are less aware of light rail ridership disappointments in other metro areas.
Take a look at San Jose’s light rail ridership to fathom what can happen. On paper at a macro scale, the Light rail between North San Jose and Sunnyvale is lined with major employers and several apartment buildings — yet few ride that light rail segment. But at least that segment is at-grade and not on high viaducts or in bored tunnels.
Powell is wide enough and loud enough that to me it would make more sense as an elevated line. It’s a bit like 99 south of Tukwila, but built through a semi-dense area. Bus route 9 is decently busy.
If TriMet were to invest in a tunnel in the Eastside, it would make more sense on Division or Hawthorne or Belmont. Those are old streetcar lines, have enough transit use they’ve sometimes overwhelmed the buses (sometimes in the 1990s TriMet would schedule the Hawthorne bus to 3 minute headways peak period, and Belmont to 5 min), and crowded enough you really don’t want to try to put transit on the surface. They’re all narrow, 2 lane streets dating to the 1920s, and really not set up to handle modern auto traffic.
When I look at potential rail corridors I look at two key things — destination activity and parking cost first.
People often refer to “density” when it comes to transit. A lot of people just assume they mean residential population density, but it also refers to other types of density. Employment density is the most common type. But it includes destinations like schools, hospitals, concert halls, etc.
There are plenty of studies showing higher parking costs also lead to more transit. There is also a strong correspondence between parking cost and density. Thus high parking has a direct impact on transit ridership but it also serves as a proxy. There are exceptions but those are typically subsidized. Transit agencies, private malls and cities often allow free or cheap parking to encourage people to drive to those areas. That makes it more complicated.
One aspect of transit that often gets ignored is competition from driving. We have a tendency to think of the worst traffic even though most trips take place throughout the day. So we think of driving along the freeway as “slow” even though most of the time it is blazing fast. Even when it is slower than the speed limit it still much faster than surface streets. But we just accept an average driving speed of 15 MPH (in the middle of the day) on surface streets because it is normal. Thus a grade-separated solution (typically a subway/metro train) can compete really well for those sorts of trips while it becomes more of a challenge along a freeway corridor.
Often these all go together. The trips that have a lot of population and destination density are often right in the city. Parking often costs a lot because of this density and because the various agencies aren’t trying to encourage driving. (Or the free parking is so minimal it doesn’t matter — e. g. Green Lake Park and Ride.) Trips between these places are often slow in the middle of the day (there is no freeway connecting them). I typically refer to these trips as “urban” even though there are plenty of suburban places that exhibit the same characteristics.
“People often refer to “density” when it comes to transit. A lot of people just assume they mean residential population density, but it also refers to other types of density. Employment density is the most common type. But it includes destinations like schools, hospitals, concert halls, etc.”
There’s also two-way density vs one-way density. A residential-only area has people leaving in the morning and afternoon, and returning in the afternoon and evening, so ridership is lumpy and one-way. An area with both residential and commercial has both that and people coming to the businesses, and it’s also complementary because some people are going at the same time other people are coming. That can double ridership and make it more even both directions.
That’s the biggest problem with 23rd Ave, 15th Ave NE, etc: the miles of residential-only areas between the urban villages. There should be more retail mixed in. That’s what Vancouver and San Francisco have more of in their neighborhood transit corridors.
The retail also needs to attract people from outside the neighborhood. That can’t happen everywhere, but there should be more of it in the smaller villages. People won’t ride three miles to a chain store when they have another closer one, but they will ride to a Polish deli or a good yoga studio or a garden store wherever it is even if it’s 5+ miles away.