17 days until the Downtown Redmond Link Extension opens on May 10. Opening day details.
Local Transit & Streets:
- Someone hacked crosswalk buttons to play a fake message from Jeff Bezos saying “This crosswalk is sponsored by Amazon Prime… please don’t tax the rich” (KUOW).
- Major utility work is finally prompting Pike Place Market to test closing Pike Place to general traffic (The Urbanist)
- Seattle City Council and SDOT are planning a major expansion of traffic cameras (The Urbanist)
- With its car ferries often behind schedule, WSDOT is running a 10-week test of supplemental passenger-only service between the San Juans (The Seattle Times, $). Meanwhile, the State Legislature is considering cutting funding for “foot ferries” as it tries to pass a transportation budget with minimal tax increases despite massive basic cost increases (The Urbanist).
- Metro’s new all-electric bus base in Tukwila is almost finished (Metro Matters)
Other Transportation:
- A look a urban rail in Africa (Reece Martin)
- An interactive tour of the NYC subway system’s century-old controls (New York Times, gift link)
- Congestion pricing is doing even better than advocates dreamed (Curbed NYC)
- “Culdesac Tempe” promises car-free living in suburban Arizona, and residents actually like it (New York Times, gift link)
- Caltrain’s switch to all-electric operations immediately cut its air pollution by 89% (Interesting Engineering)
- Lawsuits in Arizona, Tennessee, and Texas are challenging voter-approved transit expansions (States Newsroom)
- A history of New Orleans’ Streetcars (Big Easy Magazine)
Land Use & Housing:
- The history of Montlake from 1850 to today shows how it became a “suburb in the middle of Seattle” (The Seattle Times, $)
- Mapping out missed opportunities in Seattle’s new Comprehensive Plan (The Urbanist)
Commentary & Miscellaneous:
- The National Resource Defense Council says all 50 State DOTs need do more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation (Streetsblog USA)
- “The Populus” in Denver claims to be ‘Carbon Positive’ – is it just hype? (New York Times, gift link)
- Pedestrian deaths are skyrocketing – is it dangerous drivers, bad roads, or something else? (Governing)
This is an Open Thread. Do you want to help fill our front page? Contact us! We are 100% volunteer – your voice could help drive the conversation on the Blog.
The Urbanist article doesn’t sound like “Seattle City Council and SDOT are planning a major expansion of traffic cameras” to me. It sounds more like Councilor Saka is going to treat any revenues generated as his personal slush fund aimed at blocking bus priority and safety treatments.
I really do not get people’s objection to obeying the law. That is what all the yadda-yadda about traffic cameras is about: narcissistic, selfish morons who think that their “schedule” is more important than someone else’s life.
And the business about “the police can’t prove it was me driving the car” is intellectual garbage. If you don’t want your idiot kid speeding through a camera, don’t lend him your car.
End of grumpy old man rant.
I think cars should all be required to have GPS speed recorders that keep the last fifteen minutes of history that would be locked automatically by a crash or a police action.
Perhaps “major” is an overstatement, but SDOT is definitely planning an expansion of the school zone traffic camera program, and my takeaway from the reporting is that the City is looking to further expand use of the cameras. That seems pretty significant to me in a state that has been extremely hesitant to deploy traffic cameras despite proven utility.
I understand the equity concerns, but that just tells me they need to put more cameras in the North End than they do on the South End, if they’re really worried about disproportionate impact of ticketing.
I agree. “doubling the number of schools equipped with automated cameras and installing them outside of school zones for the first time” (as the Seattle Times put it) seems like a major expansion to me. Folks who complain about excessive impact on low-income people ignore the fact that the entire justice system works that way. Unlike in other (more advanced) countries, fines don’t take into account income or wealth. A $100 fine is much harder on someone making minimum wage than it is someone pulling down two hundred grand a year. But that is the case for all fines.
We also can’t ignore the fact that speeding cameras do not just raise money — they get people to drive slower. There is plenty of evidence to support this. If they are applied in areas where there are a lot of low-income people then more low-income people will benefit (by avoiding accidents). Asking the handful of people who drive too fast to pay a fine (even if it is a higher proportion of their income) is worth it.
The equity angle has always come off as disingenuous to me. Should we accept speeding in less wealthy neighborhoods because we don’t want to ticket the people who live there? Those same neighborhoods tend to have many more crashes than wealthy neighborhoods.
There are other ways around equity concerns: ticket reduction based on income; deferred payment plans; community service plans; etc. When I was in school I took a “bike safety” course in lieu of paying a fine for pulling an Idaho stop at a stop sign. I thought that was a dumb ticket, but I was glad I didn’t have to pay for it.
I am not a fan of robo-cops, even when they are mounted to a pole and unable to move; it sets a bad precedent. Robots should serve us, not rule us.
A traffic or red light camera is not “ruling” you unless you think the cameras are installing themselves. (Hint: they are not.)
Don’t like getting tickets from red light or speed cameras? Don’t speed or run red lights. Easy peasy.
If only there was a way to avoid being “ruled” by these “robo-cops.” To me, an Idiot Tax is a tax I don’t need to pay.
It’s not a personal thing; I am not afraid of traffic tickets.
The prospect of a society where law enforcement is done by algorithms, monitoring a surveillance network, sounds overall pretty dystopian. I don’t want to live that way. Let’s not build that! We should stop what we’ve already begun building in that direction.
Traffic problems are better solved with engineering than the threat of punishment. Let’s build better roads, instead: roads designed not to invite speeding. Let’s also build better transit, so fewer people have to drive at all.
Automated traffic cameras don’t force cars to pull over and block traffic. Cameras don’t proceed to have shootouts with the drivers. Cameras don’t have the “discretion”, to say “Sorry ma’am. I just noticed your license tabs are expired. I will ignore it this time.”
“Traffic problems are better solved with engineering than the threat of punishment.”
I agree. This should be a “last resort” tool. I’m waiting to see if SDOT chooses locations based on accident’s or where they think that they can make the most money. If it’s the latter, it would clearly be a revenue generation scheme as opposed to a traffic safety concept.
Local drivers also quickly learn where such cameras exist. After several months, drivers will driver slower to avoid a ticket for a few blocks – and speed right back up after the camera. So after the first year, the revenue will drop.
A final note that this hits poor citizens financially more than rich citizens. It’s too bad that the fine can’t be pro rated to the car’s value.
@Al S.
So, you’re saying drivers will slow down around schools and parks where there tends to be more people? Sounds good to me!
Don’t want to pay a ticket? Don’t speed and run red lights.
“Traffic problems are better solved with engineering than the threat of punishment.”
Yeah, sure — that goes for all crime. But at the end of the day I want the police to catch murderers. It is like Scandinavia. All the countries have a robust safety net. As a result there is a lot less crime. But they still have a top notch police force. Your chances of getting away with murder there is a lot less than it is in the US. Same goes for those who drive too fast. These cameras are common in Europe (even though they have better road engineering).
I find it bizarre that people are raising human rights concerns about a practice that is common in countries with a much better human rights record than the US (even before Trump). It is not the robots you need to be afraid of. It is ICE.
“So, you’re saying drivers will slow down around schools and parks where there tends to be more people?”
No I’m saying that drivers will slow down only for a block or two to avoid tickets. If SDOT puts them where there are fewer accidents (but better revenue potential) they don’t help safety like they could. That’s why I made the initial comment!
If SDOT had them every three blocks on every busy street it could have a systems effect. But it would be very expensive to construct and maintain. Hence the comment that that kind of money is better spent on preemptive safety design measures first. While the injuries may not be as severe, dangerous design still results in more accidents.
While I see where you are coming from, I have to disagree. I used to work graveyard shift doing security. There was an intersection i would need to cross while on patrol. There were multiple times I was nearly run over by speeding vehicles running a red light. Since there was almost no traffic, people who lived and worked in the area would just run the light, while I was crossing the street. The cameras put a stip to that.
“Traffic problems are better solved with engineering than the threat of punishment.”
In traffic safety world, there are fixable traffic safety problem and unfixable. If it is not fixable safety issue, then that’s up to law enforcement to deal with it.
Paying a traffic ticket is not like going to jail. You see that as a punishment but I see that as because certain drivers are in higher risk in contributing to traffic incidents (because they speed or run red lights), so they are obliged to pay more for their road use. It is just like auto insurance charges people more after accident.
Yeah, traffic cameras work. They generate a lot of money initially but eventually people slow down. Then they continue to make money, but not as much. In Seattle there is likely a very high correspondence between areas where they will get a lot of money and areas where there are a lot of accidents. For example Aurora seems like the type of place where lots of people speed and sure enough, Aurora has a lot of accidents (especially accidents involving pedestrians).
I get the idea that “we should do other things” but countries that have done other things also have red light and speeding cameras. Europe overall is way ahead of the US when it comes to traffic safety and my guess is every country has cameras. Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Japan — countries that are especially good at reducing accidents also have plenty of cameras. It is not all they do, but it is an important part of what they do. https://datahub.roadsafety.gov.au/progress-reporting/international-comparisons, https://www.scdb.info/en/karte/.
HZ and Ross summed up the arguments for more cameras succinctly and well. Arguments against them based on “personal choice” are narcissistic lies.
I’d be fine with no cameras if killing a pedestrian in a cross-walk were treated as First Degree Homicide. The driver CHOSE to enter that cross-walk. It was not an “accident” or the term-du-jour, “crash”.
The new electric bus base is visible from Link while traveling to or from the airport. I was able to see the progress myself on a recent trip.
Hopefully these are more successful than the Proterras. I’m still concerned about the need to buy a significant percentage more electric buses than the standard hybrids due to charging and then the extra required land to store them. Also just a shorter lifespan due to the battery. These battery buses feel like a waste of valuable transit resources to push some not thought through feel-good environment mandate by people who don’t use transit (fortunately the governor is pushing back on the ferry electrification). And to say nothing of the environmental impacts of batteries. The hybrids are very clean, it’s not like they are replacing some smoke belching bus from 1960. IMO if you are going to go for electric, just electrify more of the trolley bus network.
When I read about the Stride program I was very surprised to see a fairly expensive price tag for a new bus base (half a billion). That seems like a lot of money given that there won’t be that many buses. Then I realized it was because they are electric.
It just doesn’t seem like a great use of money. Working with BNSF to electrify Sounder seems like a better value if ST is dying to spend money on that sort of thing. Personally I would just focus on service and adding more trolley buses. Of course the same goes for Metro.
Were downtown streets really still dirt in 1929?
I think this the photo is documenting reconstruction of the street, but details are sparse on the photo page.
Atlantic Base was all electric trolleybus when it began. Later, RapidRide lines have been added; it adjoins Central Base. Jefferson Base was a huge ETB base for Seattle Transit; its land was absorbed by Seattle University.
With the dieselization of routes 2-13, 12, and 70, there must be many ETB sitting idle in AB. Could Route 9 become ETB between East Aloha Street and Mt. Baker?
SDOT originally intended the Madison BRT to be ETB, but eventually decided that articulated hybrid buses better fit their objectives (e.g., island stops with level boarding, bikes on buses instead of using racks, given the platforms). See: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/metro-and-seattle-promised-electric-trolleybuses-on-a-new-madison-rapidride-turns-out-that-wont-work/
SDOT considered other terminals aside from East Arthur Place: Madison Park and 21st-23rd avenues. SDOT read opposition to restoring the overhead in Madison Park. Route 11 was ETB between 1940 and 1963.
Note that the G Line has ended up being another radial line oriented to downtown Seattle via First Hill. When planning began, U Link had not opened. When the G Line opened, Link had extended to Lynnwood. The RR program would have been better off improving crosstown service and leaving the radial work to Link. Feed Link!
What is the word about battery life and power for articulated buses?
There has been little indication of any significant difference in travel range/power for 60′ versus 40′ buses, which tells me there likely isn’t much difference. I assume the extra battery capacity in a 60′ bus is likely negated by the additional rolling resistance from its third axle and additional weight overall.
The RR program would have been better off improving crosstown service and leaving the radial work to Link. Feed Link!
The problem is a lack of stations with Link. This is abundantly clear with RapidRide G. Imagine if Link had a stop at 23rd & Madison. Now the G connects with Link at both ends (more or less). Likewise if there was a “First Hill” stop (which was originally planned) it is quite likely it would connect with the G right in the middle of the bus line.
Given the lack of stations east of downtown there is only so much you can do in terms of routing. Capitol Hill Station is an excellent station but it is limited from a network standpoint. It works great for buses on Broadway as well as John. This is yet another argument for having the 49 continue on Broadway instead of veering off to downtown (it can feed link for those trips). But because there is only one station there it doesn’t work very well if you are south or east. I want to send the 2 down Pine. It would be a bit much to send it all the way up to John just to connect to Link.
The same is true for Judkins Park Station. It will work well for buses on Rainier or 23rd. But it doesn’t work for the 14 (which runs on Jackson) or the 27 (on Yesler). Nor do I think either bus should be altered to make a connection.
Ultimately there aren’t enough stops on Link to provide the kind of synergy that would be ideal. In many cases the bus system and light rail line must work in parallel instead. I think the biggest weakness with the bus system is not the lack of feeding Link but the overall network itself. Twenty minutes buses on the urban part of Capitol Hill is outrageous and avoidable. Yet that is just one of many examples of an outdated (or just poorly designed) network.
To be fair, Route 14 does connect with Link at Mt Baker. Metro has often floated using Route 27 to replace the Mt Baker tail and end at Mt Baker’s TC next to Link as well.
I see the lost opportunity of Judkins Park is its failure to have anywhere to turn around vehicles generally — shuttles, buses and even private vehicles and Uber/Lyft. The street grid is disrupted by terrain and I-90. Unfortunately, this is another concept that few think is a design oversight currently.
To be fair, Route 14 does connect with Link at Mt Baker.
Yeah, and more importantly, CID. So folks who are headed to the East Side don’t have to backtrack too far. I was just thinking that if you designed a system focused on connectivity (and cost wasn’t an issue) you would likely have a station at Rainier & Jackson and another one at 23rd & Jackson. Then a lot of people would have a more straightforward way to get to the East Side.
But my main point is that you run your buses for the stations we have. Just because the 14 doesn’t connect well with East Link doesn’t mean it should be moved. It just isn’t worth it.
I see the lost opportunity of Judkins Park is its failure to have anywhere to turn around vehicles generally
I disagree. I don’t see any buses ending there. It is a major transfer point but not a major destination. It is also in the middle of things. In that sense it is like the Pinehurst Station. It very important for transfers but buses should just keep going. In contrast ending some buses at Mount Baker makes sense and it would make sense even if Link didn’t exist. It is a major crossroads. There are basically three corridors coming from the north (23rd, MLK and Rainier) and two going south (MLK and Rainier). Ending at least one of the buses there is sensible. It is also a significant destinations (with the high school there). It would make sense as a terminus even if Link wasn’t there. The two Link stations make the case for the turnaround stronger. With three corridors to the north it is more likely a bus from the north terminates there which means that every north-south bus (on those corridors) connects to both stations. (As it turns out both the 8 and 48 terminate there but it is the same idea).
Mount Baker Transit Center is like Lake City. Not only is Lake City a relatively significant destination but several roads converge there; more from the south than the north. Several of the buses keep going but it is quite reasonable to have some end there. It is not an official transit center but the Lake City Fred Meyer is basically that. (The future 522 and Swift 3 break the pattern though, which means we could really use a turnaround/layover by 145th and Lake City Way.)
Yes, before the G Line, a Route 49-Madison would have connected with Capitol Hill station and served both First Hill and downtown. After the G Line, Route 9, absorbing routes 49 and 7, could connect the U District and Rainier Beach stations via the Capitol Hill, Judkins, and Mt. Baker stations. The R line capital could improve its flow. If Metro wanted operators to fall back, it might be done at Denny or Mt. Baker, but that would not be necessary. Metro needs to restore the overhead in Montlake and add overhead to South Henderson Street, as has been intended for 20 years.
But right of way is scarce. Does it makes sense to add PBL to South Henderson Street? Or even Broadway (McGinn FHSC project)?
Yes, reducing service on routes 10, 12, and 49 in fall 2024 was sad. There were other ways of funding the G Line service, or, SDOT and Metro could have renegotiated given the TBD choice in 2020.
Yes, reducing service on routes 10, 12, and 49 in fall 2024 was sad. There were other ways of funding the G Line service, or, SDOT and Metro could have renegotiated given the TBD choice in 2020.
It is just bad routing. It would be bad routing if the G ran every half hour. But it is worse because the G runs every 6 minutes (and is fast). The bad routing leads to bad headways. The 10 and 12 should branch much later (if at all). Twenty minute frequency for Volunteer Park is one thing. A branch at Aloha is reasonable. But it is inexcusable (and easily preventable) to run buses that infrequently around Kaiser. A bus should run every ten minutes through there.
Same goes for the 49. It wastes so much of its time going downtown — even though there are other buses (and Link) that do the same thing — that it runs infrequently too. Bad routing leads to infrequent service.
When the G Line was being planned, I suggested that it run on 23rd to the UW campus and Link Station. No one else seemed interested in doing that at the time.
(Going to MLK made that more difficult, although it could still use LWB to reach Montlake and UW Link Station.)
One problem that emerges is that it would duplicate Route 48. Before Link opened up UW, Route 48 had lots more riders as a crosstown route. It is still important after midnight when Link trains don’t run through Downtown.
I think running to UW would have cost too much. That doubles the length of the line, which would have doubled the cost as well (capital as well as operating).
If the 48 was more frequent and the transfer situation at 23rd/Madison was better it wouldn’t really be an issue.
Running across the bridge creates major reliability problems. As John mentioned it also increases the cost for a section that would have much lower ridership. If memory serves eddie wanted to combine it with the 49. That way it connects to Link. That has the same set of issues. I could see it branching (and there are a lot of ways of doing that) but that creates other issues. I get the value of those alternatives but I really think they have it right. Run a bus that just goes straight on one of our major corridors. Make it fast and frequent — a core route serving that area. I’m not saying the implementation was perfect (I still think they should have run contraflow downtown and some of the transfers are really bad) but the general idea is fine. The problem is the network surrounding around it.
It does work with Link (if coming from the south) but mostly it complements it. The problem is that the planners ignored that. Go back to riders of the 49. If they boarded at the UW they aren’t headed downtown (otherwise they would have taken Link) so sending the bus down Broadway would likely benefit more of those riders. But someone could board north of Capitol Hill Station (CHS) and want to go downtown. The bus runs right by Link. But that still is a bit awkward if the goal is downtown. The rider spends a lot of time doing up and down to the platforms when they are just headed a few blocks. What you want it a bunch of buses going east on Pike/Pine, maybe a frequent bus going down Madison, frequent buses going on Jefferson/James and a bunch of buses going west on Jackson. We actually have all that now with the RapidRide G (and the other buses). So why is the 49 heading downtown? Tradition!
Anyway, with the 49 going down Broadway and the streetcar going down Broadway that gives us a lot more buses on Broadway while actually saving money. Now folks headed from the north end of Link (e. g. Northgate) can get to various First Hill locations with the same level of frequency as the RapidRide G (if both the streetcar and the 49 ran every 12 minutes). It also means that the 49 connection with CHS is a lot more valuable. In other words, we feed Link a lot better.
Meanwhile, Link isn’t the only game in town. A lot of people go to First Hill from the buses to the north as well (Aurora, Westlake, over Queen Anne, etc.). For them the RapidRide G interface is just fine. Heading back north would be kind of weird (if they wanted to do that they would just ride the 8). No, when it comes to the network the G is just fine — it is everything around it that could use work.
The Legislature misdiagnosed the ferry shortage. It tried to add more passenger space with more passenger ferries, when the real shortage is car space.
But really, car fares have been too cheap for too long, and walk-on passenger fares have been too exorbitant for too long. There remains lots of space for walk-on passengers on the car ferries.
The Washington State Transportation Commission, and its weak grasp of economics, has put us in this mess. Take the authority to set fares away from the WSTC. And then lower the passenger fares. Watch a lot more passengers then take the car ferries.
If that doesn’t happen, I don’t see why I should sopport public ferries for the rich only. Holding the line against building more diesel ferries is the only public benefit the rest of us get out of the ferry system for the rich.
Maybe I’m mistaken, but isn’t there a constitutional issue with the funding for ferries? I believe that the state gas tax money can only go to highways and not transit, and (because it’s infeasible to build an actual bridge across the sound) they are classifying car ferries as highways.
Although I remember reading that because the legislature has been reluctant to raise the gas tax, it doesn’t pay for all their highway projects anyway. So maybe the ferry subsidies can come from the general fund and it doesn’t matter.
It feels like the state constitution needs an update, anyway. There are too many of these tax-related anachronisms.
I’d be fine supporting the state subsidies for ferries if the walk-on fares were priced so the commoners could afford them. As it is, we’re just subsidizing gadgetbahn for the rich.
The general fund is supposed to fully fund education. Reality is quite different from that.
It all depends on how you look at it. It is in line with what other agencies charge. On the other hand, if you just assume that the ferries are running there anyway (because of the cars) then they should charge less. Just a quick rundown of some of the fares*:
Round Trip: $10.25
Ten Round Trips: $82.05
Thirty One Round Trips: $131.30
Compare that to Sounder:
Seattle to Everett Round Trip: $10.00
Seattle to Tacoma Round Trip: $10.50
Seattle to Everett Regional Pass: $180.00
Seattle to Tacoma Regional Pass: $189.00
Riders 18 and under are free on both. The Sounder regional pass includes Link and various buses. So someone commuting into Seattle on a regular basis actually pays quite a bit less. Overall I would say the biggest difference is that the fare isn’t integrated with any other transit system. If you are just going to or from Downtown Seattle is quite similar to what Sound Transit charges. But if you then take a bus (or Link) you get charged again.
Of course the other unusual thing is just the way that the ferries never seem to round the numbers. A passenger pays $10.25 (in Seattle) to board the ferry (they get to ride for free coming back). Why force people to come up with an extra quarter (or two)? Meanwhile drivers pay $29.30 round trip (and extra for each additional passenger). It seems like they should round down the passenger fares and round up the car fares (if nothing else). So $10 round trip for each adult and $15 for car/driver each way. That would be so much simpler. (I know, old guy rant — obviously the world is moving towards a cashless system but I still find it annoying.)
*These are fares for Seattle/Bremerton, Seattle/Bainbridge, Edmonds/Kingston. Clinton/Mukilteo is cheaper. It is $6.25 round trip passenger and $17.70 round trip car/driver.
Passenger ferries aren’t for crowding. They are to better serve passengers (and thus encourage more walk-on riders). Some are fast and some make connections the car ferries don’t. I don’t think there are any that are just to increase frequency but often the effect is the same (e. g. some people may take a fast ferry not because it is fast but because the timing works for them). Any improvement in service makes it more likely that people will walk-on instead of drive. I also don’t think the state operates any of them. But I don’t think the folks involved misdiagnosed anything (although obviously the pandemic and the sudden increase in people working at home caught everyone off-guard). I think the passenger ferries have plenty of riders.
I agree that they should raise the fares on ferries but that leads to complaints and more people driving around. But with the tolls on the Tacoma Narrows Bridge the latter could be managed fairly well. Mostly it is just political. People want good ferry service but they don’t want to pay for it. It isn’t just folks to the west trying to get east, either. Raise the fares too high and people just abandon that drive to Port Townsend (hurting businesses there). I think it should be higher but any increase is likely to be unpopular. Look at how difficult it was to have congestion pricing in freakin’ New York City! Or raise gas taxes. Or car tabs, even in this very left-leaning state. People like their cars and don’t want to pay extra for using them.
Yes, we induced more well-to-do riders to ride more ferry options. When do the commoners get their inducements?
It’s important to remember that not everyone living on the islands of the Puget Sound are wealthy.
Whatever happened to the law to have an ORCA LIFT fare on Washington State Ferries? My recollection is the WSTC summarily ignored it.
Ross,
Are you sure waiting in line to not make the cut for getting on a ferry doesn’t do more to encourage drivers to drive around the Sound after giving up on a ferry route?
Are you sure waiting in line to not make the cut for getting on a ferry doesn’t do more to encourage drivers to drive around the Sound after giving up on a ferry route?
Sure, but that is going to happen either way. If you charge a lot of money then some people would avoid the ferries even when they aren’t that crowded. Others who would normally just endure the wait would also drive around.
Bit of an aside: The SB I-5 estimated travel time signs in North Seattle had 51 minutes to downtown this morning. Fortunately I was carpooling and could use the Pine Street HOV exit, but all of the SOV downtown freeway exits were backed up, like at least 20 minutes just to get off the freeway. We have several years of Revive-I5 construction coming up as well. Ad this point, (de)-congestion pricing for downtown Seattle is much more urgent than raising car ferry fares as a form of “congestion pricing” on the ferries. And we will soon have high capacity transit in all SOV commute directions into downtown (Redmond Link, Federal Way Link), so lack of alternatives is a much less valid argument.
Nathan,
WSF has actually asked how to get more walk-ons and get more ferry riders out of their cars. WTSC seems to be where that conversation got shelved.
The biggest way to get more ferry riders out of their cars is to have more transit on the west side, and to the Mukilteo and Anacortes ferry terminals. Bainbridge, Bremerton, and Friday Harbor (San Juan) are the only ones that have a commercial district within walking distance of the terminal. At Vashon there’s one restaurant, and everything else is up a big hill and a mile beyond that. And even if there’s something at Friday Harbor, getting to the Anacortes ferry terminal without a car is a bear. There’s not just the limited transit west of Mt Vernon, but the even more limited transit between Mt Vernon and Everett.
To be fair, I haven’t tried the improved Mukilteo service since the CT restructure.
Vashon has two bus routes that pick up at the ferry dock and serve the village center. It also has the water taxi.
The three Kitsap Fast Ferries serve Bremerton, Kingston, and Southworth — all of them WSF destinations. The legislation permitting them was part of the law allowing ST3.
I don’t begrudge them charging more for faster service. I do begrudge WSF (really the WSTC) charging almost as much for walk-ons when there is lots of space on the passenger decks for more passengers.
I would challenge the WSTC members to ride the car ferries, and then say with a straight face that walk-on fares have not blown way past the crest of the Laffer Curve.
Vashon Island is tricky. Ideally, you’d have one bus shuttling back and forth between the ferry and the town, providing a timed connection for every ferry. The problem is, the town is just a tiny bit too far to be able to complete the loop in the time it takes to load and unload the cars, so to meet every ferry reliably, you’d have to run two buses, which gets expensive.
In an ideal world, WSDOT would alter their ferry schedule, adding a few minutes of slack time on Vashon between trips to allow the loop to be served with just one bus. This would slightly reduce car capacity to the island (by making the boat run a little less often), but would make the bus practical for more people, reducing the need for car capacity on the ferry to begin with. But, in the real world, such a level of coordination between Metro and WSDOT is just fanciful.
The buses have to be timed to the water taxi first. One of them connects to the Tahlequah Ferry Dock, on the south end of the island.
Exactly. There are 2 ferries that need to be served. You can ignore the Tacoma side, so metro hopefully has at least 2 buses to serve the island.
I haven’t tried, but I’ve heard it’s possible, to get from Tacoma to Seattle via Vashon in a reasonable time frame if you time the buses correctly.
I see the buses pass me as I climb on my bike slowly up the hills, from the ferries, so I assume there is some coordination going on.
“The buses have to be timed to the water taxi first”
I was actually thinking the reverse – that, once the bus is timed to meet the car ferry, KCM could simply adjust the schedule of the water taxi to match the bus. Since the water taxi runs only a few trips per day, and all the connections downtown are frequent, there really isn’t anything to anchor the water taxi schedule to, other than the bus connections on the Vashon end.
“There are 2 ferries that need to be served. You can ignore the Tacoma side, so metro hopefully has at least 2 buses to serve the island.”
Currently, the entire route #118 is operated with one bus most of the day (it might be upgraded to two during peak), which is why it runs only every hour and a half. Upgrading it to two buses would be nice, but would cost money. Taking the one-bus constraint as fixed, it comes down to ridership vs. coverage. From a pure ridership standpoint, downtown Vashon to the Seattle ferry is where the lion’s share of the ridership is, so a ridership-maximizing service pattern would focus exclusively on that, even at the expense of abandoning service to everywhere else. Of course, there are very strong *coverage* arguments not to do that (there is no alternative service at all in the south end of the island, not even reliable Uber). So, it ultimately comes down to ridership vs. coverage. For better or worse, Metro’s current network focuses primarily on coverage.
“I haven’t tried, but I’ve heard it’s possible, to get from Tacoma to Seattle via Vashon in a reasonable time frame if you time the buses correctly.”
It is possible, but there are only two or three times a day when it’s possible to do with this without wait times over 30 minutes at at least one of the two ends. This way works pretty well for visiting Point Defiance Park from downtown Seattle, as it avoids the Pierce Transit #11 bus, which is both infrequent and very slow. But, for getting to downtown Tacoma, the 594 is much faster.
Yes, downtown to downtown is the 594 is definitely the quickest.
But Northend Tacoma to West Seattle, it is much closer. This is a trip I do often.
Transit being so downtown Seattle-centric is not ideal for many, many trips. In the past, with commuting the priority, a hub and spoke system was the obvious structure. Now, not so much. Coming from the southend and wanting to get to West Seattle, having to go through Seattle, or do 3 or 4 transfers, is not ideal.
Cam, the supply of money is not infinite; there will never be a bus from North Tacoma to West Seattle. The truth is, there will never be a bus from North Tacoma to anywhere except downtown Tacoma.
You can take the 590 or 594, depending on time of day, from downtown Tacoma to SoDo station from which the 50 will take you to most of “central” West Seattle. If you need to go to Westwood Village change at Sea-Tac to the 560 and it will take you there. Given the peninsular nature of both West Seattle and North Tacoma, this is not a burdensome necessity.
It is my understanding that the 560 is going away. I don’t tend to go to the rich parts of West Seattle that the 50 covers. So downtown to the H is usually my best bet. And my only bet, once the 560 disappears. Or a 3 or 4 seat ride.
there will never be a bus from North Tacoma to West Seattle.
I think that is a fair assumption. I don’t think Cam is expecting that. He is hoping for something that doesn’t involve backtracking to downtown. I think this is possible in the future but depending on where you are going it may not be worth it. Assume that the express buses from Tacoma to Seattle stop at Federal Way. I think this is a given. So that could mean:
1) Bus from Tacoma to Federal Way.
2) Take Link to the Tukwila Link Station (TIBS).
3) Take the Stride bus to Burien.
4) Take the H Line into West Seattle.
That means three transfers. In contrast if you just rode the bus into Seattle it would be one transfer. It probably depends on where in West Seattle you are headed. If you are headed to the north end of West Seattle it is likely better to just go downtown. There are particulars that could be better. West Seattle Link might help, but only if you are headed to those three stations. For most of West Seattle you would be looking at two transfers. Even then the connection between the express bus and Link at SoDo might be poor.
If a bus alternative like this is implemented then you would still transfer in SoDo but you would be able to reach pretty much all of West Seattle that way.
It is worth considering how much detouring this is compared to driving. Transferring at SoDo is a minimal detour if the fastest route is via the West Seattle Bridge. For example this drive versus this drive. Using the West Seattle Bridge makes sense for a lot of trips to West Seattle even if you are coming from the south.
It is only as you get further south that using the West Seattle bridge becomes a detour in itself. SR 99 and Highland Park drive is the fastest way to get to the middle of the peninsula (e. g. https://maps.app.goo.gl/6YWmde6n5fLnPW9M6). But I don’t think a route facilitating that is realistic. If there was a freeway station at Albro then maybe the express from Tacoma could stop there and people could transfer to the 60. It would basically follow this route but with a transfer at the freeway. Again, I don’t think that is realistic in the near (or even distant) future. That would take a level of sophistication and imagination that planners around here lack.
Anyway, I do think it is realistic to approach the south end of the the West Seattle peninsula without going all the way to SoDo (let alone downtown). Again, a four-seat ride will be possible fairly soon. The problem is that even with four transfers you aren’t covering much of the area (the H is the only West Seattle bus to connect to Burien). To reduce the transfers I think the easiest thing to do would be to extend the future Stride Link to Westwood Village (WV). The trip from Burien to WV could be an express (to save money). Westwood Village is a major transit hub. By serving Burien and WV you would connect to just about every bus in the area. I actually can’t find a bus it wouldn’t connect to. The only buses in West Seattle it wouldn’t connect to are further north — areas better served via the West Seattle Bridge (by going to downtown or ideally SoDo).
So basically with some work on the bus routes (and some ramps for them) you could provide something quite good for getting to West Seattle from Tacoma. It wouldn’t just be Tacoma either. The same idea applies to Renton. Riders could take the 101 and then a bus from SoDo or Stride to Westwood Village and then another bus. That is still a lot of transfers but again, the other option is to just backtrack from SoDo. Likewise Link locations (e. g. Federal Way, Highline College) would have similar options and fewer transfers.
All of this could be possible without spending too much money if Sound Transit shifted focus from West Seattle Link to bus improvements. It is quite likely the improvements would be made much faster (since they are much cheaper). Sending lots of West Seattle buses to the SoDo busway not only means fewer transfers for those headed downtown but it would dramatically improve regional trips like the one you are interested in.
When and more importantly “why” is the 560 “going away”?
Is it because of South STRide? If so, and SS doesn’t serve the airport as is the current plan, then Metro should extend every other H run to Sea-Tac Station (not the terminal stops) and “short-haul” ST.
It’s unclear what ST will do about the Burien to West Seattle segment once Stride opens. It looks like the service won’t begin until 2028 or 2029 or even after that. There is still time to adjust things.
I never got why every regional bus has to terminate in Burien. It seems like really bad service planning to terminate every regional service there. With two RapidRide lines and one future Stride line ending there it seems frustrating to a rider. There isn’t that much around the TC to merit ending everything there (unlike a major Downtown like Seattle or Bellevue or even a minor one like Redmond or Tacoma). It seems to me that at least one regional route should instead terminate at a Link station instead.
Keeping with Metro’s general strategy of one RapidRide corridor for anything more than a mile, one solution is to extend RapidRide H to SeaTac or to switch the Burien to TIBS segment from RapidRide F to RapidRide H or (less likely) to extend RapidRide A to Westwood Village. Another is to overlay a new RapidRide route from West Seattle to Downtown Kent although that creates redundancy.
On the other hand, ST could attach that westmost Route 560 segment to add another service corridor like an express bus from Tacoma or Puyallup or Auburn. Route 574 specifically comes to mind but we aren’t sure of its fate once Tacoma Dome Link opens in 2035.
It’s yet another problem in the ST3 shopping spree in 2016 when decision makers were giddy about drawing transit connections on a big regional map but ignored those pesky details like seamless level transfers and route connectivity that can make regional transit device go from laborious to easy. When people make decisions yet don’t actually ride transit every day, such mistakes are inevitable. They end up drawing transit lines that look great on a regional highway map but don’t connect well for riders.
To me, there is really only one overarching solution. ST (or better yet PSRC) needs a rider committee to review every capital project before they can get funding. Period. Without one, ST will continue to execute expensive projects drawn up by essentially car drivers (elected officials, senior management, nearby property owners) who have little awareness of what it’s like to ride regional transit. This new review committee would provide insight on so many expensive mistakes that ST is making while executing ST3. Their meetings would be extensive and insightful!
Meanwhile, the local bus operators are instead left with crumbs to design adjusted service around ST’s build-obsessed yet rider-unfriendly approach. And this is just one more example of the larger problem.
And for those that feel like it’s ok to simply forgo the Westwood Village connection to Route 560 once Stride opens, I give you North Sounder. Tacoma Link, Pinehurst and BAR infill stations and several ST Express routes with underwhelming ridership compared to the cost of doing it.
The times I’ve come at West Seattle from the south, Google Maps has directed me to transfer at Tukwila to the 128. It’s so slow I found it better to just take the extra transfer in Seattle.
I can see why an express alternative would be nice to have for some trips.
I never got why every regional bus has to terminate in Burien.
I think there are a few reasons:
1) It is far to the west. It is essentially the west end of SR-518/405. Thus it makes sense as a terminus for an east-west bus (e. g. from Renton).
2) It is not a major destination but it is still a significant one compared to everything else in the area. There are apartments and plenty of shops. It is a decent transit center in that respect (and better than many).
3) There is no west-end expressway other than SR-509 and there isn’t much on 509 (Metro and ST basically ignore that highway). That means going north or south takes a while. For example I suggested the Stride line be extended to Westwood Village. It could run express to save money. The problem is that even though that isn’t that far it takes about 13 minutes without traffic and another couple minutes for the layover/turnaround (at least). This means about fifteen minutes of service on a bus that is otherwise blazing fast. It takes about fifteen minutes to get from Burien Transit Center to Renton Transit Center (the old one). Without traffic it takes another fifteen minutes to get to Downtown Bellevue from Renton TC. Thus an extension (with only one stop) could very well add about 50% to the cost of running that bus line.
4) The H now runs between Westwood Village and Burien.
5) Ridership from Westwood Village on the 560 was good but not great. There were about 80 riders from there and another 125 between there and Burien. But 50 of those riders were just going to Burien. The H now serves those riders.
6) As a route curves it loses potential riders. This goes along with everything else. The biggest destination (by far) with the 560 is Downtown Bellevue. When East Link opens folks from Westwood Village may prefer taking the C or H towards downtown and then catching Link. Even if they prefer going around the other way it would still be a reasonable option.
7) Regional express service tends to have alternatives. Thus frequency becomes a challenge. If a bus has unique coverage (e. g. the 65 in Wedgewood) you can increase and decrease service as money allows. But riders will still use it (unless they drive) because there is no good transit alternative. But in this case there is. A bus like Stride is fast but if it isn’t frequent then people will use a bus like the RapidRide H for a lot of their trips. This whole discussion was started by someone interested in a trip from Tacoma to West Seattle which means a transfer. If that transfer is infrequent it has a bigger hit on ridership than a lot of other routes (like the 65). Thus you really need to “go big or go home”. Either run it frequently (knowing full well you won’t get that many riders) or just assume that someone will find another way there.
I still think it would be nice if the bus was extended to Westwood Village but I can’t deny the cost. It would require extra buses and extra bus drivers. The buses might be the challenging part. Remember that Stride will use battery-electric buses. While the routes will be very similar to ST Express, you can’t just swap the buses nor it is a matter of paint. I think that ST should just pay extra to extend the route but I also understand why they don’t. It is quite likely there are better projects out there.
This is one of the basic challenges with regional transit. Trips of this nature are not that common and yet running the buses is expensive. Buses spend a lot of time picking up no one. If you spend a lot of money you will have a good system but a lot of buses that don’t carry that many riders. If you don’t spend the money you end up with a poor system. It is the nature of most regional transit and there isn’t an easy solution.
@ Ross:
I probably should have said it this way:
“I never got why every regional bus has to terminate in Burien now that there are Link stations less than two miles away.”
The Burien TC was a pre-Link creation. It makes less sense as a regional hub now that Link exists. It’s still useful — but not as much as it once was before Link existed.
It’s not unusual to relocate a TC. Both Redmond and Federal Way have recently moved/ are soon moving theirs (albeit not that far of a move).
Stride 1 is predicated on deleting the 560. When the alignment was being decided, ST asked the community whether it should go to Burien or SeaTac. The majority feedback was for Burien. That’s presumably because Burien doesn’t have other regional transit, has a lot of residents, and it’s time-consuming to get anywhere else from it. SeaTac will have the best transit service in South King County (Link), going to Federal Way, TIB, and downtown.
South King/East King is paying for Stride 1, while Westwood Village is in North King. Its purpose was to connect Bellevue, Renton, and Burien-or-SeaTac, not a neighborhood in Seattle.
ST has mused about maybe extending the 574 to Westwood Village to backfill the part of the 560 that Stride 1 will abandon.
All ST Express decisions are uncertain at this point. The ones for next year are in the 2026 Operational Plan, which has an initial survey now, and will have the first route-specific proposal around May or June. See the blurb in the April 16 roundup. Stride 1 won’t open until 2029, so it won’t be in the 2026 operational plan. ST has made no decisions on ST Express routes around it yet: the musing about extending the 574 was just the board discussing possibilities in the mid 2010s.
Oh, and I thought of another reason why buses tend to end at Burien (or for that matter Westwood Village). At that point a typical journey is really long. There is a limit to how far you want to run the bus. Drivers don’t want to drive that long and buses start getting less reliable. That being said I could see Metro extending the H Line to SeaTac or TIBS (running express) if ST paid them. That would probably make the most sense from a network standpoint.
“I never got why every regional bus has to terminate in Burien. It seems like really bad service planning to terminate every regional service there. With two RapidRide lines and one future Stride line ending there”
RapidRide isn’t regional transit. It’s a kind of enhanced local transit.
Metro should probably rethink RapidRide F and H in Burien to better match the prevailing trip patterns. It didn’t really think about people going through to the airport, or going from Burien to the airport when the 560 goes away and the 161 is restructured.
Metro Connects 2050 has a third RapidRide line in Burien (a restructured C), so that’s another possibility to extend to SeaTac.
“The times I’ve come at West Seattle from the south, Google Maps has directed me to transfer at Tukwila to the 128. It’s so slow I found it better to just take the extra transfer in Seattle.”
The 128 is a half-hourly coverage route serving the lowest density areas between Southcenter and Burien. Google shouldn’t recommend it unless the destination is a stop only on the 128, or maybe if you’re going to South Seattle College. But Google’s data probably isn’t sophisticated enough to know that.
Here’s an interesting trip to ponder now and in the future: Vashon Island to Seatac.
Right now, a ferry rider on foot can take RapidRide C to Westwood and transfer to Route 560 to reach SeaTac. That’s a transfer off the ferry at Fauntleroy and one at Westwood Village. Or they can take RapidRide C all the way to Downtown Seattle and ride Link to SeaTac.
If the 560 tail is cut, they will have two more transfers in the future — at Burien TC and at TIBS.
Should there be a Fauntleroy to SeaTac direct bus? Four transfers (Fauntleroy, Westwood Village, Burien, TIBS) seems rather excessive, right? So is having to ride all the way to Downtown Seattle.
Of course, Vashon island is not in the ST taxing district. That seems like a consideration.
Al. S, previously, you said the H Line should be extended from the Burien TC to the Burien Fred Meyer.
Once South STRide goes to Burien, the F should switch to Sea-Tac, again, using the stops on 99 below the Link station, not the airline terminal stops which are so subject to traffic jams.
If the A, F, and H all served those Highway 99 airport stops with the quick transfer to Link, it would become a regional hub of even greater importance. TIBS will never be an effective regional transfer locus without the freeway platforms. Having three RR’s running northof 176th would be a good reason to take the northbound righthand-lane at least as a BAT.
Also, why is there STILL no elevator up to the pedestrian bridge from the westside bus stop?
The Burien TC was a pre-Link creation. It makes less sense as a regional hub now that Link exists.
Maybe, but that is irrelevant. It is really only a regional hub for east-west service. Every other bus is local. By the way, the bigger hub is Westwood Village (which also doesn’t serve Link).
You could make SeaTac the main regional hub but that would mean a lot of out-of-the-way transfers. This also costs a lot of money and become impractical for a lot of the buses. It makes more sense to have multiple hubs (Westwood Village, Burien TC, TIBS, SeaTac) which is what they have.
It is really only as a north-south terminus where Burien may not be the best choice. But you would still run the bus through Burien which means it is still a transit hub. Continuing through Burien with a north-south bus (which is quite reasonable) does have issues though. Look at some of the routes that terminate there (or will terminate there):
Stride — This has all the flaws I mentioned earlier. Basically it costs a bundle and you don’t get that many riders.
165 — Ideally it should keep going to Westwood Village since that would make for more two-seat rides. But again, that would cost fifteen minutes of service (and that is with no stops in between). In the middle of the day that bus takes an hour and twenty minutes end to end. Extending it would really be pushing it.
161 — OK, this one is a lot shorter. So the bigger issue is the redundancy (it is similar to extending Stride).
131/132 — This takes an hour so any extension would have to be express. Furthermore, that combination wouldn’t really solve the West Seattle problem.
H Line — As I wrote earlier extending this as an express to TIBS or SeaTac would be a good option. But it really only makes sense as an ST project since ST is willing to spend a fortune on regional transit that doesn’t pick up many riders. If Metro extended the route they would extend it downtown, to South Lake Union. The C and H could run on the same pathway (opposite each other) from the waterfront to SLU once we got rid of the silly streetcar and added a lot of red paint. That would get way more riders than a southern extension.
The only revenue neutral change I could see is the 161 taking over the southern section of the H Line. That means the H ends at Westwood Village while the 161 is extended to Westwood Village. Basically you are swapping one non-Link hub (Burien TC) for another (Westwood Village) but it would mean more people have a one-seat ride to SeaTac. Even if the 161 had the same frequency as the H it isn’t clear that would be a good thing. Some people would avoid a transfer but a lot of people would suddenly have to transfer.
Which leaves redundant express routes. I think this is the only plausible option even though it is expensive and likely wouldn’t get that many riders. But it is exactly the type of thing ST was created to serve. If it wasn’t for the special buses, the simplest option would be an extension of the Stride Line. Otherwise ST could pay Metro to extend the H to SeaTac or Tibs.
Either Stride or the F should serve Westwood. Preferably express (so probably Stride), via 518/509. They should not both serve Burien.
“By the way, the bigger hub is Westwood Village (which also doesn’t serve Link).”
Yes but Westwood Village is also not under 2 miles from a current Link station. It will even be 3 miles away from West Seattle Link if that ever opens — but that seems to be many years away.
“The 128 is a half-hourly coverage route serving the lowest density areas between Southcenter and Burien. Google shouldn’t recommend it unless the destination is a stop only on the 128”
It suggests it if I’m headed to the north end of West Seattle, near Admiral and California.
Maybe it’s too far away from the H or 50?
Anyway, the adventure to the college and back seemed a bit…eccentric.
Metro should probably rethink RapidRide F and H in Burien to better match the prevailing trip patterns.
I think the H is fine. The 560 never got that many riders going to SeaTac from the west (which is probably why ST chose the route they did). It is possible that H sees an increase (e. g. White Center to Renton will be faster and more frequent). Extending the H would likely water it down (it would get less ridership per hour). I wouldn’t want to run it less often just for the extension. Now if ST gave them money for an extension I could see it.
The F is a different story. Stride will definitely poach riders. The F is a weird bus. It has such a squirrely route which I’m sure hurts ridership. But some of the places it serves are essential. I’m sure it could be altered to be straighter but you would have to do a lot of backfilling.
Cam, I know your trip from Tacoma to West Seattle isn’t easy, but saying the F Line or STRIDE should serve Westwood doesn’t make sense.
“The only revenue neutral change I could see is the 161 taking over the southern section of the H Line. That means the H ends at Westwood Village while the 161 is extended to Westwood Village.”
White Center and Ambaum Blvd is considered high ridership and an equity area, one of the motivations for RapidRide H in the first place. So Metro wouldn’t downgrade it there. Especially since travel time from White Center/Ambaum Blvd/Burien to Downtown is already long and there’s no express/limited-stop alternative.
Anyway, the adventure to the college and back seemed a bit…eccentric.
I think the best way to the college (my alma mater) is by transferring downtown. The only drawback is that you have to go into the heart of downtown first. That was what I was getting out before. If they built ramps from the Spokane Street Viaduct to the SoDo busway then all the buses from West Seattle could go on the SoDo busway. This would mean a good connection to Link (both directions) while also connecting to buses from Tacoma and Renton much sooner. There would be backtracking but only a minimal amount. You have to be pretty far south until you get to the point where going via Burien is faster. There is a middle option (via Highland Park) but trying to make that work with the freeway express buses seems impractical.
You know what doesn’t make sense, Sam?
Having two, very expensive, high frequency, limited stop buses serving essentially the same route between TIBS and Burien.
That’s what makes no sense.
@Mike — Yes, that is what is what I was getting at. Theoretically you could swap parts of the 161 and H but that has all sorts of issues. But come to think of it, it wouldn’t be revenue neutral since at a minimum you would need to increase service on the 161. Otherwise a lot of riders (over two thousand by my count) suddenly get a major reduction in service. Meanwhile, a lot of existing riders would have to transfer. I just don’t see it working.
I think the only option would be an express tail of one of the buses. But that means spending more money.
Cam, what problem are you trying to solve? Are you saying there aren’t enough routes between TIBS and Westwood, or between Burien and Westwood? Or do you want some existing route to be more frequent?
I did look at a map of the greater Westwood area, and I saw that the area is served by the C Line, H Line, and routes 21, 22, 60, 125, and 128, so the area is not lacking in bus service. What is your specific complaint?
(Transit professionals from all around the world, but also locally, come to the STB comment section to read my thoughts on transit, so whatever your complaint, it will be seen by the leaders of every transit agency in the region).
“Having two, very expensive, high frequency, limited stop buses serving essentially the same route between TIBS and Burien.
That’s what makes no sense.”
On this point I agree fully. It’s especially true for Stride since ST has now pretty much declared a freeway stop as too difficult and is instead forcing the bus off the freeway to get in and out of TIBS.
If ST merely switched to make a SeaTac Link station stop work for Stride (instead of TIBS) it would have made a world of difference. A direct express bus from Bellevue to SeaTac ! A direct nonstop bus to Burien to SeaTac with single transfer to RR-H possible. A direct bus from Renton to SeaTac! It would still offer transfers to RapidRide F at both Burien and Renton.
Sure ST would have to work with the port on how to do it but the system benefits would be profound.
“A direct nonstop bus to Burien to SeaTac with single transfer to RR-H possible.”
Again, ST already asked about that, and the public preferred Stride to Burien. Burien is a city with residents who want to go places, particularly Bellevue where the high-paying jobs are. SeaTac has residents but not as many, especially around the airport, which is mostly airport visitors. So, not ST taxpayers.
Bellevue-SeaTac will have a 2-seat Link ride before Stride 1 opes. Burien has no other ST service or all-day express. This is its ST service.
I mean, if we’re talking about stuff that doesn’t make sense, there’s the hugely expensive Sounder new parking garages built as part of South King that aren’t needed yet, but making Stride go to TIBS is too expensive…
“Again, ST already asked about that, and the public preferred Stride to Burien.”
The question that ST asked the public was to choose between Burien and SeaTac — not choose between TIBS and SeaTac. The Stride bus would still go to Burien in the scenario I described.
The problem with TIBS is that it’s not as important of a destination as SeaTac is. Its main usefulness is for bus transfers, some residential and parking.
Once ST found out the technical problems of putting a Stride stop on the side of SR 518, they could have simply moved the Link transfer location to SeaTac. They did not.
“Once ST found out the technical problems of putting a Stride stop on the side of SR 518, they could have simply moved the Link transfer location to SeaTac.”
That would have slowed down Burien-Bellevue and Burien-Renton trips. That’s the primary purpose of Stride 1 as I understand it.
Cam, what problem are you trying to solve?
I believe the main issue is transfers. Look at what I wrote earlier for Tacoma to that part of West Seattle:
1) Bus from Tacoma to Federal Way.
2) Take Link to the Tukwila Link Station (TIBS).
3) Take the Stride bus to Burien.
4) Take the H Line into West Seattle.
At that point you are only on one corridor (Delridge). Thus if you want to go a little ways west (on Barton) or north on one of the other corridors (35th or Fauntleroy) you are looking at five transfers.
It isn’t just Tacoma. Plenty of people could start their trip with a bus rider to Link followed by heading towards that end of Seattle. Even folks who are lucky enough to walk to a Link station are in the same boat. There are two things that could make it a lot better:
1) Improve the connection via the West Seattle Bridge. Right now riders often have to go all the way to downtown before going back the other way. Backtracking is very common with every system. But if we invested in West Seattle bus infrastructure (by building this instead of West Seattle Link) then the backtracking would be minimal. This would be the preferred choice for a lot of trips even if we did the following:
2) Reduce the number of transfers. This could be done any number of ways. But I think the method that would yield the most results would be an extension of the future Stride Line to Westwood Village. This is not a crazy idea given that the 560 does that right now. Extending the future Stride Line to Westwood Village (via an express) would likely poach some of the riders of the H Line (in the same way that the planned Stride 1 Line will poach some riders of the F Line). That is OK. At least we know that there is proven ridership potential. It is quite common for ST to do that sort of thing. I wouldn’t prioritize this project (even within ST) but it is not a crazy proposal. It isn’t hard to find example of service (let alone major capital projects) that are probably worse values. For example ST runs an express bus from Tacoma to the U-District during peak. This means riders avoid a transfer to … Link. ST also continues to spend a fortune on North Sounder, even though hardly anyone rides it. Again, I wouldn’t prioritize this project but it is clear that if you did spend money extending the future Stride line to Westwood Village it would be a better value than a lot of what ST runs.
That is correct. This is not just a Tacoma problem. This is the close 2 million people in the transit region south of TIBS who might want to get to West Seatte problem. I get that this blog is pretty north Seattle and Eastside heavy, but please do like Ross and at least make a small attempt to put yourself in the shoes of those under-represented multitudes.
Being intentionally obtuse or downrighting mocking is a bad look.
Ross -I still don’t see why you continue to want both the F and Strideto Burien. Send one to Burien and one directly to Westwood. Then, finally, there is service to and from the south that people in West Seattle and people going to West Seattle would likely find usable. It would be usable because it doesn’t do a seriously slow and unnecessary detour throug Burien.
Look. I like Burien. It’s got a few bars and restaurants I frequent. But it has plenty of frequent service already. No need for every single bus out of West Seattle to go there.
Cam, how do you propose to go to Westwood Village from TIBS without “going through Burien”? OK, so you turn at SR509. You can only go as far as 128th (one off-ramp) before the bus has to exit to surface streets anyway, unless you want to go as far as Cloverdale and run right through the middle of White Center on Roxbury, hardly an “express” route.
That’s a lot of freeway running for a relatively small pool of potential riders. Shades of the UW Express.
A better solution is to turn the F down to the airport, linking the businesses and hotels around Southcenter to Sea-Tac and extend some H runs there on the F’s current path. My thought is every other one, which would give twenty-minute headways and allow an extended run to slot into the fourth following northbound departure from Burien TC.
Yes, it makes those runs long, but not devastatingly longer.
I still don’t see why you continue to want both the F and Stride to Burien.
Because there are a lot of riders there and if you are headed to Westwood Village it isn’t that big of a detour. Consider the options:
1) Have the F skip Burien Transit Center. You would have to not only skip the transit center but a significant section of the route (which carries a lot of riders) for this to actually save any time. I just don’t see it.
2) Have the Stride Line go to Westwood instead of Burien. First of all this costs a lot more. From the freeway it takes 10 to 16 minutes to get to Westwood Village while it takes a fairly consistent three minutes to get to Burien transit center. So you are basically spending another ten minutes in service (which is not a trivial amount). If you are going to do that you might as well swing by Burien (in my opinion).
Now consider the trade-offs. At that point Burien riders headed to Bellevue have to take the F to TIBS and then transfer to the Stride Line. The F takes about 15 minutes to get between Link and the transit center. When the freeway ramp is built it will take about 5 minutes to go between there. Until then it will take about 8 minutes. So you are both forcing a transfer *and* forcing a delay of somewhere between 7 to 10 minutes. Meanwhile, Westwood Village riders saved about 5 minutes by ignoring Burien. Thus the folks in Burien would be paying a bigger penalty.
Now consider ridership. Again I point to the old ridership data. Back when the 560 carried a lot more riders, 84 people boarded at Westwood Village. 95 boarded at Burien Transit Center heading towards Bellevue. Not only that, but an additional 53 riders from Burien were headed towards Westwood Village. In other words if the bus skipped Burien it is quite likely that Westwood Village would have had a considerably smaller number of riders than it does now. Thus it is highly likely that ridership would go down, while costs would go up. Sorry, I just don’t see that either.
In contrast if you run an extension it is similar to what exists now. Riders from Westwood Village get a one-seat ride to Link, Renton, Bellevue and Burien. Unlike today I would skip the stops between Westwood Village and Burien TC. This means it would still be an express (saving quite a bit of time over the 560) while still giving Burien everything that was promised (and then some).
Anecdotally, when I ride the 560 today, virtually the entire bus is getting on at SeaTac airport and getting off at Bellevue Transit Center. One or two people might get on or off in Renton, but nothing significant, and the number of people already on the bus before it reaches the airport is almost nothing.
Granted, this is usually around 10:30 PM, when the airport is the only place open, so maybe during the day, the ridership patterns are different. But, at least at the time that I ride, the bus could simply have run nonstop from SeaTac to Bellevue and gotten at least as many riders (maybe more, as the ride to Bellevue would be faster). But, that would leave the small numbers of people who do use the intermediate stops with no service at all, and also likely draw complaints from the operators of the $30 SeaTac->downtown Bellevue shuttle such a route would compete with.
A better solution is to turn the F down to the airport, linking the businesses and hotels around Southcenter to Sea-Tac and extend some H runs there on the F’s current path.
I’m not sure that is better. Right now about 1,000 riders take the bus between Burien and TIBS. About 400 get off the bus at Link; another 400 continue to the other side; another 200 get off the bus before it reaches TIBS. So what happens with those 400 riders that are coming from (greater) Burien and headed towards (greater) Southcenter? They take the new H extension from Burien to TIBS (now running less often) and then …. what exactly? Ride Link to SeaTac and then the new F line back to Southcenter? Ouch. Meanwhile how does the new F get from Southcenter to SeaTac? The obvious option is the 156. Unfortunately that is a particularly weak section of a fairly weak route.
I can understand the attraction of SeaTac but there is something to be said (even in very spread out suburbia) for more of a grid pattern. Look at the A Line. Clearly SeaTac is a major attraction. But when I look at the ridership data I honestly can’t find it. That’s because it isn’t labeled “SeaTac”. There is high ridership at practically every stop. I have to look up the address of the airport. In contrast with the F Line the Tukwila Transit Center is obvious (even though it isn’t labeled that way either). It dwarfs most of the stops and is above both TIBS and Burien TC. The point being that SR 99 is a corridor that contains SeaTac, not the other way around. As long as you intercept that corridor within the core (and the F does) you will get plenty of riders. There is a lot to be said by doing so in the most direct way possible.
The biggest weakness with the F is its lack of linearity. It is hard to make the case for making this worse.
“Anecdotally, when I ride the 560 today, virtually the entire bus is getting on at SeaTac airport and getting off at Bellevue Transit Center.”
Thanks for that anecdote, asdf!
It kind of supports my augment that Stride stopping at TIBS is relatively useless. And that now with every Stride bus having to get off SR 518, go through several signals and a loop and then get back on SR 518 it’s not really that faster than taking the Airport Expressway a mile south to SeaTac Link and then return — if the Port and ST could find a way to add a stop and U-turn for buses at the station (say between the station and the cell phone lot).
If you are coming from or going to places further north in the Rainier Valley on Link, Route 106 is direct to Renton so why ride to TIBS and use Stride?
If you are coming from Burien, RapidRide F is there. RapidRide F also gets you directly to SouthCenter.
If you aren’t living within walking distance of the Burien TC and want to get to Downtown Bellevue, RapidRide H still gets you there with a single transfer Downtown . Both routes are frequent. And The 2 Line gets you to all of Link on the Eastside rather than one station directly.
And if you are going between Burien TC and Bellevue TC, stopping at SeaTac rather than TIBS maybe adds a minute or maybe two to the travel time.
If you are coming north on Link, the only reason to take Stride is to get to Burien or Renton. Otherwise just stay on the train and transfer once at the ID. Stride from TIBS may make sense from RapidRide A — but there are several easy places on that line to board Link at a high frequency.
The only plausible reason to stop at TIBS is because the people in attendance in one meeting recommended it — thinking that a freeway stop on SR 518 was doable. Now ST doesn’t want to build that stop — despite the tens of millions that 85th interchange project has coming from ST with few riders expected — it could be assumed that it’s lots more difficult to build t Hs n a SeaTac stop and turn around. Honestly, letting one sketch planning meeting decide an investment (rather than destination potential) is a good way to create a less optimal transit system.
Imagine walking out of the airport terminal and you see signs for Link to Seattle. Imagine next to that you see a sign for Stride to Downtown Bellevue and to Burien.
Cam, don’t take it personally if I say I don’t think an idea makes sense. I’m criticizing the idea, not you. I don’t think Stride should go to a lot of places. For example, if someone said Stride S2 should get off the freeway and go to Downtown Kirkland, I’d say that’s a stupid idea. And I live in Kirkland and that detour would benefit me!
“if the Port and ST could find a way to add a stop and U-turn for buses at the station (say between the station and the cell phone lot).”
The Port has a whole damned busway thing planned between the rental complex and main terminal. Presumably these buses will turn around somewhere.
If that were opened to general transit traffic and extended 200 feet to 518, getting Stride to SeaTac would be a 3 minute or so undertaking. Or, extend the extremely frequent rental car buses to 518 and have a freeway stop that connects Stride to TIBS, the car rental complex, and the SeaTac main terminal.
No, Ross, that’s not what I said. The F would still go through TIBS, but just turn south along Highway 99 to the Sea-Tac highway station. I’d add a “nearside” southbound stop at 160th to match the northbound stop there. The A, H, and F would serve the stop at 160th and all three would serve the northbound stop at Sea-Tac.
I’d convert the drop-off loop just east of the northbound station to a bus-layover, allowing the H and F to turn at 176th and discharge people in the loop. However, if two-fifths of the folks leaving Burien TC on the F currently do continue east of TIBS, that is indeed an issue. They’d be taking the H and would have to transfer at 160th or 176th.
I doubt ST wants to fund South STRide to go to Westwood Village, so I guess the one seat ride north of Burien will be lost.
Isn’t the Stride TIBS stop still getting built? My understanding is that it is just delayed for now. Maybe it will get redesigned to a center stop instead of a side stop..
TIBS is perhaps the most important stop on the S1 route: https://seattletransitblog.com/2020/01/27/sound-transits-station-ridership-in-2040/
I understand the appeal of serving the airport but it’s not an insignificant detour; it would absolutely destroy bus hours/reliability with existing traffic conditions, and even with a busway or no traffic it’s still something like a 8 to 10 minute detour on what is expected to be a 30 to 40 minute route.
“Cam, how do you propose to go to Westwood Village from TIBS without “going through Burien”? ”
The fastest way. Which is 518 to 509 to Roxbury.
The area in between is fairly low density and already has pretty good frequent coverage with the H. Also 124, 128, 131/132, 60and 161.
Focus on giving West Seattle service they will use.
Metro system map of the White Center/Westwood Village area. The neighborhood is not underserved by transit.
https://kingcounty.gov/en/-/media/king-county/depts/metro/maps/system/03292025/metro-system-map-sw
“Cam, how do you propose to go to Westwood Village from TIBS without “going through Burien”? ”
The fastest way. Which is 518 to 509 to Roxbury.
You seem to be ignoring all of the data I just gave you. Not that many people ride the 560 from Westwood Village. Skipping Burien doesn’t save you much time. It still takes a long time to get to Westwood Village even if you skip Burien. Why spend more money to serve a stop that gets fewer riders? Sorry but it just doesn’t make any sense.
That would be like Stride skipping Renton or TIBS. Sure, it takes a little while to serve those areas. But a big portion of your ridership comes from serving those areas. Skip those stops and suddenly you have a bus with hardly any riders. It only makes sense to build an express of that nature if you have a huge number of riders on the core route (and you are dealing with crowding). That definitely isn’t the case here.
If we are going to extend Stride to Westwood Village it should be after going through Burien.
The 560 takes 30 minutes to get to Westwood Village.
I highway express would be half that. That makes the trip to Link much, much more attractive for those going to or from West Seattle from the south.
You also get the added bonus of serving the density of Greenbridge, Alhambra and White Center, which the H serves poorly and the 560 serves not at all.
It just makes no sense to double serve the Ambaum corridor. Think of things as a network, Ross.
“Anecdotally, when I ride the 560 today, virtually the entire bus is getting on at SeaTac airport and getting off at Bellevue Transit Center.”
Thanks for that anecdote, asdf!
Why consider an anecdote when we have actually stop data produced by Sound Transit! Come on folks, look at the reports: https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/2020-service-implementation-plan.pdf#page=148. Of course it is a few years old (for whatever reason ST doesn’t produce stop data any more). But the pattern is likely consistent. Bellevue is by far the biggest destination but other than that it is fairly spread out. More people use the bus stops in Renton than the two at SeaTac. Granted there are more of them, but Renton Transit Center has more riders than either of the two SeaTac bus stops. The stops at Burien/White Center exceed the stops at SeaTac as well. It’s not just folks going from Bellevue to SeaTac.
It is also worth noting that the ridership at SeaTac is fairly evenly split. About half the riders are using the stop at SeaTac Terminal Bay 2 while the other half are using the stop at SR-99 (close to Link). Thus it is likely that half the riders are taking the bus to the airport and the other half are transferring to Link (or the RapidRide A). There is a reason why ST (after looking at the numbers) decided to go with a faster connection instead of overly focusing on SeaTac.
It kind of supports my augment that Stride stopping at TIBS is relatively useless.
Nonsense! The data pretty much destroys that argument. I think it is pretty clear that lots of people are trying to get to SR-99. Maybe it is because of Link, maybe it is because of the corridor itself (served by our most cost-effective bus, the RapidRide A Line). Stopping there is certainly not useless. Holy cow, just look at the ridership of the A Line. The biggest ridership (by far) is TIBS. This is after a bus has gone right by Angle Lake and SeaTac (Link Stations). The bus gets about 10,000 riders a day and less than 1,000 of that is at the three SeaTac bus stops.
This goes back to what I’ve been saying for a while now. It isn’t SeaTac, it is the corridor. Of course SeaTac is a bigger destination than TIBS but simply making the fastest connection to the corridor is the way to go.
And if you are going between Burien TC and Bellevue TC, stopping at SeaTac rather than TIBS maybe adds a minute or maybe two to the travel time.
That is simply not true. It is about ten minutes longer than a freeway stop (23 minutes versus 13 minutes). They will eventually build that freeway stop.
Until then you could stop at SeaTac instead of TIBS but that still adds a couple minutes of travel time (without traffic). But it is quite likely that there is more traffic around SeaTac than there is around TIBS. Unlike the A the bus just can’t keep going straight. It has to turn around and the way it does it now is probably as good as you get. But that means throwing the bus into traffic. I’m not saying it isn’t an issue at TIBS as well (which is why the freeway stop is important) but it is likely a lot less of an issue.
It may not be what people want, either. It is quite reasonable to assume that folks in Burien want an express to TIBS so that they can quickly get to Rainier Valley. About half the riders are likely to be just going between Renton and Bellevue. Those folks really don’t care what happens to the west. But a significant number will prefer the TIBS stop over SeaTac. Given the SeaTac stop is more expensive (albeit not a lot) and eventually it will serve TIBS (via a freeway stop) it just doesn’t seem worth it to detour over to SeaTac.
The 560 takes 30 minutes to get to Westwood Village. I highway express would be half that.
Stopping at Burien TC between SeaTac and Westwood Village would add five minutes (if that). That is without any additional stops.
You also get the added bonus of serving the density of Greenbridge, Alhambra and White Center, which the H serves poorly and the 560 serves not at all.
Wait, now you are adding stops? I’m not sure what exactly you have in mind but it is quite possible your express (that skips Burien TC but makes different along the way) is actually slower than my express (that only stops at Burien TC).
It just makes no sense to double serve the Ambaum corridor.
Who the hell said we were? The Burien Transit Center is not on Ambaum. It would run express between the transit center and Westwood Village. That means it could take whatever route happens to be fastest at that moment. But it would make no stops along the way. I’ve written that several times. I even drew pictures (it is how I got the five minute estimate — four minute additional travel time plus an extra minute to actually make the stop). The approach would be really simple: Take the existing Stride 1 plans and add one more stop (at Westwood Village).
Think of things as a network, Ross.
Ha! You are the one ignoring the network advantages of serving Burien. Your express obliterates the network surrounding Burien. Consider the 165 for example. Imagine someone in Normandy Park heading to Renton or Bellevue. With Stride the process is simple. Just ride the bus into the transit center and transfer to the Stride Line. If the bus bypasses Burien then riders have to take the F Line and then the Stride Line. Even with a perfectly timed transfer it costs you about ten minutes. Realistically it would cost you fifteen (on a good day). With Renton it is interesting. It takes about 45 minutes to ride the F Line from Burien to Renton. Stride should be able to do it in about fifteen (once the freeway station at TIBS is built). Thus if you want to avoid transfers, Stride will save you close to a half hour. Otherwise you are back to spending around fifteen minutes making an extra transfer. Since the Stride bus won’t serve much of Renton you are probably looking at another bus ride on top of all that. So that is a four-seat ride. Isn’t that the type of thing you are trying to avoid? Only this time it doesn’t involve a long distance trip from Tacoma to West Seattle but a trip from Normandy Park to Renton (a drive that is less than 10 miles and twenty minutes by car — https://maps.app.goo.gl/JuYvEEZ1zvWgCbcP8).
It is just unrealistic to assume that either Metro or ST would skip Burien in that manner. The benefits are minimal (five minute savings) but the loss to Burien is huge. Extending the Stride Line to Westwood Village is one thing. But doing so while skipping Burien is just not worth it.
No, Ross, that’s not what I said. The F would still go through TIBS, but just turn south along Highway 99 to the Sea-Tac highway station. The A, H, and F would serve the stop at 160th and all three would serve the northbound stop at Sea-Tac.
Are you sure you mean 160th? Maybe you mean 176th. Either way sending the H and F down to SeaTac means spending a bunch of money overlapping a section of the A Line that doesn’t that many riders. You could run express between TIBS and SeaTac but that is what Link is for. For the F it would be a significant detour. For example consider this trip: https://maps.app.goo.gl/wQFubwkS6sis2NY69. The first stop gets about 120 riders a day. The second stop gets over 500 (more than TIBS gets). It stands to reason that a fair number of people are going between those two stops and yet they would be delayed. Meanwhile you are spending service hours just so people can avoid a transfer to Link (or the A Line).
I could see an extension of the H Line. That comes down to money, priorities and whether you want the route to be that long. Just to back up here, I’ve long said that the H Line should go to South Lake Union (along with the C Line). They should be timed to run opposite each other. But that would require fixing the South Lake Union Station situation and the easiest way to do that is get rid of the streetcar there and replace the tracks with bike lanes. Then replace the bike lanes with bus lanes. https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/10/04/replacing-the-south-lake-union-streetcar/. Even after you make the trip to South Lake Union faster the line may too long for an extension to SeaTac. You would also have to overcome traffic issues. Otherwise I could see it working.
Extending the H seems way too expensive for how many riders it would serve. And running Stride to Seatac is a major detour on what would otherwise be a fast route.
A cheaper option (though not revenue neutral) might be to extend the 161 to Westwood Village. It could take the roughly the route of the 131; the 131 and 132 could then rejoin (and maybe eliminate the Miltary Rd detour). I’d expect a 161-131 to do quite well.
“Extending the H seems way too expensive for how many riders it would serve. And running Stride to Seatac is a major detour on what would otherwise be a fast route.”
I think it may be useful to step back and make a few general observations.
1. There is a potential problem with too many transfers between Westwood/ White Center and South King that is created if ST drops the Route 560 tail. This is a result of Stride 1 not going further than Burien.
2. Resolving it (extension or new route) costs service hours and thus money — unless another route’s service hours are used.
3. ST proposed continued ST express service to Westwood on the ST3 map. They did not specify what would connect to. The same map shows both Stride and ST Express service on 405 all the way to Bellevue.
https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/project-documents/st3-system-plan-2016.pdf
4. So clearly there isn’t a perfect solution. Every strategy costs time and thus money.
It really begs for a targeted study to clarify alternative solutions that can be based on more than speculation with analysis of travel times and ridership to know which one is best. Certainly the suggestions made here are mostly worthy of at least an assessment of service hours, rider volumes and rider travel times including transfer waits.
Unlike a South King restructure for FW Link, this instead involves Stride as well as the City of Seattle.
But ultimately, it is the value to riders that matters. Sure ST and Metro can promise high frequency service. However if the riders per service hour aren’t there, service will get cut at some point. This is true for any transit operation.
But this is a matter that lands on ST’s lap. Because the service is represented in ST3, ST cannot summarily cancel the service on the segment between Burien and Westwood..
OK, let me say it again, “the F would turn south at TIBS” and end at 176th in the drop off loop behind the northbound stop”.
Ditto the H, only it wouldn’t go into TIBS, it would just take the SR99 off-ramp and turn left. The new stop at 160th would be to allow folks to transfer with only tiny backtracking.
Yes, there’s an overlap with the A, but maybe just interline the A and eastern 2/3 of the F? There are bound to be lots of people along SR99 that would like to go to Southcenter.
Maybe FWTC to Renton is too long a run, but if not it makes some sense.
It seems that STRide to Westwood Village is off the table though, otherwise ST would have just cloned the 560’s route.
“take the SR99 off-ramp and turn right” [ie. “south”]
In an ideal world your idea of extending STRide South to Westwood Village is the best solution overall if the TIBS flyer stop is built. However, I think ST has tipped their hand by not proposing it from the git-go, regardless of that map.
So Renton is one of the bigger destinations for the 560, but many commenters on blog advocates against a Stride station there?
The Renton station only makes sense. Unlike Bellevue, they seem to care to add bus lanes and traffic signal priority. It has good transfer potential as well from the future Rapid Ride I, Fairwood 102/148, and Maple Valley 907. Very commonly used park and ride as well.
I don’t think anybody questions the value of South STRide stopping at the new Renton TC. Some people have regretted that the TC is moving from downtown Renton, but the city wants it gone, so going it is. It will certainly make STRide 2 faster.
Your ideas for a fan of feeders from east of 405/167 focused on the TC is exactly what we (generally) support. There’s really no place in King County left to build new developments except the remaining space between Renton to Enumclaw.
Thanks for being so thoughtful about this, Ross. I think you are vastly underestimating delay running STRIDE through Burien would add, based on my personal experiences. the 560 often just sits in Burien for 5 to 10 minutes. The 560 is already express. The handful of stops on Ambuam are pretty insignificant, and I think the 30 minutes it takes the 560 to detour through Burien is much closer to what you will see with STRIDE than you are suggesting. Maybe 28 minutes, if you skip the Ambaum stops.
Or are you suggesting getting back on the 509 and heading for Roxbury via the freeway? Maybe a Freeway stop rather than detour to the transit center?
Renton is the primary reason for Stride. It’s the second-largest city in the Eastside, is not on Link, and has no frequent express transit to another city or Link station.
Our concerns are about the location of the new transit center. That was the City of Renton’s decision, in order to get through-running express/peak-hour buses out of central Renton to improve the ambience. The new location has a limited walkshed due to 405 and 167 being a block away on the south and west.
No, Renton is an afterthought for Stride. Stride 405 South is mostly about connecting Burien & TIBS to Bellevue. Renton politicians & city officials were minimally engaged in the ST3 process and mostly cared about moving the TC out of downtown and adding parking for commuters.
Stride 405 South is an express overlay for both the and 560. The problem is there is not yet a transfer point between Stride and local bus service at Southport (the NE corner of urban Renton), so riders between Renton and Bellevue are forced to backtrack to the new TC. To mitigate this issue, extend the F to the Stride station at 44th or continue to run the 560 (perhaps truncated to 44th). Once there is a Stride station at 405/Southport, the 560 can go away. HOV access at Southport is already included in the 405 Master Plan.
“No, Renton is an afterthought for Stride. Stride 405 South is mostly about connecting Burien & TIBS to Bellevue.”
That’s impossible. Bellevue has 152K people and Renton has 104K; they’re the largest cities in the Eastside. You can’t just ignore Renton’s transit needs. (Renton is also second behind Kent in South King County, which is 133K.) Burien is half that at 51K. Burien is getting service more because it’s at the end of a grid line and ST has to give it something. TIB has practically nothing around it. It’s not Tukwila’s city center; Tukwila doesn’t have a city center; the closest counterpart is Southcenter.
“Renton politicians & city officials were minimally engaged in the ST3 process and mostly cared about moving the TC out of downtown and adding parking for commuters”
Renton neglecting its responsibilities does not give ST an excuse to neglect its responsibility. Again, Renton is a large city without Link or frequent express transit, so it needs Stride or an alternative, so that those hundred thousand residents can get to the rest of the region.
Renton’s attitude in the 2010s seemed to be, “We want better transit but we want somebody else to plan it, pay for it, and implement it.” It finally got around to a transit master plan late in the game around 2020. It did want to move the transit center for non-transit reasons; in that sense it’s more car-oriented and transit-blind than it should be, but no Pugetopolis city is stellar when it comes to transit.
I think you are vastly underestimating delay running STRIDE through Burien would add, based on my personal experiences [on the 560]
I think you are ignoring the fact that it wouldn’t be the 560. The 560 has a designated path from Burien TC to Westwood Village. It is not necessarily the fastest path. It also makes several stops. As a result it is relatively slow. Just put in the two destinations (Burien TC to Westwood Village). As of right now (with traffic) driving is 8 minutes faster. That means this new bus would be 8 minutes faster than the existing 560. That would likely vary, but that is a significant savings.
Note that as I write this it only takes five minutes to detour to Burien TC and go back to the freeway (this — https://maps.app.goo.gl/xJCcjAsSHXrRDdbs8 versus this — https://maps.app.goo.gl/KMU6PvJ2YVJGH9TG9). (This is with traffic.) Yet that isn’t the fastest way to get to Westwood Village. You end up taking a shortcut after serving Burien TC. Basically this is via Burien TC (https://maps.app.goo.gl/LxrLgpvxjkw4bRgKA) and this is skipping it (https://maps.app.goo.gl/H2hBTUxz2ra3YbVy8) in this case skipping Burien TC saved only 3 minutes.
The times vary (of course) but skipping the stops between Burien TC and Westwood Village saves somewhere around 8 minutes while skipping Burien TC saves somewhere around 4 minutes. Given the huge benefit of serving Burien TC it makes sense to serve it.
Just to back up here. Renton is a detour but it is also a significant destination. It accounts for about 30% of the boardings for those heading towards Bellevue and about half that heading west. A 560 that skipped Renton would not get that many riders. Many of the riders would just ride the Stride Line through Renton. Nor would it be cheap. Even though it would be faster it would still take a while. Burien and Bellevue are not close to each other. Without traffic or any stops it would take about 20 minutes. With freeway stops you are looking somewhere around 25 minutes (one way). That is just not a very good value.
There are alternatives. I like John’s idea. Run the 566 all day long (but not to Redmond). Run it every half hour to Kent (and maybe hourly to Auburn). You could run another bus from Renton to Bellevue. Maybe Tukwila Transit Center to Renton and on to Bellevue. This would be an express version of part of the F (which happens to get a lot of riders but is particularly slow) combined with a direction connection to Bellevue. Sounds good but now you are essentially duplicating about ten miles of freeway running.
You also haven’t solved the other half of the problem. Folks in Renton were promised good service to Bellevue *and* Burien/TIBS. Again it isn’t hard to come up with a solution. Run an express version of the F (Renton/TIBS/Burien). Hell, extend it (express) to Westwood Village. Now you’ve solved Cam’s problem (although it still has the dreaded “detour” to Burien TC). But again, you’ve doubled up a fair amount of freeway running. Not quite as much, but still.
The problem is that doing all that is expensive. One big issue is that you probably won’t get a lot of riders no matter what you do. A 560 that skips Renton won’t get that many riders. An all-day 566 won’t get that many riders. Cam’s express from TIBS to Westwood Village (with or without a stop at Burien he considers a big detour) won’t get that many riders. It is just the nature of transit. You can build a first-class system for regional transit but don’t expect it to get anywhere near the ridership of a second-class system in an urban area. Unless we automate the buses I just don’t see it.
I think the only option is just try and make the “detour” to Renton as fast as possible. The other thing to do is spend a lot more money on transit so that projects like these are actually a good value (compared to what we do in other areas).
Okay, Ross. You win. Those maps are somewhat compelling in your argument not to skip Burien. As long as they don’t sit around for 10 minutes in the transit center, I’d be okay with it. I don’t think ST will go for your Westwood Express, but I would. As always, thanks for your thoughtfulness.
Just serve Burien. It is the first stop anyways… literally adds no delay as long as the bus drivers leave on scheduled time.
Stride 1 only has like… 5 stops. I don’t get why people want to get rid off service to major cities to save a few minutes of the trip time at the cost of losing ridership.
“No, Renton is an afterthought for Stride.”
You realize Stride is happening because Renton pushed for it?
Renton is a high ridership area, so it’s baffling people think places like Burien, Issaquah, Shoreline, or Kirkland deserves higher priority. They should still get transit but Renton is extremely underserved for its position as a major city with a large population AND even more feeder population from SE King County and unincorporated areas.
Renton is in the East subarea and has been paying for the rest of the county to get brand new light rail while they are stuck with two low frequency express buses that crawl in traffic. Doesn’t sound bad to you? Why do think the 405 is the most congested freeway? You are forced to drive if you want to get to Bellevue, and there is inadequate service into Seattle.
Stride isn’t the best we can do but it’s at least something and it’s certainly something I and many others would use to get into Bellevue reliably.
The comment section being silent on the Seattle Times Montlake article proves my theory.
What theory?
I felt the article singled out Montlake when it’s not that unusual. Most of the corridor between the Ship Canal and Mt Baker station is residential-only of varying density. It extends several blocks west of it. 10th Ave E is also similar, and many other areas between the urban village islands. Montlake is only “low-density surrounded by medium density” only in a car sense. You can walk from north of 520 to the U-District, but you can’t walk to the commercial districts on 19th, 15th, or Broadway. 19th is barely a commercial district. Even if Montlake densifies, it won’t shorten those distances or the low-density areas in between.
Yeah, what is true of Montlake is true of many neighborhoods. I don’t think the article implied otherwise. But I think it make for an interesting historical story to look at a particular neighborhood in more depth and go through the history. The neighborhood I wish I knew more about is Madison Park. It was historically a very white enclave (https://depts.washington.edu/labhist/maps-race-seattle.shtml). Yet they built huge residential towers there (and then they obviously stopped). I always found that odd.
From what I can tell, those condos in Madison Park are on the waterfront (and at the edge of the neighborhood) and provide docking for boats. Montlake would also have direct water access for boats, but UW has air rights there, because God forbid there should be a building obstructing the view of Mount Rainier from Red Square. This might explain some of the difference.
My parents said the Madison Park tower pair inspired a zoning change to prevent any more highrises outside downtown.
There’s also the Beacon Hill tower (Massachusetts Ave Apartments) from the same era. In the 90s I knew somebody there in a subsidized apartment. I don’t know if that building is all affordable housing or has always been.
So maybe all three buildings led to the zoning cap.
Sam still hasn’t said what his theory is. I’m beginning to think he doesn’t have a theory.
As a deescalation expert, I thought about saying my theory, but it would have ruffled some feathers, people would get defensive, and the reaction would be predictable. I thought it best to let the matter go.
If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there, does it make a sound?
if Metro has a reroute that adds 10-15 minutes to each trip, but no stops are actually closed, is it noteworthy?
According to Metro the answer is “no”. For the next week, Pend Oreille Road on UW campus is closed. The buses that run through campus (372, 45/75, 65/67) have a detour up the 45th street viaduct and looping around campus. For the 372 this adds 10-15 minutes through several additional traffic lights. But Metro didn’t bother to announce this on the service alert page or via text message. I mean, why would their communications team think it was important to alert people that they need to allow extra time for the next week?
Metro is so terrible at this. I’m signed up for alerts about most of the routes I ride, but I’d say about 1 in 20 of the buses that aren’t in the alerts never show up. I’ve tried calling to complain about this, but this seems to always happen when they’re closed.
Metro needs to communicate this better. If they think a bus might not show up, we need to know at least 30 minutes in advance so we don’t waste our time going to the station and waiting unnecessarily.
It isn’t so bad for frequent routes, but it is really bad when I take a train/bus somewhere far from where I was to transfer to another express bus that only arrives every 45 minutes. Then it never shows up. The alternate bus routes (2 seat rides) back to this destination takes at least an extra 30 minutes (often longer since the transfer bus is usually late), so slightly better than waiting for the next express…but still a huge disappointment.
I really don’t see a huge market for walk-on passengers from Friday Harbor to downtown Odin County Park. Orcas Village maybe a little more, but it’s still far from any true density area. Orcas Village is also quite out of the way from Odin Park.
It would cost more, but some sort of service connecting to Orcas Village and Eastsound would probably get more passengers. Problem is, that’s further for the boat to travel.
Something like Olga and Spencer’s Marina would be better in terms of trying to not deviate the boat too much.
The San Juan Island are essentially rural. Any walk-on ridership is either a cyclist or someone being picked up / dropped off.
Many of the ferry terminals have bus service.
That’s the problem: if people are going to get picked up or dropped off anyway, you might put the locations where they make more sense for the boat.
That said:
Most of the land is rural. Friday Harbor gets a decent amount of walk-on traffic. Eastsound has enough activity and population it could probably justify service, except it’s too far from the Friday Harbor – Anacortes boat route.
I don’t think Orcas or Lopez have a bus? There simply isn’t enough density to justify a bus route. Public transit on a rural island will look much more like paratransit, with small vehicles and more point-to-point service.
Vashon can support a bus route because there is a simple linear corridor with a ridership anchor on both ends (2 ferry terminals). Also Vashon can leverage KCM, with routes 118/9 operating out of a large bus base, so the incremental fixed costs aside from the bus itself is immaterial.
Unlike most rural counties, however, 90% or so of the trips go between two places. At Orcas, that’s Eastsound to the ferry at Orcas Village.
Also, unlike many rural areas, there’s a significant portion of the population working service industry jobs, that really don’t pay well enough to maintain a car. People do because they have to, but some sort of transit service would be a significant help to them.
Somehow, even Asotin County (the least populous in the state) has public transit service, but somehow San Juan doesn’t.
At some point, they’ll grow to the point where they realize this is a mistake.
Asotin County is more like Vashon – it only has transit because it is connected to Lewiston’s transit agency.
Eastsound is has ~1K people for an island of >5K. Not sure why you are confident it has such a large share of possible trips. Rosario, Olga, and Deer Harbor are other destinations, with Deer Harbor is very much not on the way to Eastsound.
Deer Harbor only has about 3 public parking places and maybe 20 houses.
Eastsound is fairly busy by comparison. It’s not Ballard by any means, but it has a lot more activity than Vashon village center.
Next time you get off the ferry there, watch where the vast majority of the line of traffic goes that gets off with you. A few turn off here and there, but a huge portion goes to Eastsound.
The critical issue for sighting ferry terminals is minimizing the distance traveled over water. Large non-planning hulls burn way too much fuel to do otherwise. The high speed passenger ferries aren’t light on fuel burn either. It is similar to sighting bridges, eg the Tacoma Narrows bridge is at the narrowest point of the sound. Anywhere else it was infeasible. Secondary issue is having some weather protection and a deep enough channel. Kingston is a bit out of the way for ferries coming from Edmonds, but the point directly across is Apple Tree Point, which is very exposed to both north and south winds, and as well has issues with wildly varying bottom depths. I’m guessing that there are actually a very few places in the sound that are good for a ferry landing and don’t already have one.
I’m a ferry regular and also fish those areas…
Bremerton to Seattle was definitely put there due to historic population centers and demand rather than water distance.
Recent Federal Way Link Extension Flyover. Video taken March 18th. Shows the four-car train sitting near Star Lake Station one commenter said they saw. The video was taken before the opening of the new Federal Way TC on March 30th.
https://youtu.be/WYqbcS8EFcY
Link was erratic today on the day after the reduction ended. The Westlake mezzanine displays said “Angle Lake” above both platforms. I went down to the northbound one hoping it would be Lynnwood, and the displays there said Lynnwood. Trains were supposed to come every 10 minutes, but the next ones were in 13 and 18 minutes, suggesting train bunching. The timer jumped 3-4 minutes while it was counting down, so we didn’t really have to wait 13 minutes.
Coming back from Roosevelt at rush hour, the next trains were in 2, 25, and 29 minutes. I hurried down the elevator hoping to catch the first one, which I did.
Hopefully the headways will even out in a day or two.
Headways have been even, there are some ghost trains that seem to be series 1 sets. There was also a train that had to be taken out of service for an extreme biohazard, but it was replaced almost seamlessly at SODO/omf Central.
Why does the Sound Transit merch store have 2 Line hats, but not 1 Line hats?
https://soundtransitshop.com
Why doesn’t Zion’s Gate Records have Lebanon Hanover’s 2018 album (the best one) and says it will have the next one only while it’s brand new?
Sam has a point. The hats will certainly sell better at Spirit in the fall, if they have an equal number of 1 Line caps and fuzzy red jumpsuits of all sizes.
With Stride 1 BRT coming soon, I was thinking about how we should restructure the buses to better serve the new line. South Renton is particularly a key location because it acts as a perfect transfer point to take the 101 to Seattle and now Stride to Bellevue.
I think Maple Valley and Fairwood can really benefit from it. A new all day bus route that travels along Petrovitsky Rd. instead of SR 169 would attract more riders and avoid some traffic. It’d head down SR 167/515 to the new South Renton Transit Center, where riders can transfer to the frequent 101/102 (Seattle) or Stride (Bellevue/TIBS).
Rapid Line I should help out East Hill Kent a lot with this. 566 will remain effective for areas more close to the SR 167 corridor. A new route for Covington that passes through any unserved areas Kent/Lake Youngs to get to South Renton would be useful as well.
With Stride, Southeast King County would be fully connected. We just need better bus service and two seat rides will become a reality for them. MANY people commute from this area by car, alone in their car. Transit will be a better option for many including myself.
The only other connection that’d be nice is an SR 900 bus route to Issaquah. But that might be hard and maybe low ridership.
One Renton issue is most residents live east of downtown Renton, but almost all bus routes require transferring in downtown Renton to get to Seattle or Bellevue or elsewhere in the region. Metro should extend local routes through downtown Renton to somewhere useful. We’ve suggested that RapidRide I (route 160) should be extended north to Rainier Beach station, so that south Renton residents and east Kent residents can get to Seattle more quickly and easily. Route 106 or 107 could be through-routed with the 105 to the Renton Highlands.
I think Route 101/102 can be faster than Link if SR 900 is fixed. It is a garbage road and extremely uncomfortable with bumps everywhere, forcing the bus drivers to slow down.
Repave the road and add a bus lane. People would ride a fast 101 any day over riding along Rainier Valley on the Link at 30 mph.
101/102 has an easy transfer to Link at SODO/Stadium and also goes directly into downtown. Stride would serve Bellevue. So as long as buses are frequent, I don’t think we need to extend any lines. Renton is a good transfer location and all of these local routes naturally pass through it.
As for downtown Renton, they need good bus service to the 44th station to transfer to Stride, or even better just send another Metro express bus up the freeway into Bellevue.
Renton Highlands already have the 111 which is good enough for them. They don’t really need Stride unless they want to get into Bellevue TC more directly, and 111 can probably stop at 44th to allow transfers.
I just don’t see Stride being valuable for Renton itself, because of Renton’s geography. They need their own fast bus routes to Bellevue.
South Renton station ironically will be more useful for people in Kent, Fairwood, and Maple Valley/Covington. Those are the people who use the park and ride right now… Most riders on the 102 get off there so it’s certainly a destination.
Another solution was they should have built it around Exit 4/5 with a freeway station. But alas, Renton made a bad choice. It’s better than nothing.
I just don’t see Stride being valuable for Renton itself, because of Renton’s geography. They need their own fast bus routes to Bellevue.
Renton is especially suited for through-routing buses. It is basically “on the way” for buses coming from Bellevue. Skipping Renton ends up duplicating a lot of service or reducing frequency. Renton is too big to skip and too close to the action to “get by” with half hour service. Yet it is not big enough to warrant a duplicate set of routes. The various combinations (Bellevue/Link, Bellevue/Renton, Renton/Link) are best served with midday fifteen minute buses — half hour trips (even if they are faster) just aren’t as good even if they are faster.
In an ideal world every bus stop along the 405 corridor would be like the Bellevue Transit Center. It is fairly close to the middle of a compact (and quite dense) downtown area. Yet can be accessed quite quickly from the freeway any time of day. This makes it especially well suited for the middle of a bus route. The “detour” is not that big when you have that.
But I don’t think it is easy to build anything like that in Renton. You basically need three things:
1) An easy way to get to the station from the freeway (both directions). Ideally this is from the HOV lanes.
2) A location that is a destination in its own right.
3) A good location for bus transfer.
The existing transit center is good for the first couple things but not great on the third. It takes quite a while to get to the station and at that point you might as well just go through that part of Renton (similar to what the 560 does now but hopefully faster).
One possibility is the South Renton Park and Ride Lot. This looks good as a bus terminal (it is used by several buses already). It isn’t much of a destination (but that could change). It is close to the freeway and there was talk of building flyover ramps to serve it. I could easily see that working fairly well. It currently connects to several buses. I don’t think it connects to the F Line but it would be relatively small detour that would likely benefit a lot more people than it would delay. This would enable easy transfers to various places and frequent service to the other transit center (and places along the way). I’m not sure what happened to the plans for the flyover ramps though. They appear to be dead.
Thus ST plans on building a different transit center, just northeast of Rainier & Grady. They own the land and are ready to build there. Unfortunately that would require the Stride Line to cross Grady on Rainier, which apparently can take a while (even with a BAT lane). So they have floated the idea of moving it just south of Grady (as described in this article — https://www.theurbanist.org/2024/08/29/renton-proposes-moving-sound-transit-bus-station/). This would put the station closer to the freeway. As the article points out this would likely speed up access for the Stride bus while making walk-up ridership considerably worse. But it would also make access from the other buses worse as well. It is quite likely that way more Metro buses would access that bus stop every hour than the future Stride line. Otherwise you are asking people to make three-seat rides to get most anywhere in Renton (or just expecting everyone who uses this half billion dollar “BRT” from Renton to drive).
But looking at Google Map driving directions I can see why they want to move the stop to the south. (This is as I write this — obviously it varies depending on traffic.) It takes 4 minutes to get to a couple spots on 405 if you bypass Renton (https://maps.app.goo.gl/gE7ZwrNWkw471WLf8). If you serve a stop south of Grady and turn around it takes 7 minutes (https://maps.app.goo.gl/QEphhYJoarB1eVp57). If you turn further north it can take around 10 minutes (https://maps.app.goo.gl/MopgcYwGsK9T3Jrj7). Note: The last two travel times may be exaggerated as a bus could make turns that cars currently can’t. Driving through Renton (similar to how the 560 does it but following a faster path) would take 14 minutes (https://maps.app.goo.gl/KszkUcZPpgdD7azH9).
I’m really not sure what the best approach is. None of the ideas sound particularly good. I think I would be tempted to just drive through Renton. Yes, it would slow those buses down but at least it serves the overall network much better. If ST (and the state) want to build flyover ramps to serve a new bus stop in Renton (which was the original plan) that can always happen later. Until then at least the other buses could continue to do what they currently do (instead of spend a bunch of time trying to serve an out-of-the-way bus stop).
This would also set up the possibility of “express” service skipping Renton which might only occur during peak.
“I just don’t see Stride being valuable for Renton itself, because of Renton’s geography. They need their own fast bus routes to Bellevue.”
I tend to agree. The only exception is that a number of Renton residents who live east and south of the Strude station site do drive down the hill and park to take transit.
The mindset still seems to be pervasive that transit in Renton is only for commuting elsewhere. It’s not surprising — and frankly this mindset is driving some of the comments from other posters on this thread.
What kind of DESTINATION does Renton want to become? How should it deal with the height restrictions set by having the airport so close to Downtown? Does Renton want to be anything more than sprawling plants and warehouses, big retail zones with ample free parking, mostly low-density residences and a modest Downtown with few buildings taller than three floors?
Ultimately, transit service will match the built environment for financial reasons. This will be the eventual fate of Stride due to basic transit cost-benefit considerations . It is promised to be as frequent as Link all-day now, but unless it becomes driverless, it’s not sustainable outside of commute periods. I think that it will evolve to be like ST Express but with some nicer stations — unless the urban form moves to look more like Redmond or Bellevue (both being deliberate about a more urban form over the past few decades) and less like Auburn or Puyallup.
The Landing is an attempt — but it doesn’t have the needed amount of surrounding residential within walking distance to be anything like a new Downtown. Between Boeing, Lake Washington and a huge “unwalkable” hill with a wide 405 on the side, it’s almost an island unto itself.
Frankly, Stride outside of Downtown Bellevue is designed to be mostly a string of park-and-ride lots next to a freeway. Even posts here declare any diversion to another major day-long destination like SeaTac or for that matter SouthCenter, Factoria or Downtown Kirkland as either trivial or even destructive to the service on the corridor. Given that it’s a freeway corridor that may be all it can be.
Geographically, Renton reminds me of San Jose. It’s a city located at the southern end of a large body of water that needs to connect with cities halfway up the eastern and western side of the body of water.
Another observation is, even though Renton has ten times the population of Ballard (100,000 vs 11,000), not only is Renton not talked about on this blog ten times as much as Ballard, I think Ballard might even be talked about more than Renton.
“I just don’t see Stride being valuable for Renton itself”
What better alternative does Renton have? You can’t ride theoretical concepts; you can only ride what’s running now or will run in five years. People can’t just hold their trips until the 2030s when there might be better transit options. Even if Stride misses a few 560 stops, it will be more frequent and faster, so transfers and waits will be less annoying and time-consuming. Especially if you’re transferring to other frequent routes like Link, H, I, or F.
Stride will make at least some kinds of trips better, depending on the destination and time of day, so it will probably increase ridership. Renton will still have a lot of transit underservice, which could be addressed by other routes. IF the City of Renton prioritizes it and provides supplemental funding, or King County passes that Metro Connects levy it has been procrastinating on for ten years, or the county otherwise helps Metro increase its service hours and resolve its driver/maintenance/parts shortage. (Oh dear, tariffs will make parts shortages worse.)
The entire issue of Renton’s transit/walkability failures and current opportunities would fill a book.
The biggest one I see is the convergence of three highways: 405, 167, and 900. That was an opportunity for people to access Renton and shopping opportunities, but the governments designed it in a bad way with an elevated freeway going through downtown (405) and a large interchange structure to 167 (at the future transit center).
Renton compounded that by turning over the western 2/3 of downtown to big-box lots. Those could have been stacked, with apartments above, and garages or a smarter use of less parking, a la Northgate North. As it is now, with the highways and the big box hell, it feels like a bomb hit downtown Renton and left it like that. The retail is lucrative and useful, but not as pedestrian-friendly as it could have been.
Then there’s transit. Renton could have prioritized it starting anytime in the past half century. It could have pushed for higher frequency and facilitated it happening.
“How should it deal with the height restrictions set by having the airport so close to Downtown?”
I hadn’t thought of that. What is the FAA height limit in downtown Renton?
“Renton reminds me of San Jose.”
In a few aspects, but San Jose is a much larger city.
Sitting at the southern end of a large body of water, “Geographically, Renton reminds me of San Jose.” That was the full sentence and meaning. Not, “Renton reminds me of San Jose.” Not sure why you left off that word.
From Google’s AI Overview:
“In Downtown Renton, the maximum building height is 150 feet, with potential incentives for affordable housing. This limit is also the FAA limit for South Renton. Specific mixed-use residential buildings have additional requirements for upper story setbacks and roofline modulation.”
– Sam. San Jose expert. Renton expert. Stride expert.
“In Downtown Renton, the maximum building height is 150 feet,”
That’s plenty of space! I wouldn’t expect a suburban downtown to go above 70 feet, and recent reevaluations of urbanism in The Netherlands and Paris and such has shown that it’s not necessary. So western/southern downtown Renton just needs more 7-story buildings like in The Landing.
The 150 foot limit may apply to good part of Downtown Renton, but there are tighter height restrictions just to its west. The map is here:
https://gismaps.rentonwa.gov/GISIMAGES/STATICMAPS/Airport%20Area%20Elevations-South.pdf
For example, the Renton High School parcel is limited to a mere 40 feet (72 minus 32 ft). McClendon’s sits on a parcel limited to 70 to 80 feet (102 to 112 feet minus 32 feet).
That’s not to say that dense development isn’t possible. It’s just that central Renton will never resemble Bellevue in height as long as the airport is nearby.
Ross, Al, please see my comments toward the end of the next article (the one about Sunday Movies). If ST does not move the TC south of Grady Way, I have a post on how to wrap some elevated ramps around the intersection such that only buses coming north on 167 would have to go through the intersection of Rainier and Grady; all others would take ramps to and from the HOV lanes on the Bellevue Side of 167 and to and from the 405 main lanes west of 167. It would also connect to southbound 167.
It would not be cheap, but it would be very good.
Also, how are they going to get buses out of the TC if they move it south of Grady Way? They may still have to go through the bad intersection, making two lefts.
@ Tom:
I saw it. It doesn’t appear to eliminate the weave out of the HZoV lanes required by Stride buses. It wound skip pushing buses through the Grady/Rainier intersection but I see that as the lesser problem.