Ridership Patterns for Sound Transit Routes 542 and 545

65 Replies to “Ridership Patterns for Sound Transit Routes 542 and 545”

1. It’s a crying shame that neither Metro nor Sound Transit will operate a Kirkland/S. Kirkland-SR520 Freeway Stations-downtown Seattle route nor a Redmond-SR520 Freeway Stations-downtown Seattle route – like the historical route 255 or the current route 545.

   Opening Link across Mercer Island to Seattle will not replace demand for service to/from downtown Seattle from Kirkland, Redmond or the freeway stations.

   Route 255 ridership has plummeted compared to when the route operated directly to Seattle. It was once an all day route with 60 foot articulated coaches that were full. The promise was that we’d have 15 minute headways until the late evening hours with the UW truncation. Ridership vanished and the promise of service headways was not kept. It’s now 20 minute headways daytimes and 30 minute headways in the evenings – making service from downtown Seattle back to Kirkland basically unusable in the evenings after events in Seattle – what was once a 15 minute trip takes over an hour. It destroyed the value of the S. Kirkland Park and Ride, where a garage got built at great expense that is no longer used to capacity.

   There are constant service disruptions, not just for construction, but also regular events like the recent Beat the Bridge Run and opening day of boating season and football games. Passengers regularly transfer at the 520 freeway stations to the 545.

   The 255 was once Metro’s busiest eastside route. The ridership is lost. The S. Kirkland P&R is diminished.

   If the 545 is deleted more ridership will be lost. Not everyone is going to ride Link all the way via Mercer Island. The service to the SR-520 freeway stations will be lost. The possibility of transfers eliminated. Service to the northern Amazon territory near Stewart and Olive will be gone. The ability for any timely service from downtown Seattle evening events back to the Freeway stations and Kirkland gone.

   Really if the 545 gets deleted and replace by 542, the 255 should get restored as an all day route to downtown Seattle to make up for the service provided by the 545 and to allow transfers at the freeway stations between 542 and 255 including more reasonable service patterns when there is a disruption at UW and the Montlake bridge.

   1. I think the worst of the 255 is behind us, with the completed Montlake HOV ramp and, soon, the connecting Link line will be running all day every 5 minutes (once the 2 line is fully operating across the lake). I definitely want frequent evening service restored, but I the route itself is basically fine, and the old route would be much worse for me for a lot of trips. For instance, going to the airport during morning rush hour with a plane to catch, the trip is much more reliable switching to Link at UW station than having to depend on a bus down I-5, and still have to switch to Link anyway.

      As to the 545…operating Link requires shifting drivers from bus to train, which means the number of bus hours must go down, which means, if the 545 is maintained, other routes must lose service to compensate. Not worth it. Especially since the 520 option remains anyway, taking the 542 to the 1 line. If ST finds extra money under the table, I’d rather they run the 542 more frequently.

      1. Not only does the 255 drop to half hourly at 7:30pm, sometimes runs are cancelled due to driver shortage.

         There are few riders – is that because the service is so bad?

         Restoring the 255 to come directly from Seattle at 30 minute headways would be infinitely more usable than asking people to make a transfer to 30 minute service.

      2. Not “infinitely” and only for people coming from south of the Ship Canal. There is no longer a flyer stop at Montlake, so service between downton Seattle and the 520 corridor does not also serve the University.

         When (and “if”) the 2 line opens across the lake, the best way to get to Kirkland and Totem Lake from those neighborhoods of Seattle will be to take Link and change at Bellevue TC. Link is better protected from traffic than any bus, since most Washington drivers think that God has given them an exemption from HOV regulations whenever some congestion spins up.

      3. Construction of new Portage Bay bridge and Roanoke lid are ramping up. It will be a lot of mess in the next few years. It is probably a smart move to take the chance of 2 Line full opening to reduce bus trips on SR 520 west of Montlake for now.

         I-5 express lane north of Downtown Seattle being reversible is also not ideal for running SR 520 express service to Downtown Seattle.

         If bus-rail transfer at UW was more seamless, I would have no problem ST truncating most of its SR 520 service at UW Link station..

      4. Not only does the 255 drop to half hourly at 7:30pm, sometimes runs are cancelled due to driver shortage.

         But if the bus run downtown it would run less often. I think you are ignoring that. The main reason the buses now go to the UW is the same reason that we truncate other buses in our system. There are plenty of people who wish that the 41 still ran (at least during peak). That would eliminate a transfer and get them to downtown quicker. But it is expensive to run that (and other) buses. What you are proposing is basically to run the 255 to downtown but not less often than it does now.

      5. So we are spending hundreds of millions to connect SR520 HOV lanes to I-5 and only going to run a few peak express buses? Kind of sucks if you are in Kirkland or that transit-oriented development at S. Kirkland P&R

      6. The HOV lanes are not just for the buses, and it probably makes sense to run a Woodinville-405-520 peak express to South Lake Union that makes all the flyer stops when the HOV connection is built. They may have to skip 85th because it is so close to 520, but everything north of there can be served. Ditto from Redmond, again making all the flyer stops. Kirkland riders can change at the Points as I think they do today.

         But it makes much more sense for anyone traveling to or from the “classic” CBD core south of Virginia to take Link and change at Bellevue T/C for service to Kirkland or elsewhere along 405 North. I believe that the 220 is slated for RapidRide, so it will be running every ten minutes north from BTC.

         Also, STRide 1 will be running before the HOV connection is completed, so the buses farther north will be realigned to feed it. It will run every ten minutes as well. Grant, the transfer at BTC is worse than it should be, but a trip to downtown Seattle from Kingsgate or Totem Lake will be quick and quite reliable, even with two transfers.

      7. So we are spending hundreds of millions to connect SR520 HOV lanes to I-5 and only going to run a few peak express buses?

         Yep. It is a really outdated project. Or at best it is geared around carpools. In that sense it would be like the 405/167 HOV ramps. I don’t think there are any public buses that use that ramp right now.

      8. The HOV lanes are not just for the buses, and it probably makes sense to run a Woodinville-405-520 peak express to South Lake Union that makes all the flyer stops when the HOV connection is built.

         If history is any guide it really doesn’t. The same thing happened at Northgate. I can’t emphasize enough how great it was to ride the 41 around peak. The bus didn’t just run from Northgate Transit Center — it ran all the way to Lake City. From various fairly dense areas you could catch the bus. The connection to the freeway was outstanding. Once on the freeway the bus would quickly get you downtown and into the transit tunnel. It is easy to see why Metro has tried to leverage that capability even as they abandoned the 41. They have tried various combinations. They send the bus to other parts of the greater downtown area (South Lake Union and First Hill). But ultimately they are just not good buses. They don’t run often enough to be really useful. You can’t justify running them often because they are basically just overlapping Link. Ridership is just not that good.

         The same situation exists along 520. There is an even stronger case for simply sending all the buses to the UW because the UW is a major destination (Northgate isn’t). It will save the riders time but I doubt it will save enough riders enough time to justify the express. That doesn’t mean that ST and Metro won’t run them. But it means that Metro and ST could do better things for their money.

      9. South Lake Union is a four-seat ride with a 60 foot elevation change at UW for riders changing from a feeder bus serving, say, Juanita. It’s a three-seater from Woodinville (STRide 3, Link and something-something from Westlake). I wouldn’t want to see “cheating” where the bus turned left at Westlake and terminated at Virginia, but turning back at Expedia until BLE is finished or making a “U” through SLU (south on Fairview, west on Denny and north on Westlake (or counter-clockwise if the traffic is better that way) would be a reasonable routing for one route to and from NE King County at the peaks.

         And, yes, I know that the 41 was great. I actually rode it when it was “41 Blue Streak”. But it’s apples-to-oranges with SLU. If you go to UW Station, do the dive, then get on Link, you’ll ride by your destination and have to climb back up (fortunately, not nearly as far) and then mosey on over the Third to catch the RapidRide.

         That’s fine for base service when the buses certainly wouldn’t fill up. But at the peaks, when Link is going to be crowded through exactly the segment that such a rider would be using it it’s not a great sin to offer a short-cut.

         You’ve said yourself, many times, that over-crowding is best served by adding parallel express service to skim the cream off the ridership milk bottle. This is the same thing for people who would have a complicated path to their destination and be part of the over-crowding.

         Yes, I too am skeptical of the First Hill routes, simply because it’s all medical up there, with a wider peak in both the morning and evening. But SLU, now that Amazon is largely RTO is just far enough that walking from Westlake is a PITA.

      10. Juanita to SLU is a 3-seat ride, not 4. 255->Link->40/C/70/streetcar. Depending on which part of SLU you’re going to, you may not even need the 3rd seat, as just walking from Westlake station might be faster. The tallest buildings in SLU tend to be the ones closest to downtown, where the 3rd seat is least necessary. A two seat option also exists, as it is possible to transfer from the 255 to the 70 in the U district, but unless Link has a service disruption, this option is generally slower than the 3 seat alternative.

      11. You’ve said yourself, many times, that over-crowding is best served by adding parallel express service to skim the cream off the ridership milk bottle.

          To be clear it is just one of the ways to deal with over-crowding. You can run the trains more often (obviously). You can run trains with better capacity. Then, when you’ve done everything else you can run express buses. This costs the agency money but it is much cheaper than building a second line.

          But in this case overcrowding isn’t an issue. We are talking about the period after East Link goes across the lake (and we have enough trains). Then we can run four-car trains every four minutes (or even three if we felt like it).

          But even if we are focused on relieving the crowing it isn’t clear we should be focused on this corridor and not others. Three-seat rides are common all over. You could resurrect the 41 so that riders no longer have to deal with the three-seat ride like this. That is basically the idea behind buses like the 322 that eliminates that transfer if the timing is right. But I’m saying those buses don’t perform well. They don’t carry that many riders. They do not perform like the old 41 for a couple reasons. First because not that many people are headed downtown anymore and second because people hate waiting. You would need to run the buses a lot more often to be able to compete with Link. Yes, people hate transfer but they hate waiting even more.

          Based on pre-pandemic bus ridership I would say your best bet would be to send several of the 522 buses to downtown (instead of Roosevelt). During peak there used to be buses every three minutes to downtown. Unlike the 41 you don’t run right by the station. This means that the bus doesn’t serve both purposes. This sounds wrong (because in general you want buses to do both) but if the goal is relieving crowding then you want the bus to be full as gets on the freeway. Furthermore you save some time. Getting on the express lanes may take as long as getting to Roosevelt (and once on the express lanes the bus can be downtown very quickly). But Metro tried that and again, it just didn’t get the riders.

          There are lots of express buses to downtown that don’t compete with Link at all and they just don’t get the ridership that they used to. Newer routes that serve places like South Lake Union and First Hill do worse (they have always done worse).

          If you are focused on reducing crowing then you need sufficient frequency to make it attractive. But that means that you focus on a few areas, not a lot (unless you want to spend a lot of money).

          In contrast if you are focused on reducing three-seat rides you would need to spread the money around. Because lots of people are facing the possibility of a three-seat ride. Basically everywhere north of the ship canal and east of I-5 (for starters). That is a huge area that would require the resurrection of various express buses to downtown if we wanted to cover it. That is simply not realistic. So you end up serving the areas where you get the most riders. But that is still very expensive and it is still highly likely that you end up with way more people having to take a three-seat ride.

          Which is why the most cost-effective approach is to make the three-seat ride as painless as possible. For First Hill they should improve service along Broadway all day long. This would not cost a lot of money. You could easily have six minute frequency with a restructure and no extra service. With more money you could run the streetcar and buses more often. So instead of waiting up to twelve minutes for the streetcar you wait at most five. At rush hour I could see four minute headways. This would benefit way more people than a similar amount of money spend on express buses.

          After we do all that (and dozens of other things) we should consider adding express buses. Until then there are just better ways to spend money.

      12. The 41 was great when the express lanes were going your direction. Reverse-peak and off-peak it got stuck in congestion bottlenecks where it crawled. Southbound midday it went on local streets to the Banner Way (75th) entrance to avoid the Northgate Way congestion. That’s over a mile where it can’t go faster than an arterial. Link has robust service full time both directions.

      13. asdf2, you are correct about now. I should have said “will be” rather than “is”. I was thinking of the future state, post STRide when buses in that part of the county will be reorganized to feed the north-south “Eastside Spine”. The 255 is supposed to be replaced by a RapidRide to BTC, I believe, north of downtown Kirkland.

          I guess that folks could transfer to Link there and ride to Westlake, and that would be three seats.

          How many people actually walk from Westlake to Amazon?

          Does anybody who contributes here do so themself or know someone who does? I doubt it happens often, simply because pedestrians are at the mercy of the six-way street grid on Westlake’s long light cycles.

      14. How many people actually walk from Westlake to Amazon?

          Does anybody who contributes here do so themself or know someone who does?

          I assume you mean HQ (at Terry & Republican). The spheres (at 6th & Lenora) are a pretty close walk from the station. Anyway, years ago I remember someone working in South Lake Union. We were discussing the streetcar. He said he basically ignored it — he just walked. It is a long walk but I used to walk further. I used to work on Dexter just a bit north of Aloha. I would sometimes take the bus from Westlake and other times walk. But back then the bus was quite infrequent. In the case of South Lake Union the buses/streetcar runs a lot more often.

      15. The 41 was great when the express lanes were going your direction. .

          Yes, absolutely. Heading south in the after was terrible.

   2. Transferring from the 542 to Link at UW Station costs about the same time as riding the 545 all the way downtown. When I go to Downtown Seattle from 40th Street, I take the first bus that shows up, 542 or 545. It only pays to wait for the 545 if Link is out of service. If the 542 is moved to 15-minute headways and extended to Bear Creek, to me there is already no reason for the 545 to exist, with or without East Link.

      If you’re saying that people won’t use a Link transfer, that calls much of the system into question. I mean, maybe you’re right, but our sparse planned Link network presupposes that most riders will connect by bus. If most riders will only drive to a park-and-ride and take a single segment by transit, no transfers… what are we really doing here? Just a shuttle service for downtown? That’s not sustainable.

      1. The time it really sucks is after any kind of evening in downtown Seattle. Dinner, Paramount or Fifth Avenue. You can go to 8th & Olive and grab the 545 and you are at Clyde Hill 15 minutes later or Redmond 25 minutes later. Back when we had the 255 you were at S Kirkland or Kirkland. Now your won’t even be at the U-District waiting at that time.

      2. From Westlake station, it’s 6 minutes to UW station, or 35 minutes, door to door, to Kirkland Transit Center, if you choose the right train to time the connection. The real problem is not the connection, it’s the bus running only every 30 minutes, although the 545 is also every 30 minutes, so they have to deal with it too.

         There’s also the fact that Seattle is much more than downtown, and the UW as the destination has the nice property of being “on the way” to the entire city. Shift the transfer point to downtown, you save a little bit of time for people going downtown, but add a lot of time for people going anywhere else, since you now have to either backtrack north from downtown or add yet another connection at Evergreen Point to a half-hourly 542. Sending the 255 to UW is the best balance. And, that’s not even getting into rush hour, when 520 over Portage Bay is a solid line of cars, and switching to Link actually gets you to downtown faster, especially the southern end of downtown (Link traverses downtown faster in the tunnel than a bus can on the surface).

         For what it’s worth, the opening of the Montlake lid really helps the 255 a lot. It insulates the bus from most of the event traffic, and even if those last couple blocks on Montlake are a total traffic jam, you now have the option to get off the bus on the lid and walk the last bit to the train – which you couldn’t do before. The upgrading of Link to every 5 minutes (1 and 2 line combined) will also help. The 255’s route in Seattle is fine, it just needs its evening frequency back.

      3. From the Paramount it’s like 10 minutes to the Westlake station platform vs 2 minutes to Olive/8th. Link is running every 15 minutes after the show. So it might be 30 minutes until are at UW where it takes 6 minutes to get off the platform to the surface to cross the street to the stop where you may have to wait 30 minutes for the 255 and hope they didn’t cancel that run. Oh, and some drivers leave right on time or early and other drivers know that the scheduled is heavily padded so they start 5-10 minutes late. Have they finally put the 542 and 255 at the same stop or do they still leave from two different locations so that you can’t try to get on whichever comes first?

         Yes, the 545 is every 30 minutes buy you know when and can hurry out or linger.

         Trust me, I’ve used Link to the 255 in the evenings after a Mariners game or Paramount, and it’s a crappy experience a lot of the time. Even when the alternative was to wait at 4th and Jackson after a Mariners game. At least once you were on the bus you were done. You didn’t have to get yourself onto a train first, which crawled because it was full at each stop, and then face an indeterminate wait.

         I’m not holding my breath for restoration of 255 frequency. Low ridership. No equity justification.

         Kirkland is just screwed for evenings. Once Link is open the only real option is to drive to the S. Bellevue P&R if that doesn’t fill. Still leave S. Kirkland garage underutilized

      4. The Seattle-Redmond corridor simply has more service hours than Seattle-Kirkland, as it has more ridership. So, of course, the service is going to be better. But, it’s important not to confuse the route with the service hours allocation. If the 255 went downtown, it’s frequency would drop, especially during the 10:30-11 PM period when Link drops to every 15 minutes. Most likely, this would mean one bus per hour. Would the change still be an improvement for you if you had to wait 48 minutes for the bus to show up? Suddenly, it’s not so clear.

         There is another factor going on; with public transit, it is always possible to improve any one trip in isolation by running express buses between that trips origin and destination points, but the catch is that you have to pay for it by making trips elsewhere in the system worse, especially if this express bus is supposed to run frequently. This is commonly done for trips to downtown, out of the assumption that everyone has a car, so the only trip they are willing to ride a bus to is downtown, and making service worse to non-downtown destinations to make service better to downtown isn’t really a big deal because people can just drive there. But, if you don’t have a car, that network doesn’t serve you very well; you need something that gets you anywhere, not just downtown, and sometimes having one trip take longer is an acceptable price to pay if it makes other trips shorter. People with cars will always be able to get today downtown on transit quickly by driving to a park and ride with direct Link service; the buses should focus on general transportation that allows people without cars to get anywhere.

      5. From the Paramount it’s like 10 minutes to the Westlake station platform vs 2 minutes to Olive/8th.

         Yeah, it’s a shame we lost the Convention Center Station. There are a lot of awkward trips. But not so many that we need various buses from all over the region converging downtown like in the past. It is just too costly. Keep in mind the old 255 did not perform well*. During peak it was average. Outside of peak it was in the bottom 25% (in riders per service hour). Keep in mind this was with the Montlake stop. Thus you had riders using the bus to get to the UW and riders taking it an express from Montlake to downtown.

         This begs the question: Why should we subsidize those riders over any other? Why should we put our precious service hours into running buses to downtown when there are lots of riders — on buses that perform much better — who could use extra service. Because the riders of the 255 don’t want to make a transfer? That seems like a pretty poor reason.

         *This is the service report from 2019 (before the pandemic and before the 255 was truncated at the UW): https://kingcounty.gov/~/media/depts/metro/accountability/pdf/2019/system-evaluation.pdf. See page 32. Also note that the 41 performed better (top 25%) across the board.

      6. I would note that we are talking about Metro here. ST is a different beast. They have a lot more money. But even so they clearly make compromises. The 542 only runs every half hour. But if we ran a bus from SR-520 to downtown it would make sense for it to be funded by ST. To make it work you would need to run the bus at least every fifteen minutes. You would also need to run lots of buses to the U-District so that riders could transfer. But as it is the corridor is underfunded. There is no express from I-90 (e. g. Totem Lake) to either the UW or downtown (outside of peak). Both agencies have a lot more things to pay for before spending money on this express is a good value.

      7. with public transit, it is always possible to improve any one trip in isolation by running express buses between that trips origin and destination points, but the catch is that you have to pay for it by making trips elsewhere in the system worse

         Exactly. Of course this is a judgment call. Metro doesn’t truncate the 101 at Rainier Beach — it just runs downtown. But the UW is not Rainier Beach. It is is both a major destination and a transfer point for Link. The transfer point isn’t just for going downtown, either. The express to downtown would save a couple minutes for those headed downtown but it cost riders quite a bit of time if they are headed to some place like Northgate.

         Running at least one (frequent) bus to downtown while we run dozens of buses every hour to the UW is not a crazy idea. But it would cost a lot of money and there are much better things to spend money on.

      8. @Ross,

         Even if Rainier Beach was a “destination”, truncating the 101 there would result in a slower trip on most days. The light rail is slower than a ride on I-5 most of the time.

         However I think an earlier light rail transfer for the 101 should be available especially for peak traffic days. The new Boeing access station could have been an opportunity for that, but it has awkward placement.

         If they ever build a new line that skips Rainier Valley and goes straight to downtown, that’d make it even more justified to truncate the 101.

   3. 255 is a pretty busy route at least during peak hours. Usually full buses.

      I think another bus from ST from Kirkland to Seattle can be valuable though, stopping by the 520 freeway stations.

      520 is definitely an underserved corridor that should be used more. Hopefully light rail at some stage…

2. Do we know if 544 would operate only on one direction or both?

   1. ST has not confirmed if the 544 route is still planned for the 2026 restructure. They will share their first updated route proposal next month. If it is still planned, I assume it would run in both directions as the 545 has strong AM and PM ridership in both directions.

   2. That’s a great question. With some routes (e. g. an express from Issaquah to Mercer Island) I think it is pretty clear it would run peak direction (towards Seattle in the morning, away from Seattle in the evening). But with Microsoft being such a big destination I could see it being bidirectional-peak.

      1. A single direction peak only service usually means the bus drives the other direction anyway, just empty with an out of service sign. The marginal cost of letting passengers board for that reverse direction trip is small.

      2. A single direction peak only service usually means the bus drives the other direction anyway, just empty with an out of service sign.

         Yes, but it usually takes a much faster route (express). But I could see the bus “live looping” through downtown before heading back to Overlake Village (where the bus starts). That wouldn’t cost anything and yet there would be some riders who ride it in reverse-peak direction.

3. If there is any question whether Dow is going to politicize Sound Transit.

   First decision has nothing to do with the constant service disruptions.

   Nope, it’s signaling that he is going to ST resources for equity and DEI goals as the first priority https://www.soundtransit.org/get-to-know-us/news-events/news-releases/sound-transit-names-leader-economic-development-civil?utm_campaign=nr-CREIappoint-20250512&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

   1. This rings hollow to me. Lots of what ST does favors wealth over low income communities. It’s particularly true with ST3.

      – ignoring a decent connection to Harborview, our county hospital designed to serve more people in need
      – rail to Issaquah before Renton
      – stopping Stride at Burien TC rather than extend it to serve low income neighborhoods
      – West Seattle Link to the upscale district, complete with expensive tunneling to prevent offending wealthy locals while skipping investing in the lower income areas of West Seattle
      – spending Pierce money to get to SeaTac rather than trams to more diverse areas
      – Creating an ST3 “Equity Toolkit “ that looks only at construction impacts rather than questions the fundamental equity problem of the funded corridors
      – making stations harder for people with canes to use by eliminating down escalators
      – ignoring overnight service needs so graveyard shift workers can use transit

      And let’s not forget the big one:

      – forcing SE Seattle residents (notably more lower income and foreign born and other people of color) to transfer to get places in the future that are direct connections today , and not even adding a cross platform level transfer at SODO to make it much easier for folx

      Hiring someone internally that is unable to question decisions won’t make ST more equitable. And bragging about a hire but not developing a program to reverse the pro-gentrified area and wealthier suburban biases inherent in ST3 does very little to benefit equity.

      1. I agree, Al. There is little evidence that ST has ever favored low-income riders. But I will say that most of the decisions you mentioned are simply the result of incompetence. The BRT plans are a good example. They are spending a fortune on battery-electric buses (and a special bus barn to charge them up). Yet they will represent a tiny portion of ST Express emissions, let alone bus emissions (which make up a tiny portion of overall emissions in the region). They are also spending a fortune on a badly conceived section of SR-522 because (like the BRT fiasco in Tacoma) they don’t want to take a lane. It is even worse because there is a simple alternative that would leave just as many general purpose lanes. Just make a couple left-turn lanes general-purpose lanes (instead of having them be exclusive left-turn lanes). There is precedent for this on the exact same highway*. But instead they will spend a quarter billion dollars making the road wider and pissing off the neighborhood (who may very well drag this through the courts like the Burke Gilman missing Link).

         Issaquah Link was similar but has a different variation. The most cost effective improvement they could make on the East Side for ST3 would be to run buses on the CKC. The city even commissioned an independent consultant to look a the issue and that was their conclusion as well. But instead the board insisted on rail and eventually the whole thing collapsed. That led them to basically ask for ideas and Issaquah came up with one.

         These are just bad decisions that end up costing a lot of money. And when you waste money on things like that you can’t spend it on things that benefit more riders (including low-income riders). You spend a fortune on electric buses and widening a street and you don’t have money left over to extend the bus through the (low-income) neighborhood.

         *This is one example: https://maps.app.goo.gl/pcqXT2cchdVF7WR86. Notice that there are two lanes heading north. The far left lane is for turning left. You can see that the traffic light has a green arrow signal as well as a regular green. Thus riders in that left lane can go straight or take a left. As a result, there is more congestion there. People squeeze into the right lane. It is also a fairly congested area anyway. You have have lots of drivers coming off of the freeway and drivers from the Roosevelt Couplet (12th at that point) converging as well. It is a major traffic bottleneck. But the city won’t widen the street (of course they won’t). It is just the nature of the highway — there are bound to be bottlenecks here and there. I fail to see why a part of Lake Forest Park can’t live with something similar.

      2. Thanks Ross.

         I will say that it’s a gray area between incompetence and negligence. And there’s a difference between assigning staff to an objective and changing what was proposed to meet an overlooked objective.

         The issues I mentioned are commonly known. Not addressing them to me is at best negligence — stemming from decades of institutional favoritism to wealthier, whiter interests because they have the time, money and smarts to speak up louder and force their way. That element of “privilege” goes unspoken and even embraced. That’s what I see is in the realm of “institutional racism”.

         Sadly, our transit advocacy groups around here don’t make an issue of it. Maybe they think it’s too hard to address. It took a Title VI lawsuit in the 1990’s to force LA to stop excessive rail transit spending on new relatively empty train lines while buses in areas not getting rail investments were ridiculously overcrowded.

         It is one more outcome of what happens when ridership and door-to-door travel time stats and analysis are not at the core of ST decisions. And backroom developer deals that do drive many ST decisions by their very nature almost never consider equity of any sort.

      3. @Al S,

         “….. negligence — stemming from decades of institutional favoritism to wealthier, whiter interest……”

         Of course the crown jewel of regional transit is Link, which opened first in the ID and the Rainier Valley. These neighborhoods are not overly White, or exceedingly wealthy or influential in the corridors of power. Quite the opposite in fact.

         ST did send buses to Whiter, more suburban neighborhoods for the purpose of mainly peak commutes to downtown, but I think giving White, monied interests buses while providing faster, higher quality transit to more diverse and poorer neighborhoods sort of is the opposite of normal White political influence.

         Just saying….

      4. @ Lazarus:

         The RV decision was done 30 years ago! And had ST chosen to bypass the RV they would have had much fewer riders with a very modest time savings to SeaTac. Back then, FTA wouldn’t fund rail projects without looking at gained riders for the cost so the route actually needed to not skip the RV to secure the Federal funding portion because the project needed to show future riders.

         That argument is like saying the abolishment of slavery or Jim Crow was good enough for today’s equity concerns. It is a best now dated — and frankly the decision was made for lots of other reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with equity. It was far from altruistic.

      5. They also ignored the cultural center of the various places in Rainier Valley in their zeal to get to the airport. Again I think this is incompetence, not malice. Rather than serve Rainier Avenue (which even then had areas like Columbia City and Rainier Beach) they pinched pennies and went down MLK instead. I’m sure they felt like it was “close enough” but this meant serving the valley in ways that are less than ideal. But it is all part of a theme that is common with ST — they focus on quantity, not quality.

      6. @Al S,

         My point is that you would have an extremely difficult time making the argument that ST is beholden to White, monied interests. It’s just not true.

         It wasn’t true in the 90’s, it’s not true now. And the development history of Link bares that out.

      7. “ It wasn’t true in the 90’s, it’s not true now. And the development history of Link bares that out.”

         So exactly what makes it true now? I just laid out multiple examples of how ST3 systemically ignores equity and instead favors wealthier and corporate interests — and yet you say it doesn’t based on one decision made by ST 30 years ago that was warranted for other reasons anyway.

      8. @Al S
         I agree completely with this statement:

         “It is one more outcome of what happens when ridership and door-to-door travel time stats and analysis are not at the core of ST decisions. ”

         ST really needs to prioritize travel time and maximizing ridership. Too often it feels like the people designing these systems never actually use transit.

      9. My point is that you would have an extremely difficult time making the argument that ST is beholden to White, monied interests.

         No it’s not — it is quite easy. Al already mentioned how Issaquah will get light rail but not Renton. I already mentioned Rainier Valley. Basically it ignored the cultural centers (like Rainier Beach) and served areas off to the side where very few people live or visit. The train goes right under the C. D. but doesn’t bother to stop there (it is worth noting that the plans for Forward Thrust included stops in the Central Area). Then there is West Seattle Link. Much of the expense is due to going very high in the air in order to reach the Junction. It would be a lot cheaper to just have a much lower drawbridge headed to Delridge. With the extra money it could go along Delridge. This would likely provide more bang for the buck. Specifically more rider time saved per dollar spent*. Once you get a couple miles south of the West Seattle Bridge you start saving those (mainly low-income, minority) riders a lot of time. Instead those riders will be expected to get off the bus right at the point where it runs express to downtown. Many of them will be worse off. But it was essential that they go to the Junction as a way to attract more affluent, white riders.

         Again, I don’t believe that is the reason why they did these things. It is simply incompetence, rather than a disregard for low-income, minority riders (let alone some conspiracy to favor wealthy white riders). People of all types suffer because of ST’s infatuation with really long lines and disregard for proper urban stop spacing. From largely white, well off riders in Montlake to low-income minority riders in Bitter Lake. A rising tide lifts all boats. A falling tide sinks all ships.

         *This used to be a metric for all federal transit projects. But then they found it largely favored just about anything they want to build in New York and commuter rail improvements. It shouldn’t be the only consideration, but I still think it is a useful metric for large projects (like Link).

   2. Sound Transit wants to plan, build, and operate transit service, especially for those who have most been harmed by institutional and systemic racism.

   3. I’m concerned that Dow’s takeover of ST is so that he controls that large stream of money to use for social and non-transit purposes.

      I wish that ST had chosen as its next CEO someone with experience in building and operating transit systems. I wish that Dow had signaled that improving service to riders and making transit decisions to serve the most riders efficiently was his guiding light.

      Instead, it is sadly the opposite. Dow already has the track record of presiding over the decision that the next tunnel will not connect efficiently to ST Rail and Amtrak at King Street Station and to the other ST light rail lines at International District. He prioritized short term political interests and his desire to support the government real estate, which includes a future desire to build a new government campus on the site of one of the bus bases south of downtown.

      His first appointment is a DEI czar.

      The next move apparently is to spend ST money on a lawsuit
      https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/sound-transit-joins-trump-lawsuit-to-keep-both-dei-and-federal-funds/

      I sadly do not see signs that his focus is on constructing and operating good transit. The focus is to use the ST funding to advance political goals, and transit is an afterthought or byproduct.

      1. I agree. Transit fans should now oppose Sound Transit and work to replace it with a better institution that will build good transit.

      2. Dow Constantine is a corrupt politician. Disappointing times ahead under his leadership.

4. Here’s a question.: Why even have a Bear Creek Park and Ride any more? The new Marymoor garage is huge and will likely have surplus spaces — and it’s only 2/3rds of a mile away. It has much more frequent service and it has more security. Link will run past midnight to Marymoor next year too, so that it’s simply a much better place to park.

   The additional service hours needed to serve it could go to something else.

   One thing that I never see discussed is when to close and legacy park and ride lots — and use those now-empty lots for something else. Redondo Beach near Star Lake is another one. The original Federal Way lot called 320th but on S 322nd St has no demand with the current garage getting new spaces and FW Link nearby. Legacy park and ride lots seem to be held like a dog bone even when there’s no meat left on them.

   Having an empty parking lot designated for infrequent transit is almost as wasteful as having an empty parking lot section for a big box store. From housing to a park to a parking spot for homeless living in campers to a new maintenance facility for some other public function, they could be better used.

   1. Some P&Rs have been converted to something else, have plans to do so, or were built with convertibility in mind.

      • The Northgate P&R (north of the mall) is now a park.
      • Houghton P&R (405 70th exit) will be converted into something; when I went past it on the 250 on Friday there was a skate park in part of it.
      • BelRed P&R (Link station surface lot) will be converted to housing when Spring District growth reaches it. A few surrounding lots have been developed earlier than expected.
      • I think ST said the TIB and South Bellevue P&Rs were built to be convertible to housing if a future board decides to.
      • Some smaller P&Rs that lost express buses have been repurposed as vanpool collectors.

      1. @ Mike:

         Should Bear Creek P&R be closed and repurposed?

      2. I don’t know enough about Redmond’s needs to say definitively. It sounds like a good idea.

   2. The recent TOD bill contains provisions to convert three P+R stations:

      (1) The department must review surplus property under this
      chapter in a county with a population over 2,000,000 that operates a
      municipal transit system and, in consultation with the county, select
      up to three park and ride facilities to conduct a pilot program to
      encourage transit-oriented development that meets the density and
      affordability requirements under section 3 of this act.
      (2) A park and ride selected for the pilot program must be:
      (a) Situated along state route number 99 with 400 to 500 parking stalls;
      (b) Situated on Interstate 405 with 500 to 900 parking stalls; or
      (c) Located in the southern portion of a county with a population
      over 2,000,000 with between 300 to 1,000 parking stalls.

      https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1491&Initiative=False&Year=2025

      I suspect that these are:
      a. Shoreline P+R
      b. Kingsgate P+R
      c. Redondo Heights P+R

      1. The 600 spot Twin Lakes P&R in Federal Way is a good candidate. Almost completely empty during the weekdays.

      2. Here is my critique of the three park and ride lots:

         a. Shoreline P+R — Seems outdated. If you are going to drive there you might as well drive a bit farther and catch Link into Seattle.

         b. Kingsgate P+R — Seems like an odd time to get rid of it. In a few years there will be more buses stopping at the Totem Lake Freeway Station, not fewer.

         c. Redondo Heights P+R — Like Shoreline it seems outdated. Drivers can just drive to Star Lake and catch Link (once Federal Way Link gets here).

         The 600 spot Twin Lakes P&R in Federal Way is a good candidate.

         That isn’t surprising. I assume they used to run express buses from there but don’t anymore. It seems similar to (a) and (c).

         In all cases I could see them scaling them down but keeping a much smaller lot. Then again you get more money from them when you sell them as one big piece. It is quite likely a better value to rent out churches during the weekday.

   3. I agree, Bear Creek Park and ride does not make sense anymore and should be be closed. Even without the 2-line, it doesn’t really make sense, as anyone driving to it will get to Seattle much faster by driving to Redmond Technology Station and catching the same 545 bus there. Historically, the purpose of Bear Creek P&R was to catch KCM bus #268, which got onto 520 directly from there, but that bus disappeared during the pandemic, and doesn’t seem likely to ever come back (with the full 2-line about to open, such a bus would be become completely redundant).

      One little wrinkle with Bear Creek P&R is that the 250 detours to serve it, and picks up some riders there. However, ridership data doesn’t say where people are actually going to/from and, intuitively, I think most of the riders are using the Bear Creek P&R stop to walk to nearby big box stores (e.g. Fred Meyer, Target, Home Depot), while a few might be transferring to the 269 to Sammamish or getting picked up in a private car. I can’t think of any reason for someone with a car to drive to a park and ride to ride the 250 vs. just drive directly to the final destination. Park and rides are for long-distance express services, not local buses.

      My personal opinion is that big box stores get enough service from the 545 and 269, and that the 250 should just take the direct route between Redmond and Avondale (for the people up Avondale Road, needing a transfer to reach a few big box stores seems like an acceptable price to pay to have a faster trip to literally anywhere else you might want to go, especially since online shopping makes physical travel to big box stores seldom necessary, and alternative. But, if the bus is to detour, the route should be focused on the actual stores, not the park and ride.

5. Sam, what’s the long-term plan for Houghton P&R?

   1. The Kraken want to put a community ice rink there.

   2. The former Houghton P&R is now a half an unused parking lot, half a temporary outdoor activity area, with pickleball courts, a container pea patch garden, a skate park, and some other stuff.

      A half mile to the east, on the site of the former TechCity Bowl, a large 369 unit apt bldg is under construction.

      Both sites are on 70th, along the route 245.

      There is talk of turning the old P&R into some type of ice arena and community center.

   3. So the remaining parking is for the activities rather than commuters?

      1. It’s closed off to anything right now, there are gates and chains preventing entry. The only activity there is the pop-up park in the north side, set up by the Bridle Trails community association.

         I lived south of that park-and-ride for decades, and relied on it for the 251 and 254 when I attended Seattle University, and then Mariners and Seahawks games (it was one of the park-and-rides used for Seahawks shuttles in the late 1990s). Then the Seattle routes were removed from it, and that pretty much killed the practical use of the park-and-ride.

         The proposed Kraken Ice Plex there would be a reasonable walk to the eventual Stride stop at 405 and 85th. St., and there are local routes on 70th. and 80th. Streets, plus the freeway stops north- and southbound. Figure skaters and open-ice skating session attendees could easily bus there. But given the huge amount of gear youth and rec-league hockey players carry, they’ll mostly drive. And it’s a good location to drive to, being right off the freeway and an intersection.

   4. To my knowledge, commuters no longer use any of it for parking. The old P&R is basically broken up into two halves. The south half is the unused parking lot. I think it might be fenced-off. The north half is where the activity area is. But there are still some parking spots in the north section for the people visiting the activity area.

      I believe any future plans will require using the entire lot, both the south and north halves. The current outdoor activity area isn’t meant to be permanent.

      From a public transit perspective, I don’t think it’s a good location for an ice arena and community center.

      1. I believe the southern half is being used as staging for the 405/85th construction.

         I think it’s a poor location as well. Unless the 70th interchange gets rebuilt (very unlikely) I don’t think it will ever be well served

   5. The city of Kirkland had a ballot measure last fall to build a new rec center there. I don’t know if it passed.

      1. It failed by a fairly wide margin

   6. “The city of Kirkland had a ballot measure last fall to build a new rec center there”

      That must have been what I saw but I couldn’t remember the details. I don’t know if it passed either.

Comments are closed.