2025 Trailhead Direct Routes

152 Replies to “2025 Trailhead Direct Routes”

1. With the 2-line now running, South Bellevue is definitely a better connection point for almost everybody on the eastside, so very glad to see this change. This is particularly important as, contrary to the “park. ride. hike” logo, the ridership of Trailhead Direct comes almost entirely from people without cars, so frequent and reliable transit connections are very important to making this work. This also avoids the problem of the westbound Eastgate Freeway Station being closed for construction.

   Next year, when the full 2-line is running all the way to Seattle, I would like to see at least the Mt. Si. route just truncated at South Bellevue P&R altogether, as the bus quite often gets stuck in traffic on Seattle streets and takes considerably longer than scheduled to go between Capitol Hill and the freeway on-ramp. Plus, I’d venture a good chunk of the riders are already riding Link to reach the TD capitol hill bus stop today, so not all riders would even need an extra transfer. This would help improve the bus’s on-time stats, while also, hopefully, saving some running time that could be re-invested into either slightly improved frequency or span, or a slightly longer season. (Of course, such a move is only viable when the full 2-line is operational; a forced connection to the 550, and it’s 30-minute Sunday frequency, plus not serving Capitol Hill, would be a big degradation of service for Seattle riders).

   1. the ridership of Trailhead Direct comes almost entirely from people without cars

      Interesting. The program always seemed like it was trying to do two things at once. First provide a ride to the mountains for some people without cars. Second, reduce the crazy overcrowding that exists at some of the trailheads. It sounds like it isn’t really doing the latter.

      Next year, when the full 2-line is running all the way to Seattle, I would like to see at least the Mt. Si. route just truncated at South Bellevue P&R altogether

      My guess is they will truncate the buses on the East Side when the trains are running across the water. I can see three possibilities:

      1) Mercer Island — The buses get to use the HOV lanes the whole way. More backtracking for East Side riders though. It also isn’t great for park and ride users although the bus could stop at Eastgate.

      2) South Bellevue — The most likely choice.

      3) Downtown Bellevue — Would have more one-seat walk-up riders. Not good for parking though.

      Even though you can make the case for any of the three, I think it is highly likely that the bus ends at South Bellevue.

      1. Mercer Island would actually be fine parking-wise, given that the bus only runs on weekends/holidays, and Mercer Island P&R only fills up on weekdays.

      2. Good point (about the parking on Mercer Island).

      3. South Bellevue has better bus layover space than Mercer Island, which is helpful for a low frequency route.

   2. It makes operational sense to run everything from a Link station on the Eastside next year. However if SDOT is contributing funding, I don’t see the buses not coming into the City of Seattle next year.

      The broader discussion should be what agency pays for the subsidized service and in what proportions.

      1. I’m hoping both routes are truncated at South Bellevue next year so they can run additional routes to other trailheads. But you bring up a great point about funding. The announcement post for this year states:
         “Thanks to the support of Seattle voters, SDOT will fund 50% of Trailhead Direct’s 2024 operating costs for routes connecting Seattle to eight popular hiking destinations along the I-90 corridor, through the Seattle Transit Measure (STM).”
         (I think “2024” is a typo.)

         If the routes end on the Eastside, SDOT has less motivation to help fund them. SDOT still might chip in some funding since a lot of the ridership will still be people from Seattle. It would be great to see Bellevue (and maybe even Redmond) provide some funding as well.

      2. If SDOT is contributing funding, I don’t see the buses not coming into the City of Seattle next year.

         Maybe, but if they managed to run the bus more often or later in the day (because of the savings) then I could see it. I think if they insist on running it to Seattle it makes sense to just serve downtown (and nothing else). I would probably just start in Pioneer Square. This way people can avoid three-seat rides. Some will end up transferring twice but they don’t have to. For example if I’m at Columbia City I might take the 7 up to Judkins Park, then East Link to South Bellevue and then catch the Trailhead Direct shuttle. But I don’t have to. I could always just ride the 7 all the way downtown and catch the shuttle. Meanwhile folks from lots of other places (Belltown, Queen Anne, Ballard, Phinney Ridge, etc.) only have to transfer once.

         Update: Some riders will end up three-seat rides no matter what they do. For example from Lake City to downtown is a two seat ride. This again is an argument for just truncating in Bellevue. Those riders get essentially nothing from the bus serving downtown. We can’t possibly eliminate all of the three-seat rides. Might as well just leverage Link, save money and run more often or to more places. That begs the question though — where would you run? I think I’ll make that a separate comment.

      3. Yeah as long as Link is running and not doing something dumb like single tracking downtown, there’s almost no downside to skipping Capitol Hill.

      4. As far as where to run from within Seattle, Pioneer Square or 5th and Jackson make loads if sense to me. That way, it’s a single transfer from many more routes including several RapidRude ones.

      5. @Delta – yes, but given that Sound Transit has demonstrated they will continue single-tracking downtown, we can’t depend on that as long as their current management stays in power.

      6. As far as where to run from within Seattle, Pioneer Square or 5th and Jackson make loads if sense to me. That way, it’s a single transfer from many more routes including several RapidRude ones.

         Yeah, that is what I was thinking as well. If you had to pick one spot it in Seattle it would be in that general location (essentially within a few blocks of Amtrak). Lots of people can get there with one bus. The people who can’t will have to take a bus and Link (and they can transfer at South Bellevue).

      7. From a funding standpoint, if this isn’t covered by KCM, would the parks levy be the next best option? This is all about access to regional parks, and we have a massive park levy that is regularly approved by the voters, so adding this to the parks levy makes sense. We expect our park funding to cover parking, so including bespoke transit service makes sense to me, particularly at busy parks where demand exceeds parking available.

      8. The Parks fund started Trailhead Direct. I don’t know if Metro is contributing anything now.

      9. KCM is way too reliant on City of Seattle funds for core services. Would love to see KCM reduce their administrative bloat.

      10. Reduce KC administrative bloat. KC administration (think council staffers) is funded by charging “overhead” to the agencies within KC as a % of budget … and the 2 larges slices of KC’s operating budget are KCM and ST (Link). When I was at ST pre-COVID, Link’s operating budget funded something like 20% of KC council’s administrative budget, and that number will only go up as Link’s size (relative to other KC budget items) grows.

          Fixed overhead rates are a powerful thing.

   3. Bellevue Transit Center is the best place for Eastside riders who don’t live near a Link station. South Bellevue station will have only a couple bus routes, the 554 (Issaquah, Bellevue Square), whatever replaces the 249 (coverage), and 114 (east Renton, if it runs on weekends). Mercer Island has even less: just the 204 (island route, currently no Sundays). How do you get from Kirkland, Lake Hills, the rest of Renton, etc? It’s a three-seat ride.

      But if it’s at Bellevue Transit Center, all the central Eastside bus routes converge there, including the future Stride 1 (Renton, Burien) and Stride 2 (Totem Lake, Bothell, Lynnwood). On weekends there’s no crowd of commuters or peak-hour buses filling the station. There’s a 405 entrance right there, and on weekends it might have a chance of being uncongested part of the time.

      1. Yes, I should have mentioned that. Not only would it probably have the best potential for walk-up ridership but it is very well suited for two-seat rides. The only drawback is that it doesn’t connect to park and ride users. I’m not sure how much that matters as both routes serve an additional park and ride.

      2. Oh yes, P&R cars. Well, it can stop at the Eastgate P&R flyer stop. That’s quick to get in and out of, it has been doing that in the past, and drives don’t care if its bus connections are mediocre.

      3. Bellevue Transit Center is out of the way for people who live in central Seattle, which probably at least half of the ridership. South Bellevue is better because it’s much more on the way. The fact that it also has a park and ride is just a bonus.

         While Bellevue Transit Center does have some bus connections that South Bellevue doesn’t, that’s insufficient to justify making people from Seattle go out of the way.

      4. @Mike Orr, you can’t get between the 405 ramps and the Eastgate Freeway Station ramps.

      5. “It can stop at the Eastgate P&R flyer stop”

         There is no physical barrier between HOV and GP lanes to keep bus from entering I-90 WB at 142nd HOV ramp and then making aggressive maneuver to exit to I-405, but this was not legal before the culvert replacement project restriped that section of I-90.
         Before that, The section of I-90 WB HOV from merge point of 142nd ramp and diverge point to I-405NB/SB.with had double solid line and I think they will restore the same operation after the project is done.

         Regardless, I don’t think the transit agency would approve such routing.

      6. Bellevue Transit Center is out of the way for people who live in central Seattle

         I want to make sure we are talking about the same thing. If the bus starts in Seattle then the obvious thing to do is just stop at Mercer Island along the way. Might as well stop at Eastgate too.

         If the bus doesn’t go to Seattle the best choice for folks in Seattle is Mercer Island* as well. The bus could also stop in Eastgate (although Mercer Island has parking as well). That would be a straight shot the whole way. Anything else — even South Bellevue — is out of the way. By my estimation it would take an additional four minutes to go to South Bellevue versus Mercer Island.

         Ending at South Bellevue is worse than Downtown Bellevue for folks from Seattle but it isn’t horrible. By my estimate it is ten minutes longer than Mercer Island (most of which is on the train). But it is also much better for folks on the East Side.

         It really depends on your priority. Are you really trying to serve those on the East Side who aren’t willing to (or can’t) drive to the trailhead or are you just trying to reduce parking at the crowded trailheads? If it is the latter then just stop at Mercer Island and Eastgate. If it is the former I would lean towards Downtown Bellevue. Remember this isn’t commuting. This is recreation. Spending an extra ten minutes on transit on a nice day (which is when folks are likely to use this) is not the end of the world and likely not going to make much difference as to whether they use it or not. In terms of service the extra cost is minimal as well.

   4. the ridership of Trailhead Direct comes almost entirely from people without cars: is that true? Do they report that breakdown?

      1. Does anyone know if its gets much use from out of town visitors staying Downtown wanting to explore the Pacific Northwest outdoors?

      2. Anecdotally, people with cars just drive to the trailhead. If they’re worried about the parking being full, they’ll drive to another, less crowded trail before riding the bus. That’s just the reality. On the other hand, for people without cars Trailhead Direct is a steal. Even door to door, it’s at least as fast as a rental car (including the overhead of picking up and returning the car), but for a fraction of the price (or, outright free if they have an Orca pass, as many car free people already do).

2. Considering that there’s daylight until past 9 pm, having the last trips in the 6 pm hour seems way too early.

   1. Probably funding constraints. Only so many service hours available, so to run later, they’d have to either reduce frequency, reduce service to one day per week, reduce service to one route, or shorten the season.

      I would also imagine additional logistical complications when the span of service exceeds the shift length of one driver, as then, they’d have to hire a bunch of additional drivers.

3. Still frustrating how Mt.Rainier lacks any public transit connection at all during the summer season from Tacoma or Puyallup. Would be nice to have a bus that goes up to Paradise via Eatonville and Northwest Trek.

   1. Mount Rainier lacks shuttle service (even though they regulate parking now). That would be the first step. Then as things evolve you end up with buses connecting to those shuttles. That happened with Zion National Park. Parking got so bad they implemented a shuttle bus service. When the shuttle bus is running you can’t drive in the main part of the park. So people would park at the giant parking lot on the outskirts (many people still do). But later they added local shuttles as well. From the sprawling town of Springdale (outside of the park) you can take a bus to the park (as well as places along the way). But to get from a major city (e. g. Las Vegas or Salt Lake City) still requires private transportation. There are buses, but the state doesn’t chip in for them (so far as I know).

      While Mount Rainier has a lot more crowding, Olympic National Park is actually better for this sort of thing. From Downtown Seattle you can take the ferry to Bainbridge. From there you can ride the Straight Shot (Clallam Transit 123 — https://www.clallamtransit.com/route123) to Port Angeles. Then you can take a shuttle from Port Angeles to Hurricane Ridge. It works although the timing doesn’t look great to me. The earliest you can catch the Straight Shot from Bainbridge is 10:20 am. That gets you to Port Angeles around 12:15. You have to wait for the 1:00 pm bus which gets you to Hurricane Ridge at 12:45. The bus back to Port Angeles is at 5:30, but that gets you back to Port Angeles too late to catch the last express back to Bainbridge. Depending on what day of the week you have a tight or very tight window.

      I think it would make more sense if you stayed overnight in Port Angeles. The first bus up to Hurricane Ridge leaves at 8:00 am. You could easily hike Hurricane Hill and be back to Port Angeles in time to pick up your luggage and take the last bus to Bainbridge. Or you could stay two nights in Port Angeles.

   2. The National Park Service has created bus transit service in various places around the country.

      It would be nice if they did so here — like from FWD (Federal Way Downtown) Station to Rainier or from a Kitsap ferry terminal to Hurricane Ridge. I think it the politics of doing that however are just too difficult.

      1. Forgive my ignorance, but what are the politics of that and why so difficult?

      2. “The National Park Service has created bus transit service in various places around the country.”

         Oh dear, that may get canceled this term.

      3. The local politics is that Trailhead Direct is funded by King County (and now with Seattle). Those are the most populous and transit-friendly county and city. It’s hard convince more car-oriented, tax-adverse counties or the state to do something similar.

      4. It is the cost more than anything. I can’t think of any NPS bus service that involves trips as long as the ones you mentioned. There are probably only a handful that involve exclusively public transportation (like the one to Hurricane Ridge). Here are a few or the shuttles:

         Zion — Already mentioned.
         Bryce — Runs through the main road. Goes outside the park but not very far. There is no public transportation to the town of Tropic (which is only about a ten minute drive).
         Grand Canyon (South Rim) — Several buses including one serving the tourist town of Tusayan.
         Glacier — This has a pretty good system now — it serves the town of Saint Mary’s (which used to have a restaurant serving Pie for Strength).
         Denali — Has a bus into the main part of the park from the bus depot (which is also a train station). The train is privately operated and I think all the buses are private as well.
         Yosemite — There is now a fairly extensive combination of buses from California cities into the park along with a shuttle inside the park. They serve Merced and Fresno and those cities have bus and Amtrak connections to bigger cities (like San Fransisco and L. A.).

         Note: I’ve taken the shuttles in Bryce, Zion and Grand Canyon (Zion is the best in my opinion). I took the train from Anchorage to Denali and then the bus. I’ve been to the other parks but they didn’t have the shuttle system then (which is too bad).

      5. It’s hard convince more car-oriented, tax-adverse counties or the state to do something similar.

         It is also way down the list of priorities. Tell Pierce Transit they should run shuttles to Mount Rainier and they would laugh at you. It is very expensive and they have much bigger fish to fry. This is why it is difficult to compare us to Europe. Yes, in Europe you can take trains and buses to various trailheads. My wife and I have done everything from small trips outside of town to major treks involving multi-day loops while our luggage sat at the hotel. It isn’t always smooth (we paid for an expensive cab ride because we misread the schedule) but in general it is remarkably easy to get around and visit spectacular scenery in Europe.

         But Europe also has outstanding bus and rail service. They don’t have buses running every half hour to places like Yesler (they run a lot more often). It isn’t as if they are spending a disproportionate amount of money on regional transit or transit to the mountains — they just spend a lot more money on transit. It is also more efficient in a lot of ways as they aren’t stretched so thin trying to serve areas that have quite a few people but are all spread out. A place like Darrington would get hourly service because a place like Mill Creek would be forest or farms.

         It is not crazy to think that we would have bus service to Rainier but we don’t even have shuttle service within the park. That is the first step. Running a bus all the way up to Paradise or Sunrise is way more expensive than these buses. It takes well over two hours to get to Sunrise and about three to get to Paradise (from Downtown Seattle). You could cut some time off of that by starting closer but it is still a long trip (https://maps.app.goo.gl/SMKjmgrhkt56KctY8). The best model is probably the one for Yosemite (called YARTS). To quote the website (https://www.yarts.com/about-yarts/):

         YARTS is the product of a partnership between the member counties of its Joint Powers Authority, the U.S. Forest Service, and the National Park Service.

         It is politics (for sure) but the biggest problem right now isn’t local — it is federal. Even with a new administration I see some issues trying to get Pierce County to chip for this. Maybe it becomes a city/county/state/federal thing (with just King County and Seattle chipping in). But we will have to wait until we are done with this administration.

      6. Most of Ross’ examples are service within a National Park. There is usually a giant parking lot at or near the park entrance, and then the NPS runs a bus network within the park, usually focused on a particularly busy corridor. We essentially already have that in the Olympics: https://www.clallamtransit.com/HurricaneRidge

         What Al is asking for is more like YARTS for Yosemite. Yes there is are 2 free bus loops within the main valley, but access into the park is provided a regional transit agency. YARTS board are city or county representatives, i.e. like the ST board.
         https://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/publictransportation.htm
         https://www.yarts.com/

         Here in Washington, the simplest solution would be to fund this through WSDOT and add additional routes to Travel Washington
         https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travel_Washington

         Dungeness Line + Hurricane Ridge shuttle provides access to Hurricane Ridge. The issue with Rainier is there is no city within the park as a natural terminus. People generally don’t overnight inside the park unless you are backpacking.

      7. I’ll mention the shuttles system to Muir Woods National Monument from Larkspur Ferry Terminal too.

         https://gomuirwoods.com/muir/shuttleInfo

         Note that it’s included in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. So it’s partnering with the National Park service.

         Muir Woods was always a very crowded place and parking has long been oversubscribed. So the shuttle has a parking mitigation function.

         It’s not a very long distance like the ones here need to be.

      8. I forgot about the Dungeness Line. That is another alternative to the “Straight Shot”. But that bus seems even less frequent.

         The issue with Rainier is there is no city within the park as a natural terminus. People generally don’t overnight inside the park unless you are backpacking.

         There is a lodge at Paradise but I agree with your main point. This goes back to the parks themselves and the lack of a shuttle. People on NWHikers have been discussing this since Mount Rainier National Park first started talking about a permit system for parking (https://www.nwhikers.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8038278). That led to a discussion of a shuttle and comparing it to other parks. That boils down to parking. There are a number of different options (at both Rainier and Paradise) but it requires an investment. Paradise is arguably better set up as Ashford is right outside the park. Thus it could be similar to Zion and Springdale. You have a shuttle from the edge of the park (or just outside it) running up to Paradise. You have another shuttle for the town itself and then (hopefully) something like YARTS to get from the city to Ashford and the park.

         There are some similarities with Rainier and Yosemite. Most of the visitors to Yosemite only spend a day. But it isn’t clear if that just means they are staying at a nearby town (e. .g. Mariposa) or from their home in another city. It is a long ways from San Fransisco but not that far from Fresno (which is a pretty big city). It isn’t clear where the day hikers are coming from but it could be that a substantial portion are coming from Fresno (and similar areas) which is what the shuttles are very good at.

         In the case of Rainier my guess is that a huge portion come from Puget Sound cities (like Seattle). Paradise is a bit far for a day trip but I’ve done it (mostly in the winter). Sunrise is not bad at all (and I live in the north end of Seattle). From the South Sound (which has a lot of people) it is even closer. I could definitely see it being reasonably successful but I still think the first step is to have some sort of shuttle system within the park to someplace just outside it. Once you have that it is more likely that you eventually add regional bus service to the park.

      9. Muir Woods seems quite similar to these shuttles. It really isn’t that far from the center of town (San Fransisco) and is fairly close to the suburbs of Marin County. The only big difference is that it is a National Monument. We don’t really have the equivalent (the Klondike Gold Rush National Park is right in the city but it isn’t a hiking park).

      10. I wonder if a privately funded shuttle could work for Rainier, especially if they could figure out a way around some of the park entrance congestion. The demand is massing and driving/parking is a nightmare, even with the new reservation system.

          A similar model might be the local ski shuttles:

          https://www.joingearhouse.com/snoqualmie-pass-express-shuttle

          https://seattleskishuttle.com/schedule-routes/

      11. It’s probably possible, the problem is, to break even, it would have to be expensive. The fares would have to not only cover the cost of operating the bus for such a long drive, the passengers would also have to effectively pay the bus driver to sit with the bus for however many hours they’re hiking. On top of this, I think each passenger still gets charged the walk/bike entrance fee, unless they already have a pass. And, there’s the fact that, on rainy or smoky days, ridership will be depressed, so breaking even requires earning somewhat of a windfall on the more crowded days to make up for it.

          My guess is that, for a group of two, the trip would end up being more expensive with the bus than with a rental car. So, the only users would be single individuals without a car who don’t know anyone with a car that they can go with, and are willing to pay upwards of $60-$70 round trip to go. The question is, whether this enough to make running the bus profitable.

      12. Certainly the intent of a transit into the mountains has public recreational value. Still, it’s possible to offer awesome experiences without having to include Mt Rainier. Maybe it’s just too far — and that money is better spent on places that can be reached more quickly.

          Look at how Route 50 connects both Alki Beach and Seward Park — yet it runs only every 30 minutes on Saturday and Sunday. Would there be value offering better frequencies on summer weekends? Both areas have major parking issues on summer weekends.

      13. Yeah, and Discovery Park is really nice as well. Several of the routes to those places are borderline as it is. Alki especially could justify better service just based on the number of people who live there. The buses to Magnolia perform fairly well too. With just a bit more money you could really improve transit to both places.

      14. I wonder if a privately funded shuttle could work for Rainier, especially if they could figure out a way around some of the park entrance congestion.

          They could easily make buses immune to the parking restrictions.

          This goes back to the park shuttle idea. If they run a shuttle through the park (which they should) then a private bus to the shuttle is the next step. This is generally how things evolve.

      15. The seasonal bus operations in the San Juan Islands have been private to date, including the service to the National Park.

          So, it can be done. It’s a matter of getting someone to run the risk inherent with any business.

      16. Acadia national park in Maine has a very nice bus service connecting the two parts of the park and the towns in between. It is partially funded by LL Bean if I recall correctly.

          https://www.exploreacadia.com/

   3. I’ve sometimes thought about doing Northwest Trek, but there’s no way to get to Eatonville on transit.

      1. Tacoma Belt Line / Tacoma Rail used to hav the occasional excursion train to Northwest Trek. Sadly, the new management isn’t interested in operating the line for freight or passenger service, and has suggested converting it to a bike path.

   4. There is bus service to Mount Rainier.

      https://www.toursnorthwest.com/tours/mt-rainier/

      1. Yes, it exists. But look at the price tag: $179 per adult, $149/child. At that even Zipcar is cheaper (by a fairly good margin), so the company is not aiming to compete on price, even for a single, non-car-owning individual.

         Of course, the bus does offer one big advantage over a rental car, which is that it bypasses the park’s timed entry system. But, you can also do so simply by going during a weekday.

      2. The price includes a tour guide.

      3. The way the tour industry usually works, passengers are encouraged/obligated to leave tips for the tour guide, on top of their $179/person fares.

         In any case, the tour guide is probably a small portion of the company’s operating costs. The real cost is the bus and the bus driver. The tour guide exists because it’s necessary to give customers something they can’t with a rental car in order to justify the higher price (at least for out of town tourists that have no idea where they’re going and don’t want to take the time to research anything).

         Bottom line: a bus service designed for locals would be cost-prohibitive to operate without a public subsidy. They would not be able to cover their operating costs without fares higher than the cost of a rental car, which means people would rent cars instead, and they wouldn’t get any customers.

   5. When I moved to Seattle in 1983 I picked up a brochure from Gray line tours that said that passenger service to Mt Rainier was accommodated on the daily tour buses from downtown Seattle to Paradise. I think this was aimed at climbers arriving from outside the area without a car.
      I traveled through Seattle in 1974 and made a pilgrimage to the REI store on Capitol Hill taking one of the trolley buses up the hill from downtown. (The passengers were very helpful and told me what stop to use for REI, what a great impression that was for an out of towner from the East coast!). One of the brochures I picked up was for a Hiker Bus serving several stops along I-90 to Snoqualmie Pass. With several new trail heads along I-90 now (Dirty Harry’s ledge and peak being one) this would be a great hiker/biker bus route if funding could be found.

      I stopped recently at Harpers Ferry National park and not only did they have a bus shuttle from the visitor center but the town has pretty good service by MARC trains from DC. Not only is there the Historic township to visit but the Appalachian Trail and the C&O Canal trail cross paths there!

      Also I’ve used in the NYC area the PATH subway and New Jersey Transit / Metro North rail service to Tuxedo Park (where the Tuxedo jacket comes from) to access the Harriman Park trail system. Metro north also provides access to the Appalachian Trail from both the Hudson and Harlem lines and there is bus service to Bear Mountain.

4. It’s a but incongruous for Trailhead Direct to be half-hourly when more populated areas are half-hourly or hourly. Even the 208 has more people around it than TD.

   However, this gives a perfect illustration of the frequency principle. If Trailhead Direct was hourly, it would lose a lot of riders who wouldn’t give up their car for that, or if they don’t have a car, they’d carpool with friends or not go at all.

   15-minute service is the general minimum for urban and suburban routes that are serious about making a car-light lifestyle feasible for ordinary people and attracting riders. So I’d hesitate to say anywhere should get 30-minute service. But where it most makes sense is a trailhead route, because people are more tolerant of waiting for a forest outing, and if they finish early, of lingering on the trail for an extra 15 minutes to avoid standing next to an asphalt road. So this seems like an appropriate level of service for trailheads.

   But I WISH the politicians would realize that Alki, Lake Hills, Leschi, etc need more service than that, and do something about it. If they can’t afford to now, then at least have a plan and show that you’re taking steps toward it. Metro Connects has this nice aspirational map, but there’s no certainty it will be implemented in our lifetimes, and even there Metro has given itself enough wiggle room to drive a truck through: “Frequent” routes, which I thought were minimum 15 minutes until 10pm like RapidRide, are 15 minutes minimum until 7pm weekdays. Many Seattle routes have that already. Does that mean those neighborhoods wouldn’t get ANY improvements under Metro Connects, and that there’s no hope for full-time frequency unless you’re lucky enough to live near a RapidRide line?

   (Ross, that’s another reason areas want RapidRide so much. It’s a guaranteed frequency floor. On other routes it’s on-again, off-again, or weekend frequency can be off for decades into the future.)

   1. Seattle’s transportation plan has more ambitious targets (link below). Frequency targets are on page T-26; map on T-29.

      https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/SDOT/STP/Transit.pdf

      When does Metro Connects get updated? Does it get updated on a regular cadence?

      1. “When does Metro Connects get updated?”

         Originally it was announced and published on its own website. Metro created it in 2016 with two planning targets (2025 and 2040) to show how it could complement ST2 and ST3 services. The website was updated periodically as the planners changed their minds or city/public feedback was influential on any particular issue. In 2020 it was taken offline and there appeared to be no successor. Metro Connects materials after that had only the RapidRide lines, without any sense of what other destinations/frequency a neighborhood would have.

         In 2024 an STB commentator found internal Metro Connects maps online that were still being updated. I made an article article for the links so that we could find them again for reference. The two phases are now “Interim” (ST2) and “2050” (ST3), reflecting the uncertainty over the potential dates. Metro Connects is an idealized service-level vision that requires additional funding to fully implement.

         In 2016 it was thought there would be a countywide levy in the next couple years to fund it, but that never happened. The county finally got around to a ballot measure in 2020, but the pandemic sidelined it: the county had no bandwidth work on it in the spring, and in the fall it wanted the Harborview expansion measure alone on the November 2024 ballot to maximize its chance of passing. So transit lost the opportunity, and the county hasn’t set a date since. It just says it wants it “someday”. Given that the frequency floor is no better than many existing routes, I’m not sure it matters as much.

         Seattle may not more frequency than that, but if Metro Connects doesn’t yield enough service hours, Seattle would have to fund it some other way. It declined to renew the Seattle Transit Measure levy in 2020 at its full previous amount, so the first step would be that. Even then you’d have to expand it dramatically to reach the goal in the document, and the driver shortage would have to be fully overcome. Seattle may set a middle level of 10 minutes weekdays, 15 minutes evenings and weekends, but can we hope that will apply to routes like the 5, 8, and 10 that are below that? Those are major corridor routes that shouldn’t be left behind, and there are more like them.

      2. “but can we hope that will apply to routes like the 5, 8, and 10 that are below that?”

         Oh, it’s on the second page cited. Greenwood has “Frequent 15 minutes (until 9pm)”. Denny/John is “Frequent: Better than 10 minutes (15 min until midnight)”. 15th Ave E is “Frequent 15 minutes” north of that. So major improvements to the 8, but none to the 5 or 10. Of course, these are minimum floors and there could be more service than that, but we need something guaranteed, not just a gamble that “maybe” or “on-again, off-again”.

      3. > So major improvements to the 8, but none to the 5 or 10.

         15m all-day would be a major improvement to the current service on the 5 or 10.

         Yeah unfortunately it’s still just “text on a page” and “lines on a map” but that is at least the first step to any future changes. It would be nice to have some kind of service minimum for frequent routes.

   2. Ross, that’s another reason areas want RapidRide so much. It’s a guaranteed frequency floor.

      Yes, but that doesn’t mean that it is good. It leads to perverse outcomes. Buses running more frequently in one place versus another because the bus route is a letter, not a number.

      But I WISH the politicians would realize that Alki, Lake Hills, Leschi, etc need more service than that, and do something about it.

      I think some of them care and some of them don’t. The last mayor didn’t care and neither did Sara Nelson. As a result Seattle has worse transit than they should have and we managed to save a nickel on a $100 purchase (whoopee).

      1. “Buses running more frequently in one place versus another because the bus route is a letter, not a number. ”

         That’s better than no routes running more frequently anywhere.

      2. That also inverts the causality. Planners identify routes that merit all day frequency, and some of those are upgraded to Rapid Ride.

      3. That’s better than no routes running more frequently anywhere.

         Not necessarily. I don’t want to see RapidRide lines running every ten minutes while every other bus runs every hour. It doesn’t make sense to assign service in that manner. It is a binary designation (RapidRide and all-bets-are-off) when the system should have various levels (core, secondary, tertiary, etc.) that apply to all buses, whether they are RapidRide or not. You don’t even need to do that kind of labeling — it should be done at a more case by case basis. I would err on the side of spreading the wealth in most cases. It sucks to now run the 7 every ten minutes (when it was running every 7.5 minutes) but I think it was the right choice. It would have been the right choice even if the 7 was RapidRide.

         Metro runs peak-only buses but very few run every hour. There seems to be a baseline of every half-hour for even a coverage bus. At the same time they seem to try and get as many buses to that fifteen minute mark as possible even if it means some buses (like the 44) aren’t running every ten.

         Getting back to these buses, the farther you go the more likely it is that you end up with low frequency. The shuttle from Port Angeles to Hurricane Ridge runs every hour. This seems fine (it helps that the bus stop has a world class view). If they ran the bus to Port Angeles it would be great and adequate. In the case of Issaquah it isn’t that far. Mount Si is a little farther but one reason it is so popular is that it is so close (especially for folks on the East Side). I think the Issaquah line is more dependent on good frequency than the Mount Si one although it too would likely take a hit if it ran every hour.

      4. “I don’t want to see RapidRide lines running every ten minutes while every other bus runs every hour.”

         RapidRide is what enabled us to get 15-minute evening frequency on the A, B, C, D, E, G, and H. Before it they were half-hourly. You can say Metro should provide good frequency without needing a letter or red buses or light rail, but in practice the agencies and governments aren’t willing to. There are exceptions like the 40 and 62, but those are only a few routes. So you either be glad we have a few RapidRide lines, or you do without frequency. If you insist on frequency without RapidRide, you may wait twenty years and it still hasn’t happened.

      5. You can say Metro should provide good frequency without needing a letter or red buses or light rail, but in practice the agencies and governments aren’t willing to. There are exceptions like the 40 and 62, but those are only a few routes.

         And RapidRide are only a few routes. That is my point. Think of the various RapidRide buses and ask yourself: If they were not RapidRide, would they still be frequent. Yes — I can’t think of any exceptions. The 36 runs every ten minutes — wouldn’t the A, by any other name, be as frequent? The F runs every fifteen minutes — this is basically just an ordinary bus in much of Seattle. Why would it see a big decrease given that is standard frequency for a bus that performs that well? I don’t think there is a single RapidRide bus that would see a change in frequency if they weren’t RapidRide.

         But assume that changes. For example, assume that the Redmond extension takes almost all of the RapidRide B ridership. (I don’t think that will happen, but just assume that it will.). So now we are running the B Line frequently while buses that are way more productive are running less frequently. How is that a good thing?

         To put it in concrete terms the 27 runs every half hour. This is the bus serving Yesler (a very dense area). Now assume they convert the 36 to RapidRide. As a result we run the 36 every 7.5 minutes instead of ten. Why is that higher priority than running the 27 (and similar buses) every fifteen? Is the only answer for the 27 to become RapidRide as well?

         It isn’t clear that this really is a policy (that RapidRide are favored with excess service) nor do I think it is a good thing if it were. Every route has to be considered in a case by case basis. Sometimes it is better to raise up the infrequent buses (like the 27) so they at least have decent frequency. Other times it is best to increase frequency on core routes (like the 7). But whether a bus happens to have the RapidRide moniker or not shouldn’t be part of the equation.

      6. “If they were not RapidRide, would they still be frequent. Yes — I can’t think of any exceptions”

         As I said, the predecessors of the A, B, C, D, E, G, and H were half-hourly evenings (and the G Sundays and part of the B always) until they became RapidRide. People had to wait until the H became RapidRide to get full-time frequency in that corridor, just like we’re now having to wait for light rail (6 years overdue!) to get better-than-30-minute Sunday and evening service across Lake Washington.

      7. If what you are saying is true and we really are showering the RapidRide buses with extra service than the main reason a bus like the 27 — which runs on Yesler! — is running every half hour is because we are busy oversupplying the RapidRide routes. How is that a good thing?

      8. If we can get frequent service sooner with RapidRide, then I’m fine with RapidRide. Whatever the governments are willing to do to get full-time frequent service into at least some corridors. That makes it more feasible to live in those neighborhoods or go to things in them.

      9. It’s not 100% absolute, but the general principle is that when Metro makes a route RapidRide, they are making a promise to the public that they will prioritize this route for service hours, which allows people to make long term decisions on where to live or work that depend on their bus not being gutted come the next recession.

         Since RapidRide does not magically increase available service money, it does follow that, all else equal, more RapidRide routes would have to mean either reduced frequency standards for RapidRide routes or worse frequency for everything else. However, Metro considers this in choosing which routes get to be RapidRide in the first place, and generally limits the RapidRide designation to only a small handful of routes that are popular enough that they’d be getting good frequency anyway. Or course, politics plays some role in this – the fact that the F is RapidRide while the 7 isn’t – for example. But, for the most part, it works.

      10. As to Yesler, Metro has never been enthusiastic about the 27, partly because you’ve got the 3, 4, and 14 a few blocks away, and partly because of it’s long tail to Leschi which is a beautiful area, but gets very few riders (the bulk of the riders are just going a short distance on the stretch between Broadway and downtown). If my memory serves, the 27 was actually reduced all the way to hourly off peak at some point during the aftermath of the great recession, but has since come back to half hourly.

      11. Even today, the 27 has significantly worse frequency than the parallel 14 much of the day. For instance, on weekends, the 27 drops to hourly at 6:30 PM while the 14 maintains half hourly service. The 27 also doesn’t run past 10 PM any day of the week, while the 14 does. So, Metro sees the 14 as the core route in the corridor, and the 27 as just a convenience option for those on Yesler who don’t want to walk as far.

      12. the general principle is that when Metro makes a route RapidRide, they are making a promise to the public that they will prioritize this route for service hours, which allows people to make long term decisions on where to live or work that depend on their bus not being gutted come the next recession.

          But they do change RapidRide (as well they should). The C and D used to be paired. You used to be able to take a bus from West Seattle to Uptown. Now the bus goes to South Lake Union. The B Line will change when East Link goes across the lake. It is highly likely that both the C and H will no longer go downtown after West Seattle Link. So if you bought a condo on California Avenue thinking you could always have that one-seat ride to South Lake Union you will be out of luck just like the guy who thought the C would always go to Ballard. This is as it should be. Whenever possible, routes should not be permanent.

          Nor are RapidRide the essential routes of our system. The 7, 36, 44 and 271 are clearly core routes. Hell, the 271 connects the second and third biggest destination in Puget Sound (Downtown Bellevue and the UW)! Yet these aren’t given priority if times get tough? We should instead funnel money to routes that happen to have a letter assigned to them instead of a number? That is not a good system. That is a clear case of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

          But even if they somehow managed to specify the exact number of elite routes that deserve special consideration, things change. What may have been a hugely important route at the time becomes just another bus later on. Sometimes (as in the examples I gave) the route doesn’t make much sense anymore (if it even made sense in the beginning). Cities change and whenever possible the network should as well.

          The RapidRide concept is BS (https://marcochitti.substack.com/p/down-with-the-brt-long-live-the-bus). It is clearly designed to get the federal government to chip in for things the city (and county) should be doing anyway. They should be adding bus lanes whenever possible. Certain routes should be running more often than others. There should be a general expectation of good transit in certain neighborhoods (like Lake City). But none of that should be dependent on RapidRide. It is a waste of money and it leads to an improper distribution of service.

          A RapidRide route can easily fall into the sunk cost fallacy. We invested in this route, thought it was going to be hugely successful, so we are going to invest a lot of service hours when it isn’t. To be clear that isn’t the case with most of these routes. Most of them do deserve extra investment for the same reason the 7, 44 and several other buses do. The investment in infrastructure often pays off and as AJ pointed out, quite often they picked the right corridor. We can see this with the RapidRide G. The bus is fairly fast and very popular so it picks up a lot of riders per service hour (quite likely the most in our system). The same thing could happen with the streetcar. If that particular streetcar or RapidRide route (or just ordinary bus route) happens to perform really well then adding more service is clearly justified. But it doesn’t, then tough luck. We shouldn’t be running the streetcars or any of the RapidRide buses extra just because we spent a bunch of money building them.

      13. As to Yesler, Metro has never been enthusiastic about the 27, partly because you’ve got the 3, 4, and 14 a few blocks away

          Yes, because things change! Yesler has always been an important street with fairly good density, but not like now. As for the other buses it is a steep walk to Jackson as you go west and the 3/4 aren’t that close. Yes, the tail of the 27 is weak but it also really short. From Lescii Elementary School to the end of the line is six minutes. There are also apartments along the way (just not as many as on Yesler). The 27 is a classic example of the type of route that Mike mentioned. Frequency is so bad that people walk long distances or take a slow bus/streetcar just to get downtown. Or they just give up and walk. Look at the options at noon today: https://maps.app.goo.gl/HwWZAtvj5BhNNM9Y8:

          1) Walk 13 minutes and get there at 12:21 (via the 36)
          2) Walk 9 minutes and get there at 12:26 (via the 7)
          3) Walk 6 minutes and get there at 12:35 (via the 14)
          4) Walk 13 minutes and get there at 12:31 (via the 3)
          5) Just walk there and get there at 12:21
          6) Wait for a bus that can make that trip in five minutes (the 27) and get there at 12:38

          The fastest option is to walk 21 minutes even though the 27 only takes 5 minutes (but requires way too much waiting). If they ran the bus every fifteen minutes it would be the fastest option even if you just missed it. This isn’t a crazy amount of service. It is pretty much standard in much of Seattle. Everything else is considered a coverage bus that may very well be on the chopping block because it doesn’t perform well (like the 20 or 73). But this clearly isn’t a coverage area: https://maps.app.goo.gl/4rCaBwxxNdDjJQNh8. This is the kind of density that many of our Link stations wish they had. With just decent service it would perform very well. Hell, you could easily make the case that a bus from Lescii Elementary to downtown should be RapidRide. It would likely outperform some of the existing RapidRide buses. It is already fast. Run it frequently and a lot of the riders who endured long walks or slow bus rides (or both) use it to go along one of most urban corridors in our region. But again, I’m not suggesting that. I’m just suggesting decent frequency. The type of frequency found in most routes in Seattle.

          Look at Oran’s map (which is a bit out of date but good enough for discussion): https://seattletransitmap.com/app/. Look at the north end and see how almost all of the routes are running every fifteen minutes. Clearly this is the standard. I would love to see a major boost in frequency across the board (which I am confident we could achieve with a major restructure) but raising the baseline level of only a handful of buses would make a huge difference. It also isn’t that expensive. It only takes a couple runs an hour to turn a half hour bus into a fifteen minute bus. The 27 is a fairly fast bus. At worst it takes about a half hour to complete the run (and often takes about twenty minutes). It isn’t alone in being underserved but the ridership jump from just providing a tiny bit extra service would be huge.

      14. If we can get frequent service sooner with RapidRide, then I’m fine with RapidRide. Whatever the governments are willing to do to get full-time frequent service into at least some corridors. That makes it more feasible to live in those neighborhoods or go to things in them.

          And it makes it worse to live everywhere else. That is just robbing Peter to pay Paul.

      15. RE Route 27:

          The systemic challenges of Route 27 are many. One basic one is how the frequencies are low especially compared to parallel routes yet Metro often runs it either higher capacity articulated buses. Another is how it has no major destinations that help make it a great direct route outside of Downtown Seattle. Another is that its terminus is in the middle of a low density residential area. It feels kind of like it’s the rarely-opened catch-all drawer where someone throws leftover things that don’t belong in a more logical and usable location. A corollary to that is that there is little motivation to make that “drawer” bigger even if a route extension could add functionality to the route (like how Metro has sometimes proposed using it as a replacement for the Hunter Blvd tail of Route 14).

          For example, I have to wonder if it should have a major deviation in the middle between 23rd and MLK, like northward up to Cherry or Union or southward to Massachusetts (past Judkins Park Station). I could see that a change like this may or may not be worth it.

          At some point, there will be another major transit restructuring for this area (last major one was with U Link in 2016 when many could not fully appreciate a Link transfer). The more recent changes for 2 Line and RapidRide G have been pretty modest. That’s when I think the route alignment, frequency and destinations can be revisited with an eye to add riders and justify more frequency to the Yesler corridor rather than have it be just a “leftover” route.

      16. “The C and D used to be paired.”

          The only reason for that was Metro didn’t have enough money to run them separate. Later it did: the Seattle Transit Measure passed and the C/D split took a third of it). The motivation for the split was partly the longstanding D complaint (to restore a Ballard connection to Pioneer Square and the stadiums), and partly because Metro was desperate to add capacity to SLU. Later the economy improved so Metro didn’t have to depend on the STM as much for the full C & D.

      17. “when Metro makes a route RapidRide, they are making a promise to the public that they will prioritize this route for service hours”

          RapidRide has a minimum service-level guarantee of 15 minutes until 10pm every day, both to the public and to the federal grant auditors. It fudged that on the F during the pandemic, but has otherwise adhered to it. None of the A-G corridors had 15-minute evenings before they were upgraded to RapidRide. The B’s north-south half didn’t at all, and the A might still not have had either.

          “So now we are running the B Line frequently while buses that are way more productive are running less frequently.”

          That’s not plausible: the RapidRide corridors were chosen because they’re the highest-volume in the subarea. Pacific Highway and Aurora will always have the most compared to parallel routes because they’re a former federal highway where the most commercial/multifamily density is allowed. There will always be a need for a frequent route to northwest Seattle and West Seattle. Crossroads will probably remain Bellevue’s second-largest retail district and will need connections to both downtown Bellevue, downtown Redmond, and a Link station. With the C and D there were a couple viable alternatives: include Fauntleroy or not, 15th vs 24th, but at least one alternative is necessary. The F may be more of a theoretical/aspirational champion than an actual powerhouse, but it’s hard to argue that Burien-Southcenter-Renton wouldn’t be South King County’s second- or third-biggest travel corridor. Part of the problem with the F is its time-consuming detours between Southcenter and Renton, which depress ridership. That’s a case of the F not following the “keep the route relatively straight” principle.

      18. “So now we are running the B Line frequently while buses that are way more productive are running less frequently.”

          I don’t think it’s that simple. There has always been some form of sub-area equity in King County Metro, as local politicians in Bellevue and Auburn don’t want to see their tax dollars funding going to bus routes that never leave Seattle. And, the B line is legitimately one of the top performers in the Bellevue-Redmond area where the B operates. Even the 245 runs every 15 minutes, at last daytime Monday-Friday, so the B should get better than that and does (by maintaining the 15-minute service on evenings and weekends).

          Another way to think about it is to go back in time to the service restructure (I think around 2010’ish) that created the B-line in the first place. I don’t remember the full details, but the service hours that funded the B-line mostly came from eliminating the inefficiency from multiple, infrequent, overlapping routes on the various sections the B-line followed. Some of it also came from truncating most of the peak-only express routes to downtown Seattle at park-and-rides, rather than running them into the neighborhoods. It definitely did not come from starving other corridors, like the 255 or 271 (these corridors were always under-funded, but didn’t get any worse in the B-line restructure than they were before). Some residential neighborhoods that previously had no service at all, except for their rush hour express to downtown Seattle actually *gained* all-day bus service for the first time (albeit, just a local route on the eastside that required a transfer at Eastgate or Overlake to reach Seattle).

      19. From the 1970s until RapidRide B, the 253 and 226 (230 in some restructures) overlapped on NE 8th Street between Bellevue TC and 156th. The 253 turned north on 156th to downtown Redmond, while the 226 (230) went to Redmond another way.

          In the 2000s the overlap had buses every 15 minutes daytime, 30 minutes evening. The B’s contribution was to keep the 15-minute daytime service on 8th, extend it to the evening, and double the frequency on 156th. The B also has fewer stops than the previous routes.

      20. “So now we are running the B Line frequently while buses that are way more productive are running less frequently.”

          And, the B line is legitimately one of the top performers in the Bellevue-Redmond area where the B operates.

          Then it doesn’t matter that it is RapidRide. Look, the argument is that RapidRide gets extra service because it is RapidRide. If the bus would get just as much service without the RapidRide designation then that isn’t true. If the bus does get extra service — merely because it happens to be RapidRide — then it has to come from somewhere. It means some other East Side bus is getting short changed. Maybe a frequent bus doesn’t become really frequent. Maybe that same bus doesn’t get get decent service at night or on weekends. Maybe a bus that is borderline and should probably run every fifteen minutes is stuck with half hour service. You can’t give RapidRide buses extra service without it coming from somewhere. It is a zero sum game.

          More than anything, it is just a poor way to classify and dole out service. You create two classes of service (RapidRide and everything else). The RapidRide designation is largely arbitrary. In contrast consider how Seattle designates various routes when assessing performance (https://www.seattle.gov/documents/departments/sdot/transitprogram/stmannualreports/stm_2022_performance_report.pdf). They break it down into three categories: Very Frequent, Frequent and Local. This is clearly better. Not only because there are more categories but also because it doesn’t matter if the bus route is RapidRide or not. Since this is Seattle it is no surprise that the RapidRide buses all fit into the “Very Frequent” category (they all perform very well) but there are ten other buses in there as well. To be clear I’m not saying they but each bus in the right category (I would obviously move the 27 to “frequent”) nor do I think it is the ideal methodology. But it much better than shifting more service to a RapidRide bus merely because it is RapidRide.

      21. Yeah, I don’t really get the whole argument around RapidRide stealing operating hours. The branding is fairly clearly a ploy to rally transit capital project dollars to rebuild infrastructure under busy bus routes, with (literal) window dressing and a promise that the bus will run maybe slightly more frequently than it might have without the street work and “station” upgrades. There are several routes in Seattle that would easily fall under the RapidRide network umbrella if not for the lack of “stations” with real time arrival boards (e.g. the 7, 40, 44, and other routes under consideration for “upgrade” to RapidRide).

          I think there are legitimate arguments against RapidRide (as discussed here and by Stephen Fesler in tU last year) but improper allocation of operating hours isn’t one of them.

      22. I don’t really get the whole argument around RapidRide stealing operating hours.

          Mike has made the case that RapidRide gets extra hours simply because they have that designation. That service has to come from other buses. Which part of that don’t you agree with?

      23. I think it sounds good as an anti-RapidRide argument, but I just haven’t seen much evidence to support it the idea that the RapidRide routes have high frequencies solely because of the RapidRide branding/”BRT” project investment. As you pointed out, the RapidRide routes tend to perform very well relative to their service areas, and there are non-RapidRide routes with high service frequencies. I think the real question is if the Routes weren’t RapidRide, would it have been reasonable to reduce service frequencies on these high-performing routes to maintain service on other routes?

      24. “Mike has made the case that RapidRide gets extra hours simply because they have that designation. That service has to come from other buses.”

          All the RapidRide corridors deserve their level of service. Several other corridors do too but don’t have it. There’s no point in crippling a highly-productive RapidRide corridor because the pie isn’t big enough for all the transit needs. Selecting a route for RapidRide is tantamount to declaring it deserves full-time frequency forever.

          The 7 will be RapidRide R. The 40 and 44 were going to become RapidRide in the Move Seattle levy, but it turned out the levy overpromised so it had to be scaled back. The 40 is currently getting “transit+” capital upgrades in the interim. The 48 and 62 were also going to become RapidRide in Move Seattle but suffered the same fate.

      25. One of the requirements for RapidRide is a minimum level of frequency. If the ancestor route doesn’t have it, the fill-in hours come from other routes. All of the RapiRides so far have added frequency to their corridors. Metro only gets additional service hours when a countywide levy passes, the economy booms, or cities provide supplemental funds. Those bursts don’t coincide with RapidRide rollouts. So a new RapidRide line triggers a revenue-neutral restructure. Several hours are recovered by consolidating/truncating routes and rationalizing coverage routes, but the rest of the hours come from the rest of the restructured routes.

   3. Trailhead Direct is funded by a separate budget from King County Metro, allowing it to bypass Metro’s service guidelines. While some of its trips are quite full, the overall route perfoms very poorly in boardings per platform hour due to long distance, no rider turnover mid-route, excessive deadheading, and having to run the full schedule even on rainy/smoky/very hot days that would have severely depressed ridership.

      The problem is, it’s hard to design a bus route to Mt. So in a way that’s more efficient without losing it’s attractiveness. The cheapest way to do it would probably be a weekend extension of the 208, but then a trip from Seattle to the mountain would take around 2 hours, plus the 208 doesn’t even run at all on Sundays. One could also imagine the TD bus picking up North Bend passengers in the reverse direction, but the number of people in North Bend willing to ride a bus to Seattle is very low.

      But, it does serve a useful purpose, which is making it easier for people without cars to get to the mountains. And, if it’s presence impacta even a few people’s car ownership decisions, that has ripple effects on transit ridership elsewhere in the system and on the amount of parking needed in Seattle.

      1. “Trailhead Direct is funded by a separate budget from King County Metro, allowing it to bypass Metro’s service guidelines.”

         That’s true, but the service guidelines aren’t why the 5, 8, 10, or 271 have frequency gaps. Metro’s reports say many corridors are underserved, and some streets without bus service should have it. They also say buses should be added to improve reliability so it can recover from congestion delays (like it was able to between 2015-2022, then lost it again). The reason for the gaps and unreliability is Metro has an inadequate amount of operational funds, so it has to stretch the available service hours to address the most critical hotspots (crowding, equity, biggest corridors, coverage), and the rest is left unaddressed. It’s like spreading butter on a biscuit when the jar is almost empty; you can cover only half the biscuit thinly. There’s also the driver shortage, so Metro can’t run the full service it intended to and has money for. The long-term problem is service hours. The short-term problem is the driver shortage (started in 2022, getting better, but is still a de facto ceiling at about 95% of intended service).

      2. I could see a route similar to the new 215 head south to Enumclaw instead: MI-Enumclaw via Eastgate, Issaquah Highlands, Maple Valley, Black Diamond. Over the summer a connecting shuttle could be timed for Enumclaw-Sunrise.

         A south end shuttle would probably need to leave out of Eatonville? Tacoma-Eatonville via Spanaway with a timed shuttle Eatonville-Paradise?

      3. Trailhead Direct is funded by a separate budget from King County Metro, allowing it to bypass Metro’s service guidelines.

         Yes, absolutely. It is a different beast. It can be considered coverage service, even though it isn’t the type of thing people normally associate with coverage transit service.

         The same thing goes for regional transit as well. Bus service from Seattle to Olympia will perform very poorly compared to average bus service in Seattle. It shouldn’t be put on the same level (unless we basically just admit that we won’t have regional transit).

      4. It may perform very poorly measuring riders per total service hour, but the rider miles per revenue service hour would not look nearly as bad.

         It’s possible to create performance measures to define how to measure a service’s success. That’s just one example.

         The challenge is applying the best measure given how every measure has pros and cons.

         If the NPS is expected to contribute money, how a service is justified is going to need a performance measure comparable across a wide variety of situations nationally. Even if it’s just Metro, the performance measures used can heavily influence what kind of service (frequency, operating hours, number of days, destinations) gets implemented each summer.

      5. It may perform very poorly measuring riders per total service hour, but the rider miles per revenue service hour would not look nearly as bad.

         I doubt it. Rider miles per revenue service hour is still dependent on the number of riders you pick up an hour. The buses that do really well in that metric also do very well in the other. The opposite is true as well. The only difference between the two is that rider-miles incorporates speed.

         The E Line performs best when it comes to ridership per service mile. It is carrying lots of people on (relatively) short hops. In contrast buses like the 178 (an express that used to run from South Federal Way to Downtown Seattle) performed poorly in ridership per service mile. It just didn’t pick up enough riders.

         This is why agencies — including Metro — come up with different categories for their bus routes. In the case of Metro there is the concept of a “suburban” route. These are buses that don’t go to downtown or the UW. As a result they just don’t perform as well. It is basically the minor leagues for bus routes. But it is still important to see which ones are performing well (relative to similar buses). The same is true with express buses. An express bus from Seattle to Olympia can’t possibly perform as well as an express bus from Seattle to Tacoma (in either of these metrics). Even if there was just as much demand the better average speed (from spending more time on the freeway) doesn’t make up for the much longer time spent not picking up anyone. An agency just has to accept that it is still providing an important service, in the same way that coverage buses perform an important service.

      6. We can’t just leave Eastside or South King County or Pierce County without bus service even if their ridership is lower. That’s over two million people who would have to drive or be stuck, and they’d be a majority of the voting population who would insist on catering to cars even more. So it makes sense to give them at least three or four RapidRides under a relative “subarea” formula. The B might not perform as well as the D or E, but it’s the highest-volume corridor in the Eastside, and I used it from its creation until 2022.

5. So, assuming this program grows, what other trailheads make sense to cover? I can think of a few:

   1) Rattlesnake Ledge. This is extremely popular, open pretty much year round and about as far as Mount Si.

   2) Mailbox Peak. Pretty much the same story.

   3) Mailbox Peak and the end of the paved road up the Middle Fork of the Snoqualmie. Personally I have no interest in doing Mailbox Peak again but I really like the rest of the Middle Fork.

   4) Kendall Katwalk (PCT) and Snow Lake. Both of these are extremely popular. The trails have a lot of snow until later in the season so service would probably start later. My guess is it would be very popular with both day hikers and through hikers (folks on the PCT could avoid having to hitchhike to Seattle). This is world class hiking in my book (spectacular views and wilderness).

   Some of these could be combined. Mailbox, Rattlesnake Ledge and Mount Si are all outside of North Bend. It takes about ten minutes to get from the main North Bend exit to the Mount Si trailhead (https://maps.app.goo.gl/XFqC1u76TBRruCqh8). It takes about twenty minutes to get from the same spot on the freeway to Kendall Katwalk (https://maps.app.goo.gl/XFqC1u76TBRruCqh8) and another five minutes to get from there to Snow Lake. If you try and connect Mount Si with Kendall it takes longer. If you did all of these and combined routes then it would probably make sense to combine Rattlesnake Ledge with Kendall/Snow Lake since Rattlesnake Ledge is closer to the freeway. While more expensive than other runs they don’t seem that expensive.

   Trips to Rainier would cost a lot more. I would like it if they ran the Straight Shot more often. It would be weird for the state (let alone King County/Seattle) to help pay for that but with more frequency you could do Hurricane Ridge as a day hike from Seattle. You could theoretically do the same thing with the Dungeness Line but it seems like a flawed route. The eastern part (SeaTac to Edmonds) seems odd to me. For the most we already have that covered. The tough part is getting from the ferry to Port Angeles.

   1. “The eastern part (SeaTac to Edmonds) seems odd to me. For the most we already have that covered.”

      Dungeness is scheduled to go from King Street Station to Edmonds Station in about 40 minutes.

      Unless Sounder North is running, this takes about 1 hour 15 minutes or more on the “already have that covered” method.

      Eg:
      https://maps.app.goo.gl/1BuAwbjqsr5QUqHi7?g_st=ic

      vs local transit:
      https://maps.app.goo.gl/vmTzeekjpKaP1TM36?g_st=ic

      1. Dungeness is scheduled to go from King Street Station to Edmonds Station in about 40 minutes.

         Yes, but if you are going west you then you have to take the ferry across which takes another 30 minutes. From the Seattle Waterfront to Kingston the fast ferry only takes 40 minutes (https://www.kitsaptransit.com/service/fast-ferry/kingston-fast-ferry). That is a much faster option.

         If the goal is to improve the travel time from Seattle to Downtown Edmonds there are much better ways (e. g. express buses from 185th to Downtown Edmonds). If the goal is to connect Clallam County destinations with Seattle the best option is to just run buses from the (west side) ferry docks, timed with the fast ferries.

         It is worth noting that the fast ferry to Bremerton takes a half hour instead of forty minutes. Meanwhile, an express from Bremerton to Hood Canal takes about ten minutes longer than an express from Kingston. In other words, you might as well serve Bremerton (unless you want to pick up riders who took the Edmonds ferry). Basically the Straight Shot is the best option — it just needs to run more often.

   2. In any other administration, it seems an equity case could and should be made for federal funding of some level of bus service to every national park within (say) 100 miles of a major metropolitan area. Obviously that argument would be very counterproductive to make now.

      While we’re dreaming, though, I’d love to see a trailhead-type bus along US-2 or Mountain Loop Highway, if Community Transit ever ends up with spare resources.

      1. While we’re dreaming, though, I’d love to see a trailhead-type bus along US-2 or Mountain Loop Highway, if Community Transit ever ends up with spare resources.

         The 230 serves Darrington but it is only weekday peak-direction. It would benefit the folks who live along that corridor as well as recreational users if they ran a bus hourly. Of course they don’t have the money.

         Serving the southern half of the Mountain Loop would be great. A lot of the trailheads are right off the highway. I could see it during weekends because a lot of the trailheads are overflowing with cars. You could run a shuttle from the Granite Falls Park and Ride. You could time it with the 280 (which does run on weekends) or make it an extension. The Park and Ride is fairly small though. The bus also serves the Lake Stevens Transit Center which has a much bigger parking lot. That might be the best option. The cheapest would be an extension of the 280. Even better would be to run a separate shuttle from Lake Stevens to Barlow Pass (the end of the pavement). Run it opposite the 280 but as more of an express. It could go through Granite Falls (with a stop or two) but not make any of the loops of the 280 (nor would it detour to the park and ride). That way you would have half hour service between Granite Falls and Lake Stevens (on the weekends). It would encourage people to stop and have dinner in Granite Falls on the way back (I’m sure the bypass road has taken a hit on restaurant business). The last 280 (headed towards Everett) leaves Granite Falls at 7:55 on Saturday so I could see it working really well. There are a number of different buses serving Lake Stevens as well. It could be promoted as a way to avoid the huge parking hassles as well as spur some business in Lake Stevens and Granite Falls (while also giving people without a car a way to get to some outstanding hiking). Dickerman would likely be one of the most spectacular hiking destinations accessible by public transport in the Lower 48.

6. Sound Transit just delivered light rail access to a large regional park in Redmond. And how did the comment section react? It complained about the lack of a pedestrian exit at the west end of the platform. I’d like to see a little less complaining, and a little more gratitude, before I give my stamp of approval on expanding transit service to parks and hiking spots.

   1. That’s both cherry-picking less than 1% of comment content and an incoherent argument. You’re comparing a station entrance to shuttles to rural forest trails? That’s comparing apples and baking soda.

   2. My comment isn’t about comparing this to that. It’s about how to earn my stamp of approval.

   3. What are some examples of gratitude that would earn your stamp of approval?

   4. I’m done with this topic for now, but I do want to say, after having looked at a map and pics, I do now see where the Marymoor Village platform exit is, and the basis for the complaint. If it’s a problem that needs to be fixed is a debate for another day.

   5. “ I’d like to see a little less complaining, and a little more gratitude.”

      Transit involves a complex series of tradeoffs. One of the biggest is comparing benefit to use of public funds.

      As an example, saying that Marymoor Village platform should have west access is not wholesale complaining. It’s saying that the commenter thinks that they would have preferred a different tradeoff (quicker and shorter park access for a very modest additional public capital expense).

      Many comments that you consider as complaints I read on this platform are not actually complaints. They are simply frustrations about what these public tradeoffs are. And many comments that you are calling complaints here are referring to a broader lack of logic-based public decisions, as many decisions that some agencies make seem arbitrary and wasteful from a public accountability perspective. When an agency spends several hundred millions of dollars or more of public dollars, a caring citizen kind of expects the expenditure to be somewhat based on logic about improving life for the broad rider citizenry — and not to placate a person of power doing backroom lobbying to get a favor.

      1. I think this topic might be interesting as a separate post. It might even the catalyst for ST changing its mind on the issue.

      2. Yes, passengers certainly have a chance to get the gate properly opened if a critical mass of people keep asking. That’s how we got 130th station, and the passage between the two mid mezzanines at UW station, and the stairway around the southeast exit elevator at Capitol Hill station, and how the downtown library opened a down staircase that had been staff-only, etc. Thank you for championing the issue of a west exit from the Marymoor Village platform to the large regional park it’s named after.

      3. I just realized something. If ST does open up the western platform access gate, it will largely be because of me.

      4. They can put a statue of Sam there.

      5. @Al S,

         “ Many comments that you consider as complaints I read on this platform are not actually complaints. They are simply frustrations about….”

         Whether you want to call it complaining, whining, or “frustrations” is sort of immaterial. There simply is an awful lot of it on this blog and too little appreciation for the fantastic progress that is being made, particularly with Light Rail.

         That said, regarding the west entrance to the Marymoor Village Station specifically, maybe it would be more constructive for whoever is most upset about this issue to simply stop their whining and instead ask ST a simple question: “Why?”

         I have not asked that question, but I do know that the area near the proposed west entrance is being bundled by ST for a major TOD development.

         So the answer to the “West Entrance Controversy of The Century” could be as simple as the situation being temporary. ST might not be willing to open an entrance there until such time as the TOD construction phase is complete. Or at least until such time as the future TOD is at least designed.

         But hey, TOD there would be a great thing. So don’t let me interrupt anyone’s whining with positive thoughts. Get back to it! There must be an escalator out somewhere in the system! Where’s the outrage????!!!!!!

      6. @Lazarus,

         Oh, and golly gee, the TOD parcels apparently don’t include a semi-circular area around the west end of the station.

         Could this carve out represent a non-developable area being reserved for a future west entrance plaza? It sure seems like it could be….. and that would be some mighty good forward planning on ST’s part.

         https://www.soundtransit.org/system-expansion/creating-vibrant-stations/transit-oriented-development/projects/marymoor-village

         No credit to Sam needed.

      7. “Whether you want to call it complaining, whining, or “frustrations” is sort of immaterial. There simply is an awful lot of it on this blog and too little appreciation for the fantastic progress that is being made, particularly with Light Rail.”

         When something changes in a major way — no matter what it is, people are going to express concern and want minor changes. It’s normal man!

         It’s like when someone moves into a new apartment. They get in their unit the first week — and often go out and buy some new accessories and stuff to make it more livable and comfortable! Commenting on newly opened stations is no different.

         These improvements are also things that all of the local public pays for; it’s “everyone’s apartment” especially if they’re a transit rider. The public has paid money to buy this beautiful new system and will continue paying for it another 25 years at least; it wasn’t merely given as a present. If Amazon donated the whole system maybe speaking up would be wrong and we should just be grateful and shut up; but that’s not what this is.

         And to be clear, almost every comment has identified a solution: making the west emergency platform already there open to the public. The only things missing are signage and an Orca reader, along with maybe gates for train safety and additional lighting. It’s not merely complaining or whining; it’s offering a very low cost solution that could be put into place quickly.

         Finally, I did say that there may be reasons that ST did not want to open access to the west. I can’t speak for ST. But if you have a good reason why the access maybe shouldn’t be opened, say it. Defend ST! Just don’t try to shame any critic into silence because they make a constructive comment on how to improve access to transit when that same critic has partly paid for it just like you.

      8. @Al S,

         I provided the link to the ST page describing the TOD site near the future west entrance. That should make it pretty clear why there isn’t a west entrance currently available. It’s going to become a construction site.

         Construction sites are loud, dirty, and dangerous. They are not the place for the average citizen to be wandering thru on their way to a stroll in the park. And anything ST put in today would probably need to be taken out during construction anyhow.

         ST is right not to put a west entrance in at least until such time as the future construction is substantially complete.

         As to the general tone of this blog, I think the nattering nabobs of negativism that seem to reside here simply find it more entertaining if this blog reads like an anti-ST extension of the Seattle Times’ comment section.

         And that is a shame.

      9. Al. S, in all fairness, you did complain a lot about Marymoor Village Station. Some of the things you said:

         – “I will gripe that there was just one crossing at street level from the platform …”

         – “It’s generally very hard to walk to the Marymoor station platform. The platform needs more exits — and it seems ridiculous to not build and exit to the trail just north of the platform.”

         – “Oh and the name “village” seems odd.”

         – “There’s no village hub at Marymoor.”

         – “No village green either.”

         – “It feels like a random collection of buildings with uses that don’t seem to relate to each other.”

         So, not only did you complain about there not being a west platform exit, you also complained there not being a north platform exit.

         That’s a lot of complaining.

      10. @ Lazarus:

          If the TOD development can add a west access, great! Waiting is certainly a valid reason.

          Can you find anywhere that explains that the access was deferred for this reason? Maybe a future trail plan that shows the west access? Maybe an ST presentation that says “future access” to the west?

          I can’t seem to find any reference that west access was ever promised upon TOD completion. I see from your link that the discussions about development are however starting. Sounds the perfect time to comment on adding west access.

      11. If ST intends future public access to future TOD at the west end, why didn’t it announce it with the opening? It could have said, “Adding access initially would have required closing it during construction.” The public and transit critics would have looked forward to this future amenity and praised Sound Transit for including it. Instead we get an “Emergency use only” gate. People are primed to think these are permanent and they’ll get alarm bells and a legal citation if they cross it and it will always be that way. What precedent is there for an intentionally-temporary emergency restriction on a Link gate/passage/stairwell? The few that have been converted to full-access use, the decision to unrestrict them was made after the station opened, not an intention built into the design.

      12. But besides the new elevator at the SeaTac Airport Station east entrance, the extra stairs in U-District Station, the extra staff restrooms at Lynnwood Station so we can have two public restrooms there, the extra switches on the Lynnwood Link extension, the ramps so that no new stations can have an elevator failure trap wheelchairs, the TOD at most of the new stations, the escalator upgrades, the increased standing room on the light-rail vehicles, the low-income fares, the end of Pay-after-you-shove-to-the-exit, the improved wayfinding, and the new bus lanes, what else Brothers! (and sisters) and Sisters! have the whiners given us!

      13. “I provided the link to the ST page describing the TOD site near the future west entrance. That should make it pretty clear why there isn’t a west entrance currently available. It’s going to become a construction site.”

          I don’t see an additional entrance in the page. That’s just your speculation. Maybe it will, maybe it won’t. But ST shouldn’t hint at things by just leaving a mysterious semicircle: it should say explicitly if it intends a future entrance.

7. It would be great to someday have bus service in the summer to Snoqualmie Pass, as there is so much hiking around there including access to the Pacific Crest Trail. A few years ago I hiked section J of the PCT, but the closest I could get by bus to Snoqualmie Pass was North Bend. So, I hiked from North Bend to the Pass via the Iron Horse Trail, then had to walk a couple miles on the shoulder of a highway before finally entering the PCT and hiking to Stevens Pass. It was still an amazing experience, but the Iron Horse Trail is a lot more suited to bikers than hikers (hence the name).

   1. Yes, I mentioned that up above. It comes up every so often on NWHikers.net. Through-hikers on the PCT are trying to get to Seattle and they either hike a long ways or hitchhike. It is also not that much further to go to the Kendall Katwalk trailhead (and the PCT) than it is Mount Si, simply because Mount Si is a longer drive away from the freeway. So a bus to the pass wouldn’t cost that much more.

      1. What would really be cool is a South Bellevue – Ellensburg route, with Kittitas County going in on it. Central Washington University would probably be the largest ridership source, but the stops along the way might be a boon for the ski resorts and other Cascades businesses.

      2. Yeah, I agree. I think there was a video about it we linked to. There are people who commute from there (into Seattle) but there are also plenty of people who travel along the corridor. A simple stop at Snoqualmie Pass (along the way) would serve anyone who is day-hiking or through-hiking.

         [Edit: Mike found the article. See his comment below.]

      3. In looking at the map of the area, I was thinking an Ellensburg – Seattle route of some sort would be about as close as you could get to the Columbia Gorge type bus route down here. You don’t have something like Hood River that’s a good halfway point city.

   2. Cross-Snoqualmie bus route. Kittitas Transit has an existing Kittitas-Cle Elum route, so this one would start in Cle Elum and go to Issaquah Highlands P&R, where Metro will have half-hourly express buses to Mercer Island station, and ST might have a frequent 554 stop to Bellevue TC. Some have suggested it could subsume the 208.

      1. Er, the 215. Metro’s successor to the 208 in the East Link restructure is a route 215 to Issaquah Highlands P&R, with every third bus continuing to North Bend (90 minute frequency).

         That could possibly be extended to Cle Elum, although I’m not sure if Cle Elum-Mercer Island would be too long for drivers to go without a break, and the pass would make it unreliable, and the other stops in Snoqualmie/North Bend might make it too slow.

         Or Trailhead Direct could be extended to Cle Elum. And something like it in the off-season.

      2. The 215 has a lengthy loop through Snoqualmie Ridge, downtown Snoqualmie, and downtown North Bend, which is appropriate for that route but not good for a cross-Snoqualmie route.

         If the point of the route is to connect metro Seattle to Kittias county, it should run between S Bellevue and Ellensburg, with CWU as the anchor destination on the east side. Neither the Highlands nor North Bend are major destination, so the intercity route should tie directly into Link, and someone trying to get to Issaquah will have to backtrack slightly (maybe has the bus serve Eastgate freeway station)

         If the point of the route is to serve the pass itself, then sure Issaquah Highlands is a good starting point, but I would start out of Eastgate. On weekends the congestion between Eastgate & Issaquah is negligible, and Eastgate is better connected to the rest of the region … and if S Bellevue is going to be the hub for Trailhead direct, then perhaps it should terminate? If the goal is the make the Snoqualmie pass route shorter, then start in North Bend P&R and have a timed transfer with the Bellevue-NB route.

         The 215 will be a helpful backstop route, but it will be much slower than Trailhead direct because the 215 “detours” both through the Highlands and through Snoqualmie-North Bend. I did Seattle to North Bend once (219 + 208), it was fine (I timed the transfer pretty well, ~10 min IIRC) but it was a long ride; I’m glad I took it only one way.

      3. If the point of the route is to connect metro Seattle to Kittias county, it should run between S Bellevue and Ellensburg, with CWU as the anchor destination on the east side.

         I agree with Ellensburg as the eastern terminus. It would go through Cle Elum but end there. But I don’t think it makes sense to end at South Bellevue. Given how long it takes to run the bus it should just go into Seattle. That only costs a little bit more (relative to the full journey) but gets you a lot more. It can stop at Mercer Island (for folks heading to the East Side) but my guess is the vast majority of people commuting from Kittitas County to Puget Sound are heading to Downtown Seattle. It is also the main transit hub for the region (with transit in every direction).

      4. If the point of the route is to serve the pass itself, then sure Issaquah Highlands is a good starting point, but I would start out of Eastgate.

         Snoqualmie Pass is quite a bit shorter than going to Cle Elum or Ellensburg so it is reasonable to stop short of Downtown Seattle. But once Link goes across the water, Eastgate means an extra transfer, just like Issaquah Highlands. It would be a two-seat ride from Seattle (at best). Someone in Lake City wants to go hike the PCT they are looking at a four-seat ride.

         It is about 7 miles from the Issaquah Highlands to Eastgate. It is about 4 miles from Eastgate to Mercer Island. I feel like it should be one or the other (Mercer Island or Issaquah Highlands). Mercer Island isn’t much further than Eastgate and it has HOV ramps as well. There is more congestion west of 405 but usually not that much (in the HOV lanes). Mercer Island has a connection to Link, which is the big advantage. If you are going all the way to Eastgate you might as well just go a bit further and connect to Mercer Island.

         Issaquah Highlands to Snoqualmie Pass would save quite a bit more. It is a trade-off (because you are looking at four-seat rides again) but at least you save a lot more service. Not counting the time it takes to get to the actual bus stop/trailhead it takes about 30 minutes to get from Issaquah Highlands to Snoqualmie Pass. It takes about 40 minutes to get from Mercer Island to the pass. It has never been clear to me whether variations of the 215 or 269 just run between Issaquah Highlands and Mercer Island. If some of them do then one possibility would be to run a variation that went to Snoqualmie Pass instead. In other words on summer weekends you could take the 215 to Issaquah Highlands and continue to North Bend or you could take the Trailhead Direct bus that also stops at Issaquah Highlands before going to Snoqualmie Pass. Riders in the Highlands would have to be made aware of the bus but from a service standpoint it just means one of your 215 buses is replaced by a Trailhead direct bus. That would probably be hard to pull off just because you are trying to match the timing and all. Most likely you just bite the bullet and run to Mercer Island, South Bellevue or Downtown Bellevue.

      5. I think both Highlands and Eastgate are compromises. I agree if you go to Eastgate, might as well get to Link. I think the same applies to Highlands, in particular b/c Highlands is a detour (Eastgate can be covered “on the way”). I think either terminate at a Link station or terminate at North Bend, where the trip distance can be significantly reduced. North Bends allows for both a transfer to another trailhead direct (or can express run) or to a regular KCM bus (which will have longer span of service – if you miss the last trailhead direct, you may still have a few evening runs of the 215 to catch).

         For a route to Ellensburg, my vision has been for the S Bellevue station to be the hub for all buses going over the pass, whether the bus is to Ellensburg or Spokane or Walla Walla, because the biggest point of congestion is across the lake. It’s common across the world for bus depots to not be in the city center, as long as there is a good connection (often rail) into the city center.

      6. I agree if you go to Eastgate, might as well get to Link. I think the same applies to Highlands, in particular b/c Highlands is a detour (Eastgate can be covered “on the way”).

         But my point is Eastgate doesn’t make sense as a terminus. You gain very little (in terms of time saved) but lose a lot (no Link connection). In contrast Issaquah Highland also loses a lot but at least you save quite a bit. Not counting the time spent getting to the bus stops (off the freeway) it works out like this:

         Snoqualmie Pass to Highlands: 29 minutes
         Snoqualmie Pass to Eastgate: 36 minutes
         Snoqualmie Pass to Mercer Island: 39 minutes

         (These are current times according to Google.) Now consider Mercer Island the ideal. To stop at the Highlands saves about 25% of the travel time. Stopping at the Highlands saves you less than 10%. Ending at the Highlands (instead of Mercer Island) could be the difference between four trips a day (one-way) or three. With Eastgate you gain maybe an extra run every dozen or so. Both are trade-offs but I don’t see why you would ever end the bus at Eastgate.

         Stopping at the Eastgate freeway station is another matter. I could see doing that (especially if the bus ended at Mercer Island). Might as well.

      7. For a route to Ellensburg, my vision has been for the S Bellevue station to be the hub for all buses going over the pass, whether the bus is to Ellensburg or Spokane or Walla Walla, because the biggest point of congestion is across the lake.

         Maybe, but there is nothing there. Intercity buses generally just go right into the main city. A typical bus from New York to Boston will go from Midtown Manhattan (PABT) to the middle of Boston (South Station). It doesn’t run from Yonkers to Auberdale. The Seattle to Vancouver bus goes from Seattle to Vancouver even though both cities now have excellent connections to the north and south (respectively). In both cities the main bus terminal is close to the main train terminal. In the case of Vancouver it is right next to it. It isn’t right downtown but isn’t very far, either. It is close to the old Expo site and BC Place. The main Greyhound bus terminal in Seattle is in a similar location. I’m sure they would love to be closer to King Street Station but they aren’t that far away. Greyhound requires a building (with lots of indoor seating, a ticket counter, etc.) and that may be the best they could afford. If that isn’t an issue it makes sense to just go to the heart of the city. Relative to the overall trip, stopping short is very inconvenient and saves you very little. It would be like the bus from Tacoma stopping at SoDo — but an even worse value.

         At the same time if you can easily and cheaply connect to the network along the way then by all means you should. That is definitely the case here. A bus from Ellensburg can stop at Mercer Island but just keep going.

      8. “Greyhound bus terminal in Seattle is in a similar location. I’m sure they would love to be closer to King Street Station but they aren’t that far away.”

         The city offered it during the King Street Station renovation but Greyhound turned it down, saying it wanted to stay at its Stewart Street location. Later it lost that building and relocated to its current location. Since then Greyhound has been through several owners and hasn’t shown a viable vision. (It has been eliminating station buildings around the country and leaving people to stand outside.)

      9. > “Greyhound bus terminal in Seattle is in a similar location. I’m sure they would love to be closer to King Street Station but they aren’t that far away.”

         > The city offered it during the King Street Station renovation but Greyhound turned it down, sayin

         the other intercity buses to vancouver used to pick up from near international district station. I think it likes the seattle greyhound station location as it’s the layover site for the buses to wait at

      10. I think it likes the seattle greyhound station location as it’s the layover site for the buses to wait at

          Yeah, I agree. They don’t have to go together but typically they do. That is the case in Vancouver from what I can tell. The buses layover next to the station (which is also next to the train station). It seems like they could have done that in Seattle by using the empty area just south of the station (https://maps.app.goo.gl/cZwQ5gxMeSnbnc9H9) but for whatever reason they didn’t. I have to assume the current location is cheaper.

      11. “Intercity buses generally just go right into the main city.”

          That’s generally true, you pay for it in reliability. For instance, a bus between Seattle and Vancouver B.C. would be a lot more reliable if truncated at Lynnwood Transit Center, but no bus operator does this. This means that to get to, say, the U district, you have to sit in traffic all the way to downtown Seattle on the bus, then use Link to backtrack. That’s very time consuming. One could say, maybe the bus should stop at Lynnwood, then continue on to downtown Seattle. That’s fine in the southbound direction, but in the northbound direction, you still have to wait for a bus to finish sitting in traffic from downtown Seattle to reach the Lynnwood stop. A bus that just ended at Lynnwood with a forced Link connection would avoid this.

          As to why no bus operator does this, I can think of a few reasons. I think a lot of it lies in the assumption that everyone is too laden with luggage to connect with public transportation, so any last mile connection takes place by taxi, and that everyone has a car, so only people going from city center to city center are willing to even consider riding an intercity bus. If all those assumptions are true, of course, the bus has to sit in traffic all the way to the city center. I just don’t think those assumptions are actually universally true in the real world. After all, anyone willing to ride Link to the airport to catch a flight ought to be willing to ride Link to Lynnwood or South Bellevue to catch an intercity bus.

          It should be noted that the same city-center-to-city-center philosophy is also true on the Vancouver end and, if you’re staying somewhere not near Pacific Central Station, it can be annoying. The Amtrak bus even goes so far as to locate it’s Richmond stop on the way to Pacific Central at a hotel one mile away from Bridgeport Skytrain station, which leaves one wondering why the bus couldn’t just stop at the station instead. The answer is probably part inertia (e.g. routes being set back before SkyTrain existed), part apathy, part transit snobbery, assuming that everyone’s last mile connection is by taxi, so may as well drop people off at a luxury hotel so they have a nicer place to wait for their taxi, and, of course, the hotel is probably giving them some money, in exchange for the extra business from some passengers spending the night there.

          But, long story short, if I were looking for a bus to Vancouver, I would choose a route from Lynnwood to either Richmond or Surrey (whichever is closer to where I’m going) over a route from downtown to downtown – if the bus stops at both ends we’re located directly adjacent to each city’s rapid transit system.

          (Note: Seattle to Portland is different because Link is much slower on the south end; for that, I think an intercity bus has to run all the way to downtown Seattle in order to be time competitive).

      12. Greyhound’s current location is pretty good. It’s on Link, easy to find, and just one station from Amtrak. People transferring to a flight or train can take a one-seat Link ride directly there. It’s previous location was hard to explain to visitors. I had to do it many times. I’d come home on Greyhound and somebody would ask me how to get to the airport or Amtrak or Westlake Station. It was hard to explain because it wasn’t line-of-sight. Even if you went down Stewart Street to 5th, you still couldn’t see it and it wasn’t obvious where it was, and it doesn’t look like a subway station entrance from that position. Or I’d be waiting at Convention Place station and somebody would ask me how to get to the Greyhound station.

          Now you just go to Stadium station, walk out to the street (Royal Brougham), look all around, and you can see the Greyound sign a block away.

          The station isn’t just a layover site. You can buy a ticket in person, wait inside on a chair, and use the restroom.

      13. Greyhound’s current location is pretty good.

          I agree. I just think it would be a bit better if it was by King Street Station. But partly that is because King Street is just really good. I think it is better than Vancouver’s main train station. Overall I would say the Greyhound Station is about the same as Vancouver’s main train/bus station.

          For instance, a bus between Seattle and Vancouver B.C. would be a lot more reliable if truncated at Lynnwood Transit Center, but no bus operator does this.

          Correct. There are a bunch of reasons for this. One is that the buses often run very late at night (when Link stops running and bus service is spotty). It is also handy to have a central terminal for transfers. Riders often have to sit and wait at the terminal before making another trip. It also handy for the many riders who prefer a downtown location. But is also keeps costs low. Having three bus terminals spread out over town might make sense for a really big city but it is a bit much for a city like Seattle.

          Again, the best option would be stop at someplace like Lynnwood TC or Mountlake Terrace along the way. This wouldn’t take long and yet still handle those rides. There may be delays but that is true anywhere along the line. I’ve been stuck in my share of traffic jams on I-5 north of Everett. Not only that, but there are plenty of times when a bus can make it through the city faster than Link. If you are trying to make an early morning meeting in Seattle, chances are the express bus is your best bet.

          Trailhead Direct is different because the routes really aren’t that long. North Bend is only about 30 miles outside of town. Shaving 10 miles off that trip (by stopping at South Bellevue) or staying in the HOV lanes the whole way (like Mercer Island) can make a significant difference. But for a trip to Cle Elum that just isn’t the case.

8. The routing seem weak. Why duplicate Link at all? Before the 2 Line is complete, use Mt. Baker TC as the terminal. After the 2 Line is complete, use Mercer Island. Intending riders can use Link to reach trailhead direct. It need use any minutes and and hours on arterial streets. In recent years, Metro had a route use Madison Street even though it was a construction zone.

   1. Mt Baker TC isn’t exactly on the way. When I took TD to Mt Baker TC, it seemed like a significant detour. Why not just stay on the freeway, which ends near 4th & Jackson where more bus routes converge.

9. Before the 2 Line is complete, use Mt. Baker TC as the terminal.

   For a lot of people in Seattle it is much easier to get downtown than it is get to Mount Baker TC. Just about everyone west of the freeway (Greenwood, Phinney Ridge, Aurora, Ballard, Queen Anne, Magnolia, West Seattle) would have one less transfer. Hard to say with walk-up ridership — it probably depends on which part of downtown. Based on this map Pioneer Square seems like a good choice. It has fairly good population density and it would be a fairly quick trip to I-90. The tail to Capitol Hill seems wasteful although it is obviously designed to get the most one-seat riders possible.

   When Link finally goes across the lake the situation changes. As folks have mentioned up above it makes a lot of sense to start east of Judkins Park (at either Mercer Island, South Bellevue or Downtown Bellevue station). Each have their advantages but I would probably go with Downtown Bellevue.

   1. The city-side terminus could also be decided by who is funding the service. If SDOT continues to provide funding, they will probably push for a Pioneer Square, Mercer Island, or South Bellevue terminus as those are more convenient for people in Seattle. If cities on the Eastside contribute, they will probably prefer Downtown Bellevue or South Bellevue (for the P&R).

      1. If the City ridiculously forces a THD stop in Seattle next spring/summer, Mt Baker makes more sense. Those coming from the north get a much better transfer at South Bellevue. Those coming from the south, get a similar 2-seat ride by transferring from the train to THD at Mt Baker, which then gets into the Rainier bus lane and onto I-90 rather quickly.

         That said, I would rather just get the first northbound bus from MB Transit Center, and hang out at South Bellevue to catch the THD.

10. The closest parallel we have in the Portland area is Columbia Area Transit, which operates a Hood River to Portland Gateway route. This would be akin to the Bellevue Transit Center if Bellevue weren’t a major city, but just a collection of bus routes off the freeway.

    It winds up serving as both a service to some tourist spots, but also as a Hood River – Portland connection for those not able/wanting to drive. So, unlike Trailhead Direct. it operates all year.

    Columbia has a substantial one way cash fare: $10, vs a $40 annual pass (which covers not just Columbia, but also a couple other small Columbia Gorge agencies). This gives commuters and other regular riders a significant discount.

    I suppose there’s not enough ridership along the North Bend route to do something similar?

11. I suppose one could also imagine a future TD bus serving both Bellevue Transit Center and South Bellevue P&R. It doesn’t have to either one or the other.

    Another possibility if Seattle is paying for it is a model where all TD buses follow the Seattle-Bellevue route that the Issaquah Alps route will be doing this year – Mt. Baker TC->South Bellevue P&R->trails. This avoids the travel time regression for SE Seattle you’d get just truncating the bus in South Bellevue, but avoids duplicating Link. The downside is that Rainier Ave. can have bad traffic between Mt. Baker and the freeway, making the bus less reliable, plus more expensive to run. Ideally, Rainier Ave. would have bus lanes, which it needs anyway for the very-heavily-ridden #7 bus.

    1. “The downside is that Rainier Ave. can have bad traffic between Mt. Baker and the freeway, making the bus less reliable..”

       SDOT put in a full time northbound bus only lane a few weeks ago between Walden and Massachusetts.

       1. Yeah, it looks like smooth sailing getting onto the freeway from Mount Baker Station: https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/programs/transit-program/rainier-ave-s-bus-only-lane. The only issue would be traffic on the freeway itself. It probably takes a while for the bus to work its way over to the HOV lanes and sometimes on weekends the HOV lanes are quite congested. But that would be a problem no matter where you went (just less of a problem as you move further east).

       2. Yes, the northbound bus lanes on Rainier have been an excellent improvement

       3. Yeah, if there’s bus lanes on Rainier, having all TD routes serve Mt. Baker first, then South Bellevue, seems like the right call, once the full 2-line is operational (but not before). Even for someone coming from, say, Ballard or West Seattle, that is arriving downtown on a bus, I think the improved punctuality of the trailhead bus from the truncation would outweigh the overhead of the Link connection. But, again, this only applies if the connection is to Link; the 550 is neither frequent enough nor reliable enough to be able to say that with the bus.

12. If SDoT wants to fund summer trail shuttles serving Seattle, it could have a Columbia City – Seward Park shuttle, timed with route 50, and serving the multiple parks along the way; an Alaska Junction – Alki Beach shuttle, also timed with route 50; and a Ballard – Golden Gardens shuttle, among other possibilities.

    If REI wants to keep funding THD. It might want the bus to terminate at its Bellevue campus, not far from Wilburton Station. Though it might get better results simply by having a shuttle between Wilburton or Downtown Bellevue and the store.

    However, REI just moved its Lynnwood campus over along the infrequent Community Transit 166 route east of I-5, away from the prime spot it had at Alderwood Mall, a short walk from the Swift Orange Line stop. But the new location is within the service area of CT’s Zip Alderwood Shuttle, which is quite noticeable at Lynnwood Station.

    If SDOT simply has money burning a hole in its pocket, why can’t it be used to speed up bike pathway construction? Is there a proscription against using that fund for capital, safety-increasing improvements?

    Maybe nudge the county to fund THD in exchange for the City increasing its bus stop improvement spending.

    1. Seattle does fund the summer shuttle for the waterfront. To a certain extent the West Seattle Ferry (which has extra runs in the summer) is the same thing. SDOT is building bike lanes (and some bus improvements as well) and they certainly don’t have an excess of money.

    2. The “SDOT money” is the Seattle Transit Measure levy, so it’s dedicated to bus operations. SDOT chooses which routes to distribute the hours to in agreement with Metro, and some of the routes it chose are Trailhead Direct. Here’s the STM’s 2022 performance report, the latest that seems to be available. The route mix changed a bit last September but it’s probably mostly the same.

       1. Yeah, there are basically three different sources of funding for SDOT. The Seattle Transit Measure funds the Seattle Transportation Benefit District (STBD). Although a different district, the City of Seattle controls it via SDOT. The city also passes levies for transportation (like the one last year). Then there is the general budget.

          When I think of “SDOT money” I think of the last two, not the first one. I think of the STBD funding as being different even though it is managed by SDOT as well.

       2. It would be nice to get a more detailed breakdown of the spending for the STBD. They list what percentage goes into different categories but it would be great to see the dollar amount per route. My guess is Trailhead Direct costs very little. It just doesn’t run very often. Just about any year-round improvement in regular bus service would cost more.

13. I’ve always thought that the only stop in Seattle should be at the ID station. Capitol hill eats up a lot of time. The driers could lay over at one of the bus bases nearby.
    Advice for first time riders. On a nice day the first few runs are crowded. If you have a bike you need to get to the first stop early. Mostly I use it to get back to town after a long bike ride.

Comments are closed.