The metric that housing should cost 30% of income is not based on any scientific estimate of people’s total living expenses. (Radical Planning) Instead it has an arbitrary history, and has evolved to be detrimental to both affordable housing and mortgages.
This is an open thread.
Significant delays to east link I-90 crossing still possible in the latest May Progress Report, pushing back opening to late April 2026. I have a feeling more issues will arise when they try to run electrically powered trains at full speed over Lake Washington. It’s possible that a lake Washington crossing may not work with rail. Given the billions spent, the public will likely demand officials be fired and or jailed for incompetence. Further, Ballard and West Seattle Link would be off the rails.
Seems a little overly pessimistic than what I was reading.
But there is a major Seattle Times article about the status of the 2-line I-90 connection. We will know a lot more in the coming weeks with the first powered trains making test runs. I am happy to hear in the article they have been really pushing hard to get it completed ASAP including throwing bodies at the project to get it completed (like three 8 hour shifts).
I agree. It’s possible there’ll be a lot more delays; it’s also possible things will go smoothly. We’ll know more soon – or at least Sound Transit will know more, and hopefully they’ll share it.
Also, yes, that’s commendable diligence from Sound Transit. I’ve sharply criticized them on other points, so let me praise them here where they’re doing exactly the right thing!
Yeah, just because you have a big contingency doesn’t mean you will need it. The only thing it shows is there remains quite a bit of uncertainty.
At the same time, the federal government built the new I-90 bridge with the intention the center lanes could be converted to light rail later, so the fear that it may not work may be overstated.
A Seattle Times article by Mike Lindblom today says the crosslake opening is still targeted for January 31, and Federal Way in mid March. ST has started contingency planning in case the crosslake opening slips to after Federal Way, but it’s not definite yet.
“It’s possible that a lake Washington crossing may not work with rail.”
That has always been a possibility.
“Given the billions spent, the public will likely demand officials be fired and or jailed for incompetence.”
If it’s really because having light rail cross a floating bridge is too difficult, it’s hard to see how an official could be “to blame”. It was always known that this had never been done before and may or may not work. It would be like suing SpaceX because it hasn’t been able to get people to Mars. In contrast, the plinth issue is a concrete (pun intended) case of a part not meeting spec under warranty. There may be other parts like this, but it’s too soon to tell.
“Further, Ballard and West Seattle Link would be off the rails.”
It’s unclear what would happen to them. I wouldn’t automatically assume they’re cancelled. They might have to change if there’s no second line in DSTT1 and that raises pressure to cancel DSTT2. But all our attempts so far to cancel DSTT2 have failed, so it’s possible no more political momentum may appear. There would still be the issue of North Seattle/Capitol Hill capacity, so I assume a truncated “1A Line” would have to run at least to Intl Dist or Judkins Park. Or if it didn’t, West Seattle could take over that capacity. That would still leave Ballard, but we have an alternative for Ballard waiting for any politician who will listen to it. (A Ballard-Westlake automated line, with an option to continue southeast to First Hill.)
You realize you are nonchalantly shrugging a public agency playing roulette with nearly $4 billion in public money?
Conceiving innovative solutions to engineering challenges is fun in concept, but no public official shouid have ever put their credibility or risked public money if there was a measurable possibility that no revenue trains wouid ever cross the lake.
If you were the federal government, why wouid you ever give Seattle any more money for transit projects? And do you claw back some of the money already awarded.
This is how people lose faith in their government.
At the same time, the federal government built the new I-90 bridge with the intention the center lanes could be converted to light rail later, so the fear that it may not work may be overstated. Some people thought the Ship Canal crossing couldn’t be built, or that the Large Hadron Collidor would unleash a black hole that would swallow the earth or something, and they didn’t.
I have very high confidence that a floating bridge with light rail over it can be done, since it’s been done with freight trains. Furthermore, longitudinal expansion is something track has had to deal with for ages.
I’m concerned about SoundTransit project management making it more difficult to implement successfully than it needs to be. Witness the plinth problems, the ULink tunnel damaging the trains problem, or the approval to open the Point Defiance Bypass (owned by ST) without meeting FRA requirements for functioning PTC signals.
Good management is going to be vital to fixing any problems they find, and the fact the organizational structure failed to deal with the UW tunnel problem before it caused a train failure, and damaged multiple train cars in the meantime, doesn’t spark my confidence,
“ …our attempts so far to cancel DSTT2 have failed”. Could you tell me who the “our” is in this assertion and the form of the attempts? Was there a lawsuit? Pitchfork crowd at board meetings?
“Could you tell me who the “our” is in this assertion and the form of the attempts?”
Several STB authors and commentators have repeatedly given feedback to ST to declare the long train-to-train transfers unacceptable and switch to a single-tunnel strategy, and given public testimony at board meetings, have tried to get politicians interested in the issue so that they could pressure ST, and tried to get other members of the public interested in the issue. None of it has succeeded.
“Was there a lawsuit?”
For that you’d need a lawyer and a legal rationale to overturn DSTT2. Arguing ridership experience over the long transfers would be a long shot because a judge would probably have as little experience with transit best practices as the ST board has, and would say it’s not a concrete issue and wasn’t an explicit requirement in the ballot measure and is too vague to enforce. Some have suggested cost overruns as a reason to cancel DSTT2, but that’s also an unlikely legal argument.
“Pitchfork crowd at board meetings?”
You’d need more people for that. Somebody like the TRU or Seattle Subway or Transportation Choices Coalition might be able to organize it; we’re not good at that. But Seattle Subway is for DSTT2 (or at least against opposing ST on it), the TRU probably has other priorities, and TCC is maybe too close to the politicians and business interests to consider it.
The most serious problem with DSTT2 is cost. It’s so off-budget that it’s not really possible to build what they want. The Board kicked the opening dates longer back during the realignment rather than reduce the projects. Since then the costs have gotten much much higher.
I suspect that the Board is well aware of this. I suspect that they’re waiting for new cost estimates from the EIS process to provide cover. They probably don’t want to face the political embarrassment either.
Unfortunately, I suspect that what will play out is a full commitment to first build West Seattle Link as the preferred alternative proposes — taking the Ballard money away to fund it. All the subareas kick in for DSTT2 so there’s a possibility that they build DSTT2 as far north as they can — probably at least to the new County building station tied to Pioneer Square or maybe just to Westlake or maybe just Denny in SLU. They’ll kick the 1 Line out of the DSTT then and implement their horrible transfer design.
As far as lawsuits go, there could still be challenges with the new West Seattle alternative. The ST3 map shows the transfer station at the CID station. ST3 did not call for deep bore in West Seattle. But I don’t think leaders at ST care and they think ST will win every lawsuit.
They want what they want and ignore the awful performance measures to get it. Their developer friends have arranged property sales already. It’s a done deal because they want it to be. The public is forced to pay for a deliberately inefficient system expansion that mainly benefits real estate developers and big civil firms and hurts light rail travel for most of the riding public that elected them.
I think the boardmembers don’t want to suggest something in another subarea should be downscaled/canceled because then they might get pressure to downscale/cancel something in their subarea. They all want their own subarea’s projects, their cities’ mayors/councilmembers want them, and noisy constituents want them. So they’re all hoping something in another subarea gets downscaled without them having to do it, or the financial problems will just go away.
The exception is Snohomish/Pierce saying we shouldn’t let Ballard or West Seattle slow down Everett and Tacoma because they’re not part of the Spine.
Gosh, that Radical Planning dude cracks me up. There’s no real planning in free market housing…. building new housing only happens when there’s money to be made…. existing housing will be rented for the highest amount the market will bear.
I think it’s important to uncouple income and wealth in these sorts of debates. Take two families with identical incomes and housing costs, but family has the “golden ticket” of a 30 year mortgage leading to home ownership…. over time the home owner family will pull away in net worth. First there’s the fixed mortgage cost allowing the family to keep (and invest!) raises in income. Every time a renter gets a raise at work, the landlord is going to take a healthy cut of that money. In Seattle that’s meant every dime of it for last 20 years. I can’t imagine working 20 years and giving every single raise I got to a landlord.
The only solution is even more home ownership. The reason for this isn’t political, it’s purely financial. There will never be enough money in an American City to build enough social housing or low income housing to make any difference. What’s my return on investment here? Social housing in Seattle would need a couple billion to even realistically make a dent in the housing market. Nobody is ever kicking down that sort of money, not the government nor investors.
Owner occupied housing uses the collective cash and credit of the future owners to build housing. Seattle has a lot of pent up personal credit that could be unleashed for more housing with the right conditions….
I think some of the problem is the Left has is a different view of ownership. Nobody “owns” a city. Nobody has a right to live there or claim it for their own. You can own a house or condo however. I think many less political people move to different places based largely on home affordability and the chance of home ownership. But then there’s this hardcore Lefty group who sees their “home” as San Francisco or Seattle and doesn’t move away, betting their whole future on some sort of Leftist housing revolution…..and paying higher and higher rents every damn year. some of these people will end up homeless I’m quite sure. The revolution is going never happen.
What Left Coast cities need to do change housing dynamics is two fold…. Step one is to allow more housing to built. Changes in zoning can be part of this, but only if they’re coupled with less fees and regulations. Right now tree regulations threaten a great many infill projects even with changes to zoning…… Step two is find a path to unlock personal credit to pay for a new housing boom. I think the investors who funded and/or currently control a big percentage of Seattle housing have little incentive to change the dynamics of it.
One place would be change the reforms and regulations made 15 years ago that killed off the condo market. With rare exceptions, most developers and architects won’t touch condos due to liability and overly generous laws in favor of HOAs and condo owners on any defects. Since the Great Recession very little new condo construction has occured as a result. In the 2000s, just about all urban multifamily housing developments were condos. For the last 15 years its been all apartments. Condos provide homeownership at lower price points while also the ability to buy new housing stock in urban locations.
poncho,
You’re absolutely right. State law needs to change to let builders off the hook on condos. Everything is government inspected in the building industry and that needs to be good enough without fear of lawsuits down the road.
It’s a complicated market with a lot of moving parts, but building condos often happens on the shoulder times between housing booms and housing busts…
The reason for the condo regulations was there was an epidemic of condos leaking or falling apart in their first year.
Step one is to allow more housing to built. Step two is find a path to unlock personal credit to pay for a new housing boom.
Step one is a much more important thing in my opinion. There are a lot of people who would buy condos if the prices were similar to what they are in Japan. There are definitely issues with debt in this country. Apparently the average (median) non-mortgage debt in this country is somewhere around 20 grand. Oof. The cost of renting plays a big part in that. There are a lot of people who could pay back their student loan (or car loan or credit card debt) if they were paying what it costs to rent a place in Japan. This in turn would make it much easier for them to afford to buy a condo. But right now they aren’t building enough condos (because they haven’t achieved step one).
“existing housing will be rented for the highest amount the market will bear. ”
“Every time a renter gets a raise at work, the landlord is going to take a healthy cut of that money.”
You’re missing “the market will bear” part. Landlords can raise rent beyond inflation only if there’s a housing shortage. Otherwise tenants will just move to another building a block away or a couple miles away that doesn’t raise it, and the first landlord won’t be able to make the increase stick. Seattle was like that from the 1980s to 2003, and 2008 to 2012. Other cities like Houston, Dallas, and Chicago have been like that for decades (although it may be ending in the Sunbelt now).
“Step one is to allow more housing to built. Changes in zoning can be part of this, but only if they’re coupled with less fees and regulations. Right now tree regulations threaten a great many infill projects even with changes to zoning”
That’s right, although you’re putting too much on tree regulations in particular.
“Step two is find a path to unlock personal credit to pay for a new housing boom.”
We need to get out of a long-term debt model as a necessity for everybody. There should be housing everybody can afford without long-term debt. If they want to take on debt for a single-family house as a luxury, they can, but forcing everybody to do so or calling them failures if they don’t — when it’s not possible for single-family houses to scale to the entire population just because of the land footprint alone — doesn’t make sense.
I think the point about tree regulations is that isn’t just what people call “zoning”. It is a host of things that make development difficult (including regulations on cutting down trees). Academic studies tend to use the phrase “zoning and other regulations” to reflect this. Obviously this does not apply to safety regulations (which no one is suggesting we get rid of).
Mike Orr,
Long term debt is the only solution to the housing shortage in the USA. Nice things cost money and if people are not willing to take on long term debt for housing…. they’ll never own nice things. Social housing or low income housing is 100% doomed because nobody, (investors, banks, insurance companies, REITs) will fork out billions to finance this. Mike, there’s no taking long term debt out of housing because of the vast amount of money it takes to build anything.
During much of the 1990s I was remodeling units on Capitol Hill and First Hill. The rent in those classic old buildings was doubling…. because nice things cost money and the new arrivals on “The Hill” had plenty of money for nice things. I have no idea what happened to old tenants, but I doubt it was anything good. But nobody cared if people got priced out and they still don’t.
The first step towards a solution would be to simplify zoning so all “R-1” in Seattle goes to some form of multi-unit across the whole City with no exceptions. The “tree police” need to stop, no up or down zoning for transit, no exceptions period. One City, one residential code. Simplify all business and commercial zoning to allow housing at the same time.
Also stop any fees or set asides for low income housing that weigh down development.
Finally the City should not charge fees or permits to any owner occupied housing selling for under $700k. This would allow the City to pay 3-5 million up front for builders to build and sell 100 million in housing. This tips the scale out of rental units to co-op owner occupied apartments.
Keeping rents under control is a big part of increasing home ownership. People cannot save for down payments when their rent is 50-70% of their income. Additionally, home ownership does nod necessarily mean a detached house with a yard. WA’s weird condo laws need to be reformed. Apartment conversions to condos is another pathway to home ownership, and it can be relatively affordable if you consider that the construction is older, but it is only possible if the apartments are first built.
Buried in a comment I made recently is the outline of what I would do with Stride 1. I would:
1) Turn Southport Drive into a 405 station with direct access to the HOV lanes. Thus it would be like Totem Lake Freeway Station. Buses that are continuing on the freeway would serve the bus stop. Buses from the crossing street can also serve the same bus stop and easily get into the HOV lanes. Just by looking at the map this doesn’t look like a terrible expensive project. In contrast a lot of the interchanges to the south of there look very tricky.
2) Extend the F Line to Bellevue via 405. Instead of turning and looping around to terminate at 10th & Park the bus would continue on Southport and turn directly into the 405 HOV lanes. From there it would make a couple stops along the freeway before quickly getting to Downtown Bellevue.
3) Have the Stride 1 Line only serve freeway stations between Burien and Bellevue (including the one mentioned above).
Now consider the trips compared to the current plans:
1) Burien or TIBS to Bellevue: Much faster. It never leaves the HOV lanes.
2) Renton to TIBS or Burien: Depends on where you are. If you are at the north end of Renton you could take a bus to the Southport Freeway Station and then reverse directions (running express). Otherwise you take the F Line.
3) Renton to Bellevue: Much better. It serves a lot more of Renton before running express to Bellevue.
4) Tukwila to Bellevue: Much better. No need to transfer.
It isn’t perfect but I think it is better overall. The only people who would come out ahead with the current plans are those close to the future transit station at the south end of Renton. But there just aren’t that many people there compared to the rest of Renton (which the F serves fairly well).
Eventually you could add BAT lanes and bus lanes for the F, making it faster through Renton. This would benefit existing riders as well as those heading to Bellevue.
We could also do something similar with the 566. In the past most riders were taking the bus to Bellevue. Roughly 80% were headed there while a little over 10% were headed to Renton (from the south). Instead of running through downtown I would again go straight to that freeway station at Southport Drive. This would save quite a bit of time which means the bus could run more often or longer during the day. Riders heading from Auburn/Kent to Renton could either backtrack (using the 566 and F) or they could take the future RapidRide I (which will run Auburn/Kent/Renton). If in the future there is enough ridership to justify it, then you could run an express version of the RapidRide I that largely just stayed on the freeway until it got to Renton.
“Extend the F Line to Bellevue via 405.”
That’s an interesting idea. If the RapidRide 150 downtown alternative takes hold, that would give a precedent for RapidRides with freeway segments. (One could say the C and H already have it.) It would address the dilemma of how to really serve Renton without slowing down S1 unacceptably. If undense northeast Renton can have a questionable all-day express with the 111, then that segment could be turned over to a more-productive F.
If we do this, I’d wish Southport could become more of a pedestrian area. One Renton city councilmember has talked about The Landing becoming “the next Fremont” with people flocking to microbrews. He didn’t address the horrid land use of the big-box stores with large surface marking lots eating up the walkshed. You can’t have a true “Fremont” with that.
@Mike
> If we do this, I’d wish Southport could become more of a pedestrian area. One Renton city councilmember has talked about The Landing becoming “the next Fremont”
It was actually a bit more lively than i expected when i visited. while the southport offices are empty they did smartly include a couple apartments and the hyatt hotel as well. it at least connects to the gene coulson park
> would give a precedent for RapidRides with freeway segments
Yeah I agree. the “tram-train” or aka “local-freeway” bus pattern is pretty good for farther away areas.
If we do this, I’d wish Southport could become more of a pedestrian area.
I agree, but The Landing area is not bad. It is just one of many small clusters of density/retail in Renton. In my opinion the RapidRide F manages to serve those clusters fairly well. Not because it does anything special, but because it goes through Renton instead of aiming for one particular spot. From what I can tell the existing transit center is more or less the center of activity in Renton. If you had to serve one bus stop, that would be it. But it isn’t easy to get to. There is also too much to the north and south of there (and too little there) to restrict yourself to that particular place.
The ridership reflects this. The transit center gets the most riders of any stop in Renton. This makes sense given it is the transfer point for several buses. But I would also expect a good portion of those riders are just walking to and from the bus stop. But even with that there are plenty of riders north of there, especially in The Landing area. There are also plenty of riders south of there. The Landing doesn’t have to dominate for this approach to make sense.
The pattern is common. I am too lazy to look it up but my guess is the number of buses that do this exceed the number of buses that just run express from a park and ride to their destination. It used to be more common but as Link has grown a lot of those trips have been replaced (at least in the north end). Buses like the 41 (Lake City/Northgate/Freeway/Downtown) are gone. Buses like the 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 77, 301 and 522 have been replaced by buses that do the same sort of thing but instead of getting on the freeway they just end at a Link station. But buses like the 101, 150, 255, 271, 550 (and a bunch of peak-only buses) continue to follow this pattern.
I think the only reason a RapidRide bus doesn’t do this is luck. If not for Link the old 41 would have made an excellent RapidRide bus.
“The Landing area is not bad.”
I wouldn’t call two apartment buildings “not bad”. You need much more walkable retail and housing than that.
“I can tell the existing transit center is more or less the center of activity in Renton.”
It’s the historic walkable core. You can tell from the short blocks, inviting retail architecture, the performing arts center next to the high school, and the library a few blocks away.
So what Renton should do with The Landing/Southport is build it like downtown Renton.
“The Landing” is just a mall. There happen to be some apartments nearby but I believe those are owned by someone else. It is a typical mall (like Northgate before the remodel). They do own a lot of land but there is plenty of land surrounding it that can be developed as well (and some of it has). Of course it is a mix of industrial, low-density housing, sprawling big box stores, office and apartments. It is Renton.
My point is that it isn’t much better or worse (in terms of density) than any other place in Renton. The ridership of the F reflects that. The transit center has 392 riders. There are 267 riders north of there. There are 431 between the transit center and Link & Grady. The transit center has a lot of riders but that also includes people transferring.
“The Landing” is just a mall.”
There’s a mall? Where? What’s in it? All I see is separate big box stores with large parking lots, and a few smaller shops in strip-mall fashion.
Still, if STRIDE is going to go through the trouble of taking several minutes to exit the freeway to serve a bus stop in Renton, the Landing is the best place to do it. Being an actual shopping destination means that people switching buses can buy stuff or grab a bite to eat, something you can’t do in a deserted park and ride.
One could argue that south Renton park and ride would be better if it could be served faster, but I’m not sure it can. Without any special access ramps, south Renton park and ride is a lot of very long lights, plus, in the eastbound direction, you have to wait in line with all the general purpose traffic in the right lane, trying to get from I-5 to SR-167.
I think the real reason for choosing south Renton park and ride is threefold, both of which, I consider bad reasons:
1) Sound Transit still believes that bus service is primarily about people driving their car to ride the bus, so the need for commuter parking is non negotiable.
2) The Landing probably doesn’t want better bus service in their area because they’re afraid that buses will bring riffraff who will loiter and shoplift, while all the real customers arriving by car don’t want to see them. (e.g. they’re run by people like Kemper Freeman and our former commenter, Daniel Thompson).
3) The city of Renton believes buses and people waiting for buses to be an eyesore and wants them all somewhere out of the way where people in cars don’t have to see them.
What I really hate about this type of reasoning is that it’s a form of collective punishment. Because a few people who ride the bus might do inappropriate activity, everyone who rides the bus is presumed to be riffraff, and has to endure a less convenient bus route, accordingly. It’s like asking why does the 120 detour *away* from the commercial center of White Center to use a dark, deserted street a block away, or why the C line has to detour to stop on Alaska next to a surface parking lot for the Junction, rather than just stop on California, both the direct route, and right in the middle of things.
The Landing is not a public place owned by the city. It is a privately owned mall: https://thelandinginrenton.com/. You can see that from the property records:
https://blue.kingcounty.com/Assessor/eRealProperty/Dashboard.aspx?ParcelNbr=0886600040. The nearby apartments are owned by somebody else: https://blue.kingcounty.com/Assessor/eRealProperty/Dashboard.aspx?ParcelNbr=7532900000. Here is the main King County parcel viewer (you have to zoom in): https://gismaps.kingcounty.gov/parcelviewer2/
Still, if STRIDE is going to go through the trouble of taking several minutes to exit the freeway to serve a bus stop in Renton, the Landing is the best place to do it.
I disagree. If you only wanted to serve one place then go to the main transit center. Not easy to get to (https://maps.app.goo.gl/M1e49QTckt1LwB1B8) but way more people. But if you insist on leaving the freeway then the current approach by the 560 is the best option (run through town). I can understand why they don’t want to do that. Given that, the approach I outlined is the best option. Stop trying to do everything with one bus route. It is either too expensive (requiring a major busway through Renton) or too time consuming (to get on and off the freeway). Have two buses — Stride and RapidRide.
@asd2
> I think the real reason for choosing south Renton park and ride is threefold, both of which, I consider bad reasons:
I think you’ve got it a bit mixed up.
The original choice back in 2014/2015, was the landing using the n 8th street hov ramps. Then the bus would re enter the freeway and then exit back at Rainer and then follow the rapidride f path
“The Landing probably doesn’t want better bus service in their area because they’re afraid that buses will bring riffraff who will loiter and shoplift, while all the real customers arriving by car don’t want to see them. (e.g. they’re run by people like Kemper Freeman and our former commenter, Daniel Thompson).”
The Landing hasn’t said anything of the sort, it’s more of just ambivalence on their part. If ST was to build a link station there, they’d probably be indifferent or fine with it than outright hostility like Kemper Freeman had with Link going through Bellevue. Money is money after all, and link brings people to it. Kemper Freeman was too stubborn in his head to admit that.
Most Renton residents live east or south of downtown. Their bus route needs to stop somewhere where the S1, 101, 106, 107, and I all stop, so that they can get to the region without needing a minimum 3-seat ride. So if S1 stops only at The Landing, all the other routes will need to stop there too.
Target and the movie theater are part of a mall? I didn’t know that. It doesn’t look like it from the outside. I went to Fry’s a few times. That’s when I saw the apartments north of the F terminus that look like the only urban-village thing in the area. The other stores all looked like separate big box stores like Fry’s.
> The Landing is not a public place owned by the city. It is a privately owned mall
While it is owned by a separate entity it was originally envisioned by the city of Renton. Randy (previous councilmember) talks about it more below.
As a side note he also says Westfield Mall used environmental lawsuits to try stopping the landing.
> The City would use some of the tax revenues generated by the new project to pay for this infrastructure. Renton would get a say in the purchase and sale agreement, including approving the buyer and the proposed project.
https://www.randycorman.com/?p=8484
“Most Renton residents live east or south of downtown. Their bus route needs to stop somewhere where the S1, 101, 106, 107, and I all stop, so that they can get to the region without needing a minimum 3-seat ride. So if S1 stops only at The Landing, all the other routes will need to stop there too.”
The STRIDE->101 connection doesn’t seem very useful, as just about every origin-destination pair gets you there faster some other way. For instance, Bellevue to Seattle, you take the 2 line. TIBS to Seattle, you take the 1 line. Burien to Seattle, you take the H. Etc.
For anywhere east of Renton, the bus is probably headed for the Landing anyway, unless it’s the proposed 111, which goes to South Bellevue. That leaves south, in which case, the bus could just be extended a short distance to connect.
A bigger problem with the Landing is how to get back on the freeway again. I guess the bus could loop around Logan to 8th to Park, but at that point, it seems you may as well just keep going south through Renton along the 560’s current path.
I suppose this is a problem with serving Renton in general. Just getting off and back on the freeway to serve anything in Renton at all incurs a huge time penalty, but once that is paid, the additional time penalty to just do what the 560 does is not that much. So, maybe the best option is for STRIDE to just follow the Renton path of the current 560 and use the 567 to allow at least peak commute rush hour travelers living south of Renton to bypass to.
@asdf2
> A bigger problem with the Landing is how to get back on the freeway again. I guess the bus could loop around Logan to 8th to Park, but at that point, it seems you may as well just keep going south through Renton along the 560’s current path.
https://i0.wp.com/seattletransitblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/corridor-E-02.jpg?fit=518%2C1200&ssl=1
It’s not that crazy of an idea. that was actually the original i-405 brt plan to do so. just exit on 8th, get to some roundabout and get back on the freeway.
> Just getting off and back on the freeway to serve anything in Renton at all incurs a huge time penalty, but once that is paid, the additional time penalty to just do what the 560 does is not that much.
I think the problem is really renton needs some bus priority lanes. either a busway along the rail tracks or BAT lanes but there is no way around it.
The ridership forecasts for Stride are relatively low. The 2040 forecasts given to STB put each of the three lines having between 9K-10K total average weekday boardings in total.
Keep in mind that the Link forecasts in the same analysis are wildly optimistic. South Sounder is over 39K in the same forecasts.
So these routes will be lucky to get more than 5K-6K riders a day. I think that they could outperform only 2 of the current RapidRide routes (B and E). All of this contains a much more expensive station building program than any RapidRide line has.
Like with Link extensions, the leaders at ST don’t seem to care about performance. They see it as a political deal to build something.
Once opened, ST will probably initiate a study on what else is needed to generate more Stride riders. Maybe then, ST will revisit how they can better gain ridership on Stride. As it stands today, it’s merely a construction project that will lead to an opening day photo op.
The truth is, for all the money spent, the biggest rider advantage of STRIDE over the 560 is simply better frequency – they claim they will be running the bus every 15 minutes vs. every 30-60 minutes. Assuming they actually keep that pledge, that’s huge.
However, one does have to ask whether all this construction is really necessary for better frequency, or whether the money is better spent just running the 560 more often. If they want to switch from SeaTac to TIBS and remove service to Westwood Village, they can do that anyway, simply as a modification of the 560, without a bunch of construction work.
@asdf2
Where did you find the stride 1 and 2 ridership projections
@ WL:
Here’s the ridership forecasting source that I was referencing:
https://seattletransitblog.com/2020/01/27/sound-transits-station-ridership-in-2040/
“The STRIDE->101 connection doesn’t seem very useful”
No, people from the Renton residential areas. They need a direct transfer to both S1 and the Seattle routes. In order to serve them, you also have to accidentally provide S1 to 101.
“For anywhere east of Renton, the bus is probably headed for the Landing anyway”
Not the 105, 160/I, or 907.
“So these routes will be lucky to get more than 5K-6K riders a day. I think that they could outperform only 2 of the current RapidRide routes (B and E). All of this contains a much more expensive station building program than any RapidRide line has. Like with Link extensions, the leaders at ST don’t seem to care about performance. They see it as a political deal to build something.”
It’s important to the people who travel north-south in the Eastside. The Eastside is large enough that it needs frequent north-south express transit. Dismissing it as just political ignores those people’s travel needs. We need to dig out of the hole of bad transit, not perpetuate it.
WHY is there political demand for it? It’s because the central Eastside has some 250,000 people and lots of jobs and destinations, and Renton has 105,000, and they’re 11 miles apart. Rentonites go to Bellevue, Redmond, and Kirkland, and vice-versa. It also connects Burien, one of the most isolated cities in the region, so it makes a big difference to them.
Second, the reason for Stride in that corridor is it costs less than light rail. It’s a way to serve a mid-level corridor less expensively.
Comparing RapidRide to S1 is a category mistake. They’re different kinds of corridors with different needs. The E is for all those destinations in the middle. S1 is for 11-mile trips between Bellevue, Renton, and Burien. And there’s no street like Aurora between Bellevue and Renton where a route like the E could run anyway.
The ultimate problem is the Eastside’s car-dependent land use. That’s how you could end up with an area with only a freeway with isolated exits connecting it. But we need to improve on that, not perpetuate it or make it worse. It’s not the current residents’ fault that the Eastside is like that. But they still need to travel north-south between the cities. And to encourage them to use cars less, there needs to be good transit options, not barely-existing transit options that are so inconvenient people are deterred from using them.
“The truth is, for all the money spent, the biggest rider advantage of STRIDE over the 560 is simply better frequency – they claim they will be running the bus every 15 minutes vs. every 30-60 minutes.”
Yes, that’s the most important thing. Frequency helps make up for any faults of speed or coverage. The single biggest thing that annoys passengers the most is long waits, even more than sitting in a bus for the same amount of time. So by improving frequency you make more trips feasible, make clients (passengers) more satisfied, and get more people out of their cars. A virtuous cycle.
Of course, ST could simply double the frequency of the 560 and other routes like the 522, but decades of experience has shown it’s futile to expect that the board will ever be willing to. So it’s either Link or Stride or RapidRide or nothing. Any of those is better than waiting 30-60 minutes for the 560, or not having any transit at all in the case of the 535 on Sundays.
“It’s important to the people who travel north-south in the Eastside. The Eastside is large enough that it needs frequent north-south express transit. Dismissing it as just political ignores those people’s travel needs. We need to dig out of the hole of bad transit, not perpetuate it.”
My comment was intended to highlight that the current service plan may not be the optimal one. Skipping major destinations and bus transfer opportunities like at Factoria/90 and SouthCenter is not optimal for providing longer connectivity. It’s not good enough to say “we’ve connected Renton and Bellevue with a freeway bus” and call the deficiency met. That’s freeway driving thinking. Stride 1 could be so much more useful if stops at Factoria/ 90 and Southcenter could be added. They’d probably get lots more riders than the giant 405/ 85th Ave redo that ST is helping to pay for.
“It’s not good enough to say “we’ve connected Renton and Bellevue with a freeway bus” and call the deficiency met. That’s freeway driving thinking. Stride 1 could be so much more useful if stops at Factoria/ 90 and Southcenter could be added.”
The issue is travel time, not “freeway” per se. The freeway is the only way to fit into a 20-minute time budget between Renton and Bellevue. Yes, we can imagine it stopping at Factoria or Southcenter, but those are blocks away from the freeway and there are no ramps to them, so it’s the same issue as downtown Kirkland (or downtown Renton even).
You may think you were arguing for multi-line BRT, but when you say the project was just political, you imply the status quo is perfectly fine and nothing more is needed. The issue isn’t whether to have a priority north-south transit corridor in the Eastside, it’s what kind of routing and technology it should be. That’s what your argument sounded like it’s missing, and that makes it vulnerable to anti-transit people taking it up and saying “We don’t need anything there.”
“The truth is, for all the money spent, the biggest rider advantage of STRIDE over the 560 is simply better frequency – they claim they will be running the bus every 15 minutes vs. every 30-60 minutes. Assuming they actually keep that pledge, that’s huge.”
I think the reason that 560 has to be S1 is similar to RapidRide has to be RapidRide. It is a marketing strategy for local referendum and federal fund. We can debate the necessity of branding and electrification, but ST has to play the rule set by FTA in order to get certain funding that only awards to certain type of projects.
At this point, I just hope they can make a good decision on South Renton TC access and open the service on time.
The STRIDE->101 connection doesn’t seem very useful, as just about every origin-destination pair gets you there faster some other way. For instance, Bellevue to Seattle, you take the 2 line. TIBS to Seattle, you take the 1 line. Burien to Seattle, you take the H. Etc.
The 101 serves places between the transit center and downtown. Riders along MLK and Sunset Boulevard may be heading to Bellevue. If you are here (https://maps.app.goo.gl/bsFMdGQirKf6K9HV6) then you would take the 101 and 560 (right now) to get to Bellevue. There is also the 106 and 107 from the west.
For anywhere east of Renton, the bus is probably headed for the Landing anyway
That is not true. The 105 doesn’t. From the southeast there is the 148. From the south there is the 153.
Again, if you are going to serve one stop in all of Renton it should be the current Renton Transit Center (where all these buses converge). It isn’t just a transit center — it is also where there is a lot of density (of all types).
just exit on 8th, get to some roundabout and get back on the freeway.
That is the approach I expected. The key to that proposal though is the direct access ramps. If the plan is to get off the freeway and get right back on than this is probably better than direct access ramps to Southport. North 8th has a lot less traffic than Southport. The bus would connect to local buses like the 240 and F (presumably). It would just need to get over to Park.
On the other hand if you extend the F to Bellevue then you have some trade-offs with this ramp versus one at Southport. It remains faster for the F. It would simply turn on 8th and go straight to the freeway ramps. The drawback is coverage, but it wouldn’t be a huge loss. Riders north of Southport would at least be able to use the 240. Assuming Renton isn’t eager to add HOV lanes for Southport the time savings make it worth it. Using North 8th seems better.
Assuming the direct access ramps are built at North 8th instead of Southport I would still prefer sending the F Line to Bellevue (via those ramps) while having Stride stop at the freeway stop there. The big advantage to having Stride get off the freeway and make some sort of quick loop is that you save service hours. Maybe. You avoid the overlap on the freeway. That is a significant savings. But you likely introduce overlap in Renton. As Mike mentioned you want to make sure you connect to this bus. The Landing area becomes a new, de-facto transit center (if not a bonafide transit center since the bus has to turn around somehow). This means buses like the 105, 106, 107, 148 and 153 are extended to there. That alone might tip the balance and make this proposal more expensive. Meanwhile, the routing of the 101 becomes awkward. Right now it goes south after serving the transit center. Does it go north instead? Does it do both?
Those sorts of issues don’t exist if the F Line is sent to Bellevue. They can keep their current routing and people can easily transfer. Even if the “out and back” approach saves a little money I don’t think it is worth it. Extending the F offers so many more advantages.
It is different in Downtown Bellevue. This is why it is ironic that the one place very well suited for an “out and back” approach won’t have it (at least initially). I can understand why. Combining Stride 1 and 2 would be too long. Downtown Bellevue is the obvious endpoint. But if a bus went from say, Kirkland to Issaquah (via HOV lanes) it would not be a very time consuming detour to Downtown Bellevue given what it would offer.
“Yes, we can imagine it stopping at Factoria or Southcenter, but those are blocks away from the freeway and there are no ramps to them, so it’s the same issue as downtown Kirkland (or downtown Renton even).”
That’s just not true. Both Factoria and Southcenter properties are literally across the street from 405 right of way. Downtown Kirkland is almost a mile away from 405.
And part of Stride is building new bus access ramps at several locations. In the case of 85th it’s a mammoth and costly undertaking — and there are fewer buses to transfer to from there and fewer destinations to walk to from there. That’s not a fatal flaw.
Kemper Freeman has the money and the popularity of the mall to be able to shun a high capacity transit connection. The owners of The Landing are not in such an enviable position!
“just exit on 8th”
There is a 60 ft elevation difference between N 8th at Houser Way and I-405. Because I-405 is sitting on the hill, N 8th Street has to go even above I-405 mainline which adds elevation difference to almost 80 ft. So a 1000-1500 ft bridge needs to be built to connect surface street to I-405 ramp terminal. Even with that kind of tall bridge over I-405, it won’t be able to connect Sunset Blvd NE to the east because that’s another 60 ft elevation gain within 400 ft distance.
It is not impossible to build the access to the west but it won’t be cheap.
@HZ
> There is a 60 ft elevation difference between N 8th at Houser Way and I-405. Because I-405 is sitting on the hill, N 8th Street has to go even above I-405 mainline which adds elevation difference to almost 80 ft. So a 1000-1500 ft bridge needs to be built to connect surface street to I-405 ramp terminal. Even with that kind of tall bridge over I-405, it won’t be able to connect Sunset Blvd NE to the east because that’s another 60 ft elevation gain within 400 ft distance. It is not impossible to build the access to the west but it won’t be cheap.
We aren’t talking about a hypothetical here. The N 8th street direct access ramp is the currently funded project by the i-405 toll lanes.
> N 8th St Direct Access Ramps : This project would be part of the I405 Implementation Plan to achieve a successful Regional Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) network and improve transit service utilization.
Of course it has been delayed for like a decade and a half so unsure if they will still build it. but after the i-405 express lanes from bellevue to renton it is next on the list. it will cost approximately 250 million dollars.
https://www.rentonreporter.com/news/the-flyover-ramp-is-complete-what-comes-next/
https://www.rentonwa.gov/files/assets/city/v/1/public-works/transportation/documents/transportation-planning-and-programming/2025-2030-transportation-improvement-program-tip_adopted.pdf
So a 1000-1500 ft bridge needs to be built to connect surface street to I-405 ramp terminal.
I believe that was the plan. Here is a document showing it: https://www.rentonwa.gov/files/assets/city/v/1/public-works/transportation/documents/transportation-planning-and-programming/2025-2030-transportation-improvement-program-tip_adopted.pdf#page=70. If that doesn’t load on the right page it is page 70 (of the pdf).
I think adding direct access ramps at Southport would be cheaper, especially if it was part of the work that is currently going on. Unfortunately that isn’t going to happen. To be fair, the ramp to North 8th would be considerably faster and avoid a lot of the potential delay of using Southport. I would still extend the F Line to Bellevue (using that ramp) while having the Stride Line make a stop there (for people reversing directions). If it was significantly cheaper to not add a stop there then riders would reverse directions at 44th. If there is enough demand from Renton to TIBS/SeaTac they could run buses directly there. Or they could add a rider only station to the south at Lynn (where the F Line crosses under 405) as AJ suggested. Then riders would ride take the F or 153 and transfer to go that direction.
Wouldn’t N 8th Street go under the 405 mainline, just like Southport Dr, Sunset Dr, and NE 3rd? 405 would need to be widened slightly*, but 8th street simply needs to duck under the southbound mainline to access HOV direct access ramps that are descending from the mainline in the middle of the 405 ROW.
*This ROW may already be taken into account in the current expansion project, as the direct access ramp is in WSDOT’s master plan.
Otherwise, the diagram in the Renton TIP looks a lot like what Issaquah is proposing for their I90 overpass, which on this blog we’ve also flagged as a good candidate for HOV access and/or freeway flyer stop.
Wouldn’t N 8th Street go under the 405 mainline
That does seem like it would be cheaper. I don’t think there has been much planning (they want to spend some money on planning) so it is possible someone sketched out a design that isn’t likely.
@Al
if you look at google maps it’s on a very steep hill side. southbound you could do your way of just going below i405. but for northbound that is too complicated.
the original plan was to add the hov ramps on sunset boulevard but it was in the way of the future (well now) i405 expansion so that’s why they moved it to n 8th street.
Both Factoria and Southcenter properties are literally across the street from 405 right of way.
Factoria is a large, sprawling area and while it is very close to the freeway it is awkward to connect it much better than it is currently connected. The general flow of things is towards Bellevue. I could see two potential direct-access ramps. The first would be at Coal Creek Parkway. This could have been done now, as they widen the street. Even with the expansion there appears to be enough width between the northbound and southbound lanes to put in direct-access ramps to the HOV lanes without it costing a fortune. But that is also at the wrong end of things if you are headed to Bellevue. You could maybe have a bus from Renton get off the freeway there and then go through Factoria before getting back on the freeway but I don’t see an easy way to do that (let alone via the HOV lanes). So at best it just goes through Factoria and then serves South Bellevue Station. This would be a variation on the 111.
The only other relatively easy direct access ramps I could see are from Richards Road to I-90. The buses would run express to Mercer Island. That would be a faster way to get to Seattle but a slower way to get to Downtown Bellevue.
I don’t see an easy way to add direct-access ramps close to Southcenter. What you suggested might work but at a minimum you are adding big flyover ramps and then somehow connecting to Southcenter/Tukwila Parkway. You could leverage the 61st or 66th overpasses but that doesn’t look easy either. The roadways are too close together so you would have to widen the freeway and then put in the center ramps. But it isn’t clear there is room to easily widen the freeway there. I’m not saying it couldn’t be done but it doesn’t look like a great value. Then again, WSDOT has done a lot of similar things, so it wouldn’t be surprise if they build something like that in the future.
For Factoria, I agree it’s hard to add good HOV ramps for I-405. You could maybe do something with SE 38th, but that isn’t in a great spot – it’s a quarter-mile to Factoria Blvd, and farther to a lot of the destinations.
But with I-90, we have strong potential. There’s room to add HOV ramps to Factoria Blvd / Richards Rd, which is accessible to a lot of strong destinations such as the mall and T-Mobile. With ramps in both directions or even a freeway station, we could give all Issaquah – Mercer Island buses a stop there. With ramps just to/from the east, we could give Issaquah – South Bellevue buses a stop there… and also they could get back on the freeway via the general-purpose ramps, which connect to Bellevue Way and let them avoid the weave from the Eastgate Freeway Station.
So, add those HOV ramps!
But with I-90, we have strong potential.
Yes, that is what I meant. I wrote “I-5” but I meant the other local interstate. I’ll correct it. Anyway, that is definitely plausible but I don’t think it adds a lot. The two main destinations are Seattle and Bellevue. It might get you to Seattle a couple minutes faster but it doesn’t get you to Bellevue any faster. It would be quite a bit of backtracking if you are heading to Downtown Bellevue. A bus could stop on the way from Issaquah to Mercer Island but then it would be a significant detour for folks from Issaquah and Eastgate. You would have to serve Factoria with two routes — one to South Bellevue and/or Downtown Bellevue and a second one to Mercer Island (like they are planning with Issaquah). I don’t think there is enough service to justify that. I’m not saying it wouldn’t add value, but Link has changed everything. Before Link it would have been huge to be able to get off the freeway there (from Seattle) and go to Factoria (and beyond).
That is one of the big differences between Renton and some of the other places. In Renton, Link isn’t that important. It doesn’t help you get to Seattle or Bellevue. Even for Rainier Valley there is the 106 and 107. So Link helps you get to the airport mostly. That is nothing compared to Factoria or even Burien. In Factoria, Link looms large. It would be nice to have an express right to Downtown Bellevue but from South Bellevue you can get there (or to Seattle) very quickly. Same goes for Burien. Burien no longer has an express bus to Seattle. So a fast connection to TIBS will give riders a faster way to get to Downtown Seattle as well as Rainier Valley.
I was primarily thinking of a freeway (well, freeway-ramp) station where all I-90 buses would stop and then get back on the freeway, not a way for buses to turn onto Factoria Blvd. That ramp is actually relatively close to some strong destinations.
Also, it enables freeway buses to serve both Eastgate Freeway Station and South Bellevue.
The thing with Stride is there are a lot of major “destinations” just off the Bellevue-Burien I-405 route… Downtown Renton, The Landing, Tukwila Amtrak/Sounder, Southcenter Mall, TIBS, Sea-Tac Airport. As far as I’m concerned it needs to have several service patterns that run on the I-405 HOV lanes then leave I-405 HOV to serve some of these destinations then run local service or hop back on I-405 HOV. There is nothing at the current or proposed freeway stations on I-405. The model could be like LA Harbor Freeway Transitway or Pittsburgh Busways.
hi poncho. yeah I agree. The stride 2 brt from lynnwood to bellevue is good as it reaches totem lake and almost downtown kirkland.
But the stride 1 brt from burien to bellevue misses practically every important destination
The stride 2 brt from lynnwood to bellevue is good as it reaches totem lake and almost downtown kirkland.
You mean it almost reaches UW Bothell. It misses Downtown Kirkland by quite a bit. Even with Totem Lake it is a big schlep from a lot of the apartments (or the hospital). The same approach applies — you need several overlapping bus routes if you expect to actually serve those areas. The nice thing about the southern corridor is that you can easily serve three major routes (Burien, TIBS and Bellevue) with Stride 1 while connecting Southcenter, Renton and Bellevue with the F Line. A connection between the two at the north end of Downtown Renton (close to “The Landing”) and it works out quite well.
At the north end you have to do a bigger restructure. I guess there will be a shuttle from Woodinville. Should it continue to the campus or is Stride 3 (or walking) good enough? Should we run a bus from Juanita and Downtown Kirkland to Downtown Bellevue? Is the Totem Lake stop “close enough”? If the plan is to have everyone just transfer to Stride is the Stride bus frequent enough for that? Are the feeder buses frequent enough?
@ross
From the totem lake freeway bus stop one can reach the village at town lake with a 8~10 minute walk.
For the 85th street I’ll admit it’s much farther I guess there will be the rapidride K to connect.
> The nice thing about the southern corridor is that you can easily serve three major routes (Burien, TIBS and Bellevue) with Stride 1 while connecting Southcenter, Renton and Bellevue with the F Line. A connection between the two at the north end of Downtown Renton (close to “The Landing”) and it works out quite well.
The problem is the burien and tibs are much much weaker. Effectively if you start at TIBS and are not going to Bellevue then most of the time one will just get on rapidride F. There are no time savings gained
I’m with Wesley – TIBS and Burien aren’t anywhere near as strong destinations as Renton and Southcenter (let alone Factoria, which neither of your service patterns accommodates; and the airport, which they serve only with a Link transfer).
If we’re having two STRIDE 405-South routes, one of them should get off the freeway for Renton, and the other should get off for Southcenter. Then, either you keep running the F-line for local service, or there should be a freeway station somewhere between the two where you can transfer from one to the other. If we’re having three routes, then the third should exit at Coal Creek Parkway to serve Factoria before ending at South Bellevue Link Station.
Unfortunately, the I-5 interchange makes it difficult to add new freeway exits to let the westbound bus get back on the freeway after Southcenter, or the eastbound bus get off it for Southcenter. You’d probably need to exit at 51st and take Southcenter Blvd to 61st. And then, I suppose West Valley Highway is the best way to get back on.
“Unfortunately, the I-5 interchange makes it difficult to add new freeway exits to let the westbound bus get back on the freeway after Southcenter, or the eastbound bus get off it for Southcenter.”
I’m no busway designer, but it looks possible to build a bus and pedestrian/ bicycle trail overpass between Southcenter Blvd / Macadam Rd and Tukwila Parkway near Bahama Breeze (possibly elevating that street to enable a level profile with the overpass intersection). Bus stops can be put in this overpass. From there bus-only ramps to and from the east appear to be possible. The west access can be provided on Southcenter Blvd up to TIBS. That stretch of 518 between I-5 and TIB is often congested anyway and it would save ST from eventually building a stop in the ravine by the TIBS station.
Ultimately, ramp merging must be safely designed (especially sight distance) and thus possibly not reasonable here. That’s for a road designer to determine.
It may be possible to enhance the project idea by relocating the SouthCenter TC to be near or at the Bahama Breeze site, or to find ways to add additional access ramps from I-5 — but neither are particularly necessary.
A non-transit bonus is that it would be a new pedestrian and bicycle connection between Southcenter and areas of Tukwila north of Southcenter Blvd.
Depending on how the toll rate will be set, if the maximum toll rate was set aggressively high, South King residents who works in Bellevue will find a strong reason to drive to TIBS/N 44th and take S1.
“If we’re having two STRIDE 405-South routes, one of them should get off the freeway for Renton, and the other should get off for Southcenter.”
That’s something we can still argue for later. The 405 stations would still be useful for them.
In 2016 the debate was mostly about single- vs multi-line Stride in the North corridor, not South. A multi-line Stride could have served downtown Kirkland, Woodinville, and Bothell better. I didn’t hear anyone say it could be worthwhile in the south end too. So that was a lost opportunity. But ST dismissed the multi-line North alternative because it said single-line would be less expensive. So that’s why we have single-line in the North, and you would have run into the same resistance in the South.
@Al S., that’s a great point about traffic jams on 518 going eastbound.
Going westbound, however, your HOV entrance ramp won’t work because the HOV lane is at that point in the middle of splitting off to I-5 northbound. A right entrance won’t work because that lane is also in the middle of splitting off. In theory, you could keep the lane elevated past the split point, but that feels rather unwieldy and anyway would have to awkwardly merge before the entrance ramp from I-5 northbound merges on the left.
“That stretch of 518 between I-5 and TIB is often congested anyway and it would save ST from eventually building a stop in the ravine by the TIBS station.”
One challenge could be that WSDOT had HOV system ramp connecting I-405 and I-5 south planned, which probably will elevated to overpass existing structure and take up the vertical space of your overpass. So there might not be enough space to fit additional HOV ramps, bus stop, and crossing in the same universe.
At this point, I almost feel like it is probably for the best to have S1 leaving the 405 freeway at SR 167 and run on arterial all the way to TIBS with stops at South Renton TC and Southcenter rather than getting through all the trouble to build some not-so-ideal freeway stops.
“At this point, I almost feel like it is probably for the best to have S1 leaving the 405 freeway at SR 167 and run on arterial all the way to TIBS with stops at South Renton TC and Southcenter rather than getting through all the trouble to build some not-so-ideal freeway stops.”
I call that RapidRide E!
Honestly, if the Strander/ SW 27th connection was ever built and RapidRide E was placed on it, it would be a very efficient connection. And it’s loads cheaper than reconfiguring a freeway interchange.
“Going westbound, however, your HOV entrance ramp won’t work because the HOV lane is at that point in the middle of splitting off to I-5 northbound. ”
I wonder how useful the 405 SB to 5 NB HOV ramp is, frankly. It’s a tight curve and it dumps vehicles on the right side of I-5. It’s also sort of out of direction; it’s not practical for an HOV driver to use it unless they’re coming from 167 or further north on I-405. A 405 SB to 5 SB HOV ramp would have been tons more useful.
Surely WSDOT has sketched ideas for modifying that interchange. It’s a spaghetti bowl mess with tight turns as is.
I wonder how useful the 405 SB to 5 NB HOV ramp is, frankly.
I’ve used it quite a bit. My wife and I like hiking that part of Rainier (e. g. Sunrise). We tend to go Maple Valley Highway. After getting on the freeway we work our way over to the HOV lanes and it is smooth sailing. It would be better if it merged into the left lane on I-5 (so we could just stay in the HOV lane) but it is still a lot faster than slogging along 405 in the regular ramp. The curves are not difficult. The hardest part is just getting on 405 in Renton. It is a short ramp.
Obviously it isn’t designed for people like us but I could see it working great for someone who carpools. None of the buses do that but I could imagine that changing in the future. They would probably be running some express buses that way if not for the big drop in long-distance commuting and the shortage of funds.
“I wonder how useful the 405 SB to 5 NB HOV ramp is”
It might not make whole lot of sense to use that if you are driving from I-405 southbound east of Lk Washington, but I am sure traffic from SR 167 are using that.
The F could also extend to Renton Highlands (near the library). That area has been growing very quickly and has pretty poor transit service. A Southport/I-405 freeway station would be great for an intersecting route.
If the Southport/ 405 interchange was in a flat area, the stop would be great! However that is a really steep ridge and that makes and stop there hard to walk to from Renton Landing, the Southport buildings or Renton Highlands. It’s a bear to put a bus stop on Southport Drive at the interchange too as buses would stop on a steep slope. It’s a 3D conundrum.
It’s like saying Harborview is served by the Pioneer Square Link Station. It looks easy on a 2D map but it’s not easy for a walker..
that makes the stop there hard to walk to from Renton Landing, the Southport buildings or Renton Highlands.
Even if it was flat there would be very few people doing that. It is too far of a walk and not that many people when you get there. Freeway stops aren’t really for pedestrian access. That isn’t why you add them. They are connection points. (Well that and park and ride access.) In this case I proposed more than that: direct access ramps. Riders from the closest apartments (https://maps.app.goo.gl/abDx7tXtndqbuxWL7) would just ride the F to Downtown Bellevue. The stop then becomes the transfer point. Someone from those apartments (or further south) would ride the F Line and then transfer to Stride for an express to TIBS or Burien. Someone from the other side (on the 240) would transfer there to go to Bellevue, Burien or TIBS.
It also doesn’t seem that steep from the west. I would be more worried about the general unpleasantness of the walk. I could definitely see someone walking back though. In the morning they catch the F. In the evening they take whatever comes first — the F Line or Stride. If it is Stride they walk down the ramps and cross the street to their apartment (https://maps.app.goo.gl/CEuoW2wSXeYcoEFs7).
That area [Renton Highlands (near the library)] has been growing very quickly and has pretty poor transit service.
I could see the 240 running more often just as I could see the 105 running more often. The both perform pretty good especially compared to some of the surrounding routes. It looks like Metro is trying to increase frequency on the 240 but doesn’t have the money. They are running the buses every 20 minutes during part of midday — a sign they have confidence in the route (but lack money). It also wouldn’t cost that much to have a baseline of 15 minutes. It will get a change with East Link (https://cdn.kingcounty.gov/-/media/king-county/depts/metro/documents/projects/east-link-connections/routes/240.pdf) and it is expected to run every fifteen minutes midday weekday.
I’m less inclined to push for an extension. The route seems to be fairly even in terms of ridership. If anything the areas in Bellevue are a bit more productive. If we get more money I would add better weekend/evening service to this bus and the 105.
Trying to create a Stride stop at Southport will not happen at least for a decade or two if at all. There isn’t the motivation to change the design of a roadway already being actively reconstructed when it would be so major. It’s a curious idea with some benefit — but it’s not practical to build for quite awhile.
But here’s an idea that seems more doable in the near-term. I have to wonder if NE 44th/ 405 (Kennydale) should be a place to create a new, small transit layover hub. It could be the extended end of RapidRide F, running by apartments and townhouses north of Renton Landing as well as the Southport buildings. It could serve feeder buses into Newcastle and East Renton easily. The center Stride stops will be at grade so walking to a nearby Stride stop seems convenient. If Stride is operating at the promised frequency, it would be one way to better connect Bellevue with Renton.
The 240 was a RapidRide candidate in the late 2010s, so Metro was prepared to make a larger commitment to it. It’s now gone from Metro Connects 2050. The closest I can find is RapidRide 1030, which serves everything except downtown Bellevue; it instead serves 156th in east Bellevue and terminates at Overlake Village station.
Other routes north of Renton have 3xxx numbers, indicating they’re 30-minute coverage routes.
The upcoming 2-line restructure adds a new all-day route from Renton Highlands to South Bellevue P&R via I-405, skipping downtown Renton completely. To reach downtown Bellevue, taking this bus to the 2-line seems faster than taking the 105 to South Renton P&R (which is actually quite a bit of a detour) and catching STRIDE there. That leaves STRIDE only really make sense for these people if headed the other direction towards the airport or Burien.
Trying to create a Stride stop at Southport will not happen at least for a decade or two if at all.
I’m afraid you are right. The blew it. This is probably the cheapest place to add direct access ramps in Renton. It is also a great place since it is the northern end of the F Line. But it is too late now.
Fortunately the ramps at North 8th are still a possibility. They have planned for that. Even though they are likely more expensive they have the benefit of a lot less traffic. From a transit perspective the situation is very similar. The F would just turn a little bit earlier (and go to Bellevue via 8th). That would be the only difference.
It is more likely that Stride access/station will be placed adjacent to SRTC for Renton because that’s what City of Renton wants the transit center to be. Unless you are talking about a second station locations for Renton.
There is a plan to re-configure the Southport interchange to eliminate the low-speed northbound loop on-ramp. If ST expresses its interest of funding the inline station part when the project is being considered, I’d say WSDOT might consider it.
I am not sure if the Landings has enough attraction to Stride rider or transit riders in general, but agree that Southport station is more important as an transfer point for those who are commuting from Renton Highlands.
“I am not sure if the Landings has enough attraction to Stride rider or transit riders in general”
If Renton is serious about wanting more people to use transit and walk rather than driving, it needs to make The Landing or somewhere in Renton a place that they’ll want to do so. It’s entirely within the city’s capability; it just needs the will to do so.
One Renton councilmember said he envisions The Landing/Southport as becoming “the next Fremont”. In order to do that, it needs a lot more than what it has now. So, Renton, go do that.
And while you’re at it, Renton, make some of those one-story big-box lots in the western half of downtown Renton, multi-story like Northgate north. Then you’d have the same amount of shopping in a smaller footprint, or more shopping in the same footprint. That would be a godsend to people walking from bus stops or walking between the stores. Maybe put some housing on top of the buildings. Western downtown is closer to the center and to the Transit Center, so it would be a better place for a Northgate or a Fremont than The Landing is.
As it was discussed above, Renton Landing is a privately owned just like a shopping mall. It is not easy to insert a different vision now unless the owner of The Landing is not doing very well and want to get out. Also, I have a feeling that Boeing might not be a big fan of up-zoing the area surrounding its Renton factory.
The councilmember’s quote is interesting. I wonder if they actually have something in their mind or just putting out big words. For the least, it is a good sign that they even consider Fremont an exemplar..
“It is not easy to insert a different vision now unless the owner of The Landing is not doing very well and want to get out.”
It’s not just The Landing, it’s the entire neighborhood. Fremont is not just a single mall, it’s a lot more. Renton the hard power to rezone, and soft power to articulate a vision and encourage certain kinds of businesses to locate there, and to encourage them to make future buildings more walkable and denser (e.g., another story or two) than what the regulations requires. Of course a company can say know, but a lot of companies will voluntarily say yes if the city tries.
I would give Renton two stations, one at Southport (or N 8th, or thereabouts), and a second one at Lind Ave where it crosses 405; both should be freeway stations so that Stride never leaves the center lanes on 405. The Stride stop at the Renton TC (which will be built under current plans; all these ideas would be future iterations) will be deleted.
This gives the F two strong transfers to Strides, with the F doing the last mile work of serving Renton itself and Stride as the express overlay connecting Renton onwards to the rest of the region. Having transfers at both ends of ‘urban’ Renton means that riders can take the F “on the way” and generally avoid backtracking regardless of their trip pair.
I would give Renton two stations, one at Southport (or N 8th, or thereabouts), and a second one at Lind Ave where it crosses 405; both should be freeway stations so that Stride never leaves the center lanes on 405.
That might be cheapest option. It might be cheaper to build two pedestrian stations instead of a station with a direct access ramp. You save money (in service) by forcing everyone in Renton to transfer. The drawback, of course, is that you force everyone in Renton to transfer. It also becomes awkward for buses like the 148 and 160 that cross under 405 at a different spot. There is no good way to get over to Lind. So they would have to be rerouted. I guess they could just be extended to the northern freeway station. Then there is the 105. That could be extended to the southern freeway station. This means that you need a layover down there.
The only advantage I see over what I suggested is cost. That’s it. Extending the F is just a lot better. You don’t have to reroute any buses. A lot more people get a one-seat ride to Bellevue. It is quite likely that extending the F is a better value than running Stride. Here is what I mean by that: Assume we take the approach that I suggested. Which bus gets more people to Bellevue — the F Line or Stride 1? Hard to say but we know that a lot of riders use the F Line in Renton and Southcenter. We also know that the 560 has never got that many riders and about half were going between Renton and Bellevue. Another ten percent or so were traveling west of Renton (and their trip would be the same). I would guess the F Line would have more riders heading to Bellevue.
If we really want to save money we could just end the Stride 1 Line in Renton. Force the riders from TIBS and Burien to transfer instead of everyone from Renton and Southcenter. Obviously ST won’t do that which is why I think the best approach is to build access ramps and just overlap.
Fyi the future (well intermediate plan) of I-405 is to have two frontage roads between talbot road and lind avenue.
There will be an on ramp at lind avenue heading southbound I-405.
https://www.randycorman.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Final-I405-I167-interchange.jpg
technically I guess it could stop at lind avenue via the frontage roads if you wanted it to do so
There will be an on ramp at lind avenue heading southbound I-405
That would probably make traffic worse for the buses. I guess they could shift the F Line to Oaksdale. That would probably be a wash from a ridership standpoint. I guess they will figure that out later.
> That would probably make traffic worse for the buses.
they are planning some grady way flyover rainier avenue to help it out a bit.
Forcing everyone in Renton to transfer is a feature, not a bug. My intent is to separate the local and express routes to make Stride 405 South to look more like Stride 405 North. Anyone trying to get to downtown Bothell or downtown Kirkland is forced to transfers as well b/c Stride doesn’t serve those directly either. Renton is a larger destination & bigger area, but the design should be the same: keep Stride on the freeway for maximum speed & reliability.
Forcing everyone in Renton to transfer is a feature, not a bug.
I disagree. You want the majority of your riders to avoid a transfer. Having a long distance route with very few stops is OK if you also have similar service locally. There are exceptions — areas with so few people that they really don’t warrant anything more than a transfer involving a freeway station — but that is certainly not the case here.
My intent is to separate the local and express routes to make Stride 405 South to look more like Stride 405 North.
Except that isn’t the case to the north either. NE 85th will have direct access ramps (and not just be a freeway station). This means that buses from Kirkland will be able to directly connect to Downtown Bellevue. Such a bus would get a lot more riders than the future Stride Line. Both Totem Lake Lake and Bothell/Woodinville will have direct access as well. Initially Woodinville will take advantage of that by running peak-direction buses that enter the freeway there and then head to Downtown Bellevue. Ideally you have a lot more of that, with overlapping buses that serve areas off the freeway at one or both ends. Riders then transfer at those freeway bus stops. This is how you make the most out of the very big investment we are making in infrastructure. Stride just won’t get that many riders (no matter how it is designed).
To be clear, I don’t see the need for direct access ramps at NE 44th, 112th or Brickyard. That is (or would be) overkill. Just adding center bus stops is adequate. Those aren’t major transit corridors. In fact Brickyard is the only street that currently has bus service. Riders can transfer (or use the nearby park and ride).
But Renton and Southcenter are too big (and too close to Bellevue) to lack direct access ramps to 405. Not unless we just assume that 405 transit ridership will always be tiny — and if that is the case why are spending all this money on the corridor?
[Edit: Corrected a street number (80th to 85th)]
“ they are planning some grady way flyover rainier avenue to help it out a bit.”
Rainier at Grady is its own thing with a goal to provide S1 a more reliable access to SRTC.
A community meeting about this might come around at some point this summer.
Ross,
“NE 80th will have direct access ramps (and not just be a freeway station). This means that buses from Kirkland will be able to directly connect to Downtown Bellevue.”
There will be no NE 80th direct access. Originally NE 85th interchange was designed as a SPUI interchange with only general-purpose lanes access. It was modified later to include the ETL direct access (and STRIDE freeway stop), but your point is valid. If KCM or ST wants, they can totally plan an I-405 route that goes directly to Downtown Kirkland without weaving through general-purpose lanes.
“To be clear, I don’t see the need for direct access ramps at NE 44th, 112th or Brickyard.”
I think proposing direct access at NE 44th and 112th are more for the sake of toll revenue. They are low-hanging fruits compared to the other two proposed direct access (SR 181 and N 8th) which seems to be more useful for both transit and passenger cars, so N 44th and 112th are being built right now.
Probably for the same reason you think, Brickyard won’t have a direct access for now. What’s being built is a raised freeway inline station, but I think way it is designed makes it possible for a future modification to direct access ramp.
There will be no NE 80th direct access.
Sorry, I meant 85th, not 80th. (I’m really having trouble with the numbers on this thread.) Anyway, I’ll correct it.
I think proposing direct access at NE 44th and 112th are more for the sake of toll revenue. They are low-hanging fruits
I agree. But one of my original points was that Southport looks like low-hanging fruit as well. Or at least it could have been. They look like very similar interchanges. In contrast North 8th will be extremely difficult in terms of direct access, even if you access it from one direction (the west). But I still think it will be worth it in the long run.
Ross,
Yeah a stop at Southport would be a good transit idea. I don’t know if it ever came up internally. I feel like ST probably didn’t spend so much effort negotiating with WSDOT for STRIDE’s benefit, but just picked up projects with transit potential from WSDOT’s list.
I am seeing a pattern that what end up being built right now and foreseeable future are very consistent with the freeway-focused vision of I-405 master plan and ST simply propose stops at those direct access ramps. If it was from a more transit-oriented perspective, I would imagine a stop at Factoria and a stop at Southport are more beneficial for the portion south of I-90, but they don’t fit well with I-405 Master Plan.
@HZ and Ross
> Yeah a stop at Southport would be a good transit idea. I don’t know if it ever came up internally. I feel like ST probably didn’t spend so much effort negotiating with WSDOT for STRIDE’s benefit, but just picked up projects with transit potential from WSDOT’s list.
They were originally planning on building a hov direct access near there 2 decades ago.
if you guys are curious it’s the resolution 2001-09 that caused the whole situation with renton not having HOV direct access ramps. They cancelled the hov direct access ramps near southport and the other set at talbot road. Mainly because it was incompatible with the I-405 expansion. The funds got redirected to the n 8th street one but never actually got built.
“WHEREAS, Sound Move contemplated two high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) direct freeway access ramps- 1-405 at Talbot Road and 1-405 at Park Avenue*. WHEREAS, after evaluating nearly 30 potential HOV improvement concepts the project team has recommended a new 1-405 HOV direct freeway access interchange in north Renton at North 8th Street, just south of the Park Avenue location contemplated in Sound Move, to enhance transit speed and reliability in Renton’s urban core; and WHEREAS, for reasons such as cost-effectiveness and compatibility with other regional improvement projects, the project team has concluded that the 1-405 at Talbot Road project is infeasible and has been unable to identify a feasible HOV direct freeway access project or arterial HOV improvement project in south Renton”
*(The Park Avenue has been renamed multiple times, aka it’s where sunset boulevard / southport boulevard is)
https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/FinalRecords/2001/Reso%20R2001-09.pdf
Any ways they are thinking about maybe resurrecting the old Lind Avenue hov plans, if y’all are interested maybe i can go into mroe detail
@WL
I would be interested in that. If there are HOV exits on Lind and 8th then Stride could just go through Renton.
There’s also a handful of projects in the PSRC project list that might lead to improvements to routes through Renton. Specifically there are potential bus lanes on Rainier, “Rapid Ride transit improvements at the
Boeing Renton Plant”, and potential bus lanes on 2nd/3rd.
https://www.psrc.org/media/9668
WL,
Would like to hear more. I wonder if the idea of resurrecting the old Lind Avenue HOV was before or after the closure due to the 2022 truck damage that led to the reconstruction of the bridge.
I am not sure if a Link HOV DA is really beneficial to transit overall.
First of all, if Lind Ave became a Freeway access, F will lose an I-405 overpass that has no freeway traffic.
Secondly, Lind Ave is too close to SR 167, so assume they are not proposing anything crazy, this HOV DA can only be built west-facing. If that’s the case, it won’t help relieve SR 167 freeway traffic dumping into Grady Way and Rainier Ave S. The relieve it gave to Rainier at Grady intersection is limited.
I-405 Forward Compatible Plan still shows a HOV DA to Tukwila station. If they somehow can build a north connector to link that HOV access to SW Grady and build N 8th HOV access, I think it would be better than a Lind Ave HOV access.
Building new housing has 17000 pages of regulations in King County. That causes a major increase in the cost of new housing. The more expensive it is to build, the more expensive it is to sell. What is really sad os that we can get that down to less than a thousand and still have safe new housing.
NTD data is out through May of 2025:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/data-product/monthly-module-adjusted-data-release
Though May of this year, Metro is at +6% in terms of raw ridership (UPT 34.4m => 36.4m); -1.6% in terms of service hours (VRH 1.39m => 1.37m); and +7.9% in terms of riders per service hour (UPT/VRH 24.6 => 26.6).
Link is at +10.4% in terms of raw ridership (UPT 10.9m => 12.1m). Sound Transit service hours don’t seem to be properly updated, but a rough estimate puts Link at +35.4% in terms of service hours (VRH 171k => 231k) and -18.4% in terms of riders per service hour (UPT/VRH 64.0 => 52.2).
Are Link and Metro drivers coming from the same pool? Metro seems to really be struggling to recover service hours.
I think they’re artificially distinct driver pools, so drivers can switch between them but not without some overhead. I’ve also heard drivers on average are more eager to drive Link, so it’s easier to recruit them for that.
Link has both internal and external hires so you get some people moving from buses to trains. You also have people much more willing to do trains because it’s exponentially safer for the driver.
One line down again. A “blockage” necessitating single track between shoreline north and south. ST says 15 min trains…. Been sitting at u district for 40 minutes and the train was already 20 minutes late. Five southbound trains have come and gone while this train sits here.
It’s bad enough that ST can’t run a light rail system. It’s even worse that they outright lie about what’s going on in terms of delays.
sad, i guess ill get to try out the 45 bus today.
> A “blockage” necessitating single track between shoreline north and south
They really need to add more crossovers on the track. I don’t know why sound transit keeps skimping out on building the crossovers
There were crossovers ST could have used, they just chose to inconvenience their passengers instead.
I tried to ride it at 3:45 pm at Westlake, and the display said trains were delayed and the platforms were as crowded as pre-covid. I was going to go to Renton and check out The Landing mall and vicinity and the South center area, but I wasn’t going to wait indefinitely for Link to come back up or ride the 101 on depressing stroads in peak congestion, so I took the C to Lincoln Park instead.
I’m home now. The 1 Line had multiple problems this afternoon from 3pm to 7pm.
1. A track blockage at Mountlake Terrace causing single-tracking.
2. A power outage taking out Lynnwood to Shoreline North.
3. A tree fell on the overhead wire at Mountlake Terrace station causing a 20-minute delay.
“It’s bad enough that ST can’t run a light rail system. It’s even worse that they outright lie about what’s going on in terms of delays.”
The Sound Transit Board are still living in the heady good times when they were busy spending billions on light rail dreams. They still have not seemed to come to terms with the actual operational realities of keeping a light rail system running well every day.
It’s particularly worrisome that many of the problems are on sections opened less than five years ago.
I’m expecting that Constantine will resign soon after the 2026 ribbon cuttings. For several years afterwards, the main challenge at ST will be disruption issues. They will likely overshadow the West Seattle, Tacoma Dome and Everett extension construction and those wont open until the mid to late 1930’s..
Once that happens, we can hope again that ST Board picks leadership that knows how to get trains reliably running. It’s probably going to take someone who has run a system elsewhere for several years to arrive and change the agency culture. They need a seasoned crisis manager and not a seasoned PR salesman at the top.
Has anyone else noticed that the newer the bus is, the fewer seats there are?
The trend seems to be to prioritize standing room.
Fewer seats also means fewer obstructions getting to and from the doors, which lowers dwell time.
When looking at housing and transportation costs together, it is the rich car dependent places that are more ‘burdened’ than the center city.
https://htaindex.cnt.org/map/
Yes, the video didn’t get into that. Some urbanists with high housing costs have low transportation costs to mitigate it. My 1 BR rent in southwest Capitol Hill is $2000; transportation is $108 for a $3 monthly ORCA pass. They want to raise the rent to $2100 in September, although I’ll try to talk them down a bit. So that would add up to $2208 for housing+transportation in the fall. Although it depends on having a job in a transit-accessible location.