Ridership Patterns for Link 1 Line

77 Replies to “Ridership Patterns for Link 1 Line”

1. Methodology
   Sound Transit maintains a great public dashboard that shows the boarding data for Link, Sounder, T Line, and ST Express. While the dashboard shows the boarding counts by station, it does not show a breakdown by direction. I requested the per-direction boarding and alighting data from Sound Transit via a Public Records Request. Sound Transit staff noted that the “Business Intelligence staff have advised that the raw data for boarding and alighting by direction might not match with public facing numbers as they do not have expansion method applied to them”. We have reached out to Sound Transit for clarification but have yet to hear back. While this data is not 100% accurate, it is still quite useful. Ross Bleakney devised an approach that lets us use this data to estimate the per direction boarding counts. It is easiest to explain the process with an example.

   According to the Ridership Dashboard linked above, Westlake station had 12,542 average boardings per weekday in May 2025. For that same month, the data we received from Sound Transit shows:

   Station	Direction	Boarding Count	Alighting Count
   Westlake	North	95,357	65,954
   Westlake	South	21,546	34,438

   As the values in the table represent the boarding and alighting counts for the entire month, we can immediately see that these values don’t align with the 12.5k average daily boardings from the dashboard. In general, we can expect the number of passengers who alight a train in one direction should be similar to the number of passengers who board a train in the other direction. Of course, some passengers take one-way or multi-modal trips, but the values should be similar. In the table above, we can see there is a large discrepancy (eg: 95k vs 34k). These two factors led us to conclude that the data provided from Sound Transit only accounts for some of the trips. Despite this partial data, we can still look at the ratio between the boarding and alighting counts.
   
   For any given 1 Line station, there are two groups of passengers that board or exit a train: passengers traveling to/from the south (S) and passengers traveling to/from the north (N). Looking at the northbound boarding and alighting counts in the table, there are about 1.446 passengers boarding (N) for every one passenger alighting (S). Likewise, the southbound data shows that there are 1.598 passengers alighting (N) for every one passenger boarding (S). While not exactly equal these two ratios both show there are about 1.5 passengers traveling to/from the north (N) for every 1 passengers traveling to/from the south (S). As the northbound boarding counts are higher and therefore more representative, we will use the 1.446:1 ratio.
   
   Westlake station had 12,542 average boardings per weekday in May 2025. Using the 1.446:1 ratio, we can estimate that there were about 7,414 northbound and 5128 southbound boardings per weekday. The reverse of this is also true: there were about 7,414 southbound and 5128 northbound alightings per weekday. This same process was applied to the data for each station, resulting in the data shown in the plot above. For transparency, 1 Line boarding and alighting counts for May 2025 we received from Sound Transit are available in this file (.csv download, 2KB).

   1. Can I see a breakdown of boardings per bus station? Specifically currently 522 runs down Woodinville -Snohonish road to NE 190th St before looping back at 522 &131st Ave NE. While 311 take SR 202 directly there. Does anyone really ride or get on the bus at 190th in Woodiville?

      1. We (OK, mostly Micheal) periodically review a bus route (e. g. https://seattletransitblog.com/2025/07/17/ridership-patterns-for-rapidride-g-line/). The 522 is on our “todo” list. For now, here is the data we got from Metro (parsed for that route): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZHpJvjZLqo6H1eLfIjw3XZgAp1XbdoXwd_Kr3WMa7mk/edit?usp=sharing. The “I” is for inbound, which means towards Roosevelt. Everything else should be self-explanatory. To answer your question, an average of 16 people a day use that stop. That is obviously very low, although there are stops on that route with even lower ridership (especially Lake Forest Park).

2. It will be interesting to see how these patterns evolve after the extensions open.

   Who’s boarding northbound from Lynnwood today? Bit early for that! It must say something about how they arrive at these numbers. How are directional boardings computed at all now that there’s no tap-off?

   1. I’ve asked ST for clarification on the northbound boardings at Lynnwood but have not heard back yet. I suspect these boardings are from operators or security preparing the train for the return trip.

      These data are from the Automatic Passenger Counters on the trains themselves, not from Orca card data.

      1. Could also be people stepping into the train when it stops northbound. Maybe going back to grab something, or perhaps heading southbound and the train has switched over in the system to southbound yet but the doors are open? The APC simply counts when people pass through the door.

      2. Maybe the fare enforcers too

      3. Delta

         Fare Ambassadors don’t ever ride into the tail track. My guess is a combination of Security boarding to sweep the train and the Hostlers that metro has to bring trains immediately out of the tail track and back into the station. Operationally, one operator brings the train into the tail and the hostler, who is stationed at the end of the platform, hops on at the station and immediately brings the train back out the opposite direction.

   2. Jonathan, perhaps the apc is measuring the operators and crew clearing the LRV between trips at Lynnwood?

      1. Yeah, it is bound to be a combination of all those things (security clearing a train, people boarding and then realizing the other train is the one that will go next, etc.).

         Micheal and I debated whether to “zero out” those numbers. We decided to keep it as is, just to highlight that the numbers are not precise. With every station this has to be considered a rough estimate. The first comment explains the methodology we used for these estimates and the lack of precision that guided it.

3. In the future, ORCA boardings by station will be easier to track than whether they got on a 1-Line or 2-Line train.

   The SeaTac/Airport ridership surge is explainable by surge in airport travel. The Port of Seattle puts out annual ridership numbers. But it could also be explained in riders getting off and back on to make way for moving luggage. I tend to believe the boarding data at S/A is (unintentionally) inflated.. This will become more of a data error problem after riding to the airport from Federal Way becomes a thing. Or maybe ST has honed its methodology for correcting luggage trappings of the ADC is accurate, if with a higher range of imprecision than other stations.

   I wish there were a way to tease out whether last fall’s fare change (from distance-based to flat) altered boarding patterns.

   Thank you, Michael, for all the work you put into this series, and into the blog in general!

4. Great breakdown, thanks for the data!

5. How is the share of boardings from parking spaces determined?

   It shouldn’t be by just attributing one boarding per space.

   1. Lots don’t automatically fill up.
   2. Some cars arrive with 2 or 3 passengers. This is especially true for stadium events.
   3. Parking spaces can be used twice or more through the course of a day, and I would think much of the evening space use is probably for a space that had been used by some other car earlier.
   4. Some spaces are used for a short time by people picking up Link riders, and aren’t boarding Link at all.

   I’ve not seen ST publish any reports about mode of access to a station. I think it’s a data point worth studying. There are recent trends like Uber/Lyft use, cell phone texting, Lime bikes and scooters, flexible work hours, longer distances now directly possible to get to a congested SeaTac for just $3 and so on. So if ST has shared any research in the topic it would be useful to know.

   BART did station access profile studies in 2015, and prior in 2008. They are overdue a new one, probably because their demand dropped which will affect the shares by arrival mode. Still, I think it’s a good example of what is needed. One thing BART found in 2015 was that stopped off passengers were as high as riders that park cars, even in places with very large parking garages and lots. It was a much higher share than they found in 2008.

   https://www.bart.gov/about/reports/profile

   Such a study seems to be in order once the full 2 Line and Federal Way Link and Pinehurst open. The system will operating with these same stations for several years after 2025. (Tacoma Dome Link is pushed to 2035 already and West Seattle Link issues will likely delay its opening to at least 2035 as well even though it’s promised for December 2032 officially.)

   1. One boarding per space is a very rough estimate for the reasons you’ve mentioned. A mode share study would be great – I’m not sure if ST has conducted them before.

6. The article should mention the Pinehurst opening in 2026. Some people think it’s going to be significant; others don’t.

7. Many rail systems count entries and exits by the station rather than by the train. When both 1 and 2 Lines overlap and some riders will transfer to a second train, will ST report that as one or two Link boardings?

   1. I think APC collect deboarding data well. At least some buses’ APCs do that.

      1. Most subways count activity at turnstiles rather than at the train doors. So they would count one trip in our out may involve riding two or three different trains.

         If train doors are the source, the ridership numbers are going to be inflated when comparing the totals to other systems.

8. “The higher southbound boarding count may be from Franklin High School students…”

   Franklin High is the only Seattle high school that is within walking distance of Link that also has an attendance zone that includes other Link stations. I’ve witnessed quite the surge of high school riders at school opening and closing times. I have seen others using Link coming from after-school activities. I think it’s safe to say it’s not just “may”. My guess is that it’s 5-10% of Mt Baker daylong boardings (and similarly some morning boardings from Beacon Hill, Othello and Columbia City).

   1. Erm actually🤓

      Roosevelt high school is across the street from Roosevelt station and it’s district map includes part of the walk shed for U district station

9. “Mountlake Terrace station…….Passengers driving to the station can use Sound Transit’s 206 space parking lot or WSDOT’s 877 space Mountlake Terrace Transit Center garage………Passengers using the P&R likely account for the majority of the station’s 1,500 daily boardings.”

   Ah, no they don’t. Or at least no they didn’t. The majority of boardings at MTS actually come from bus transfers.

   The last access mode data I saw for MTS indicated that roughly 65% of passengers boarding Link at MTS were transferring from buses. The remaining roughly 34% were classified as “Other”, meaning access via walk, bike, or P&R. So the P&R share was actually much less than even the 34% figure.

   This is ORCA tap data, professionally developed and vetted. And the data covered a 4 month period.

   The data is a few months old now, and ridership on LLE has continued to grow, so it’s possible that things have changed somewhat. But I can’t imagine that the trend lines have changed that much.

   And the same trends held true for LCC and Shoreline North/185th Station (I never saw data for Shoreline South/148th Station) — the majority of passengers using Link in SnoCo are accessing it via the bus systems.

   And this is what is so worrying about the 130th St Station. It will have only one bus running at barely 15 minute frequency at peak. So it will be highly unlikely to replicate the success of the LLE stations which have ample feeder bus service, and benefit greatly from it.

   1. @Lazarus

      > The remaining roughly 34% were classified as “Other”, meaning access via walk, bike, or P&R. So the P&R share was actually much less than even the 34% figure.

      Doesn’t that data refute your original assumption that everyone would be using the park and rides?

      I thought you kept insisting that 130th station needed a park and ride because that brought the most riders. mountlake terrace station doesn’t actually get that many park and ride travelers

      > And the same trends held true for LCC and Shoreline North/185th Station (I never saw data for Shoreline South/148th Station) — the majority of passengers using Link in SnoCo are accessing it via the bus systems.

      this helps the 130th station ridership by bus numbers.

      Look lazarus this is getting a bit ridiculous at this point. you cannot keep insisting on conclusion first and then somehow twist the data to fit your preconception.

      Or to reverse the situation, what exact data were you expecting to see from mountlake terrace that would make the n130th street station look good.

   2. That is quite surprising, thanks for sharing. Did the ORCA data have raw numbers or just percentages? I wonder if there could be a bias towards bus transfers because people who already tapped onto the bus can transfer for a minimal cost. People coming from other modes may be less incentivized to pay the fare because it will cost them more for this ride ($3 vs 25 cents).

      Assuming the ORCA data matches the APC data perfectly, that means there are 975 people each day who transfer to Link at MTS from a bus. Data from Metro show that routes 331 and 333 drop off about 100 and 150 people per day, respectively. This would mean that CT routes 111, 112, 119 collectively drop off about 725 people each day. I don’t have ridership data for these routes and I’m not familiar with them, so you tell me if that sounds right.

      1. I’d caution that just because a rider is getting on or off a bus at MTS doesn’t always mean that they’re coming or going to Link. Some riders do make local bus transfers there.

      2. @Michael Smith,

         “Did the ORCA data have raw numbers or just percentages?”

         No. I only asked the question about mode share. And I specifically asked about percentages, so that is what I was shown.

         I try not to be too much of a pest by asking too many questions of people who have more important things to be doing. And the raw ridership numbers are available on the ST website anyhow, just not parsed by original mode. But one can do the math to get a rough idea easy enough.

         The data I was shown did not parse the percentages by bus route number, but it did parse the share by bus service type. For example, Metro contributed 8% of ridership at MTS and 10% at Shoreline North/185th Station.

         And therein lies the problem for Potemkin Station at 130th. With essentially no bus infrastructure and only one bus route scheduled to serve the station the overall ridership numbers at 130th will be pretty dismal.

         And mark my words, there will be a lot of complaining about the lack of a parking garage at 130th. The data for the other stations clearly shows that the P&R contributes a sizable share of ridership to Link. At Pinehurst there won’t be any. Zero. Just Hide-and-ride.

         130th will be one of the most suburban-like of all the stations in the ST system, yet it lacks exactly the elements that make a suburban station function. Crazy.

      3. @Al S,

         “….just because a rider is getting on or off a bus at MTS doesn’t always mean that they’re coming or going to Link.”

         The data was derived from ORCA taps onto Link. So people using the P&R for other purposes, or people simply using the buses, don’t show up in the data.

         Successful transit hubs have lots of activity of various types, and that is what makes 130th so bad. With no P&R, just one bus at barely 15 min frequency, with few walkable destinations, and with a wonky street grid that restricts movement, there just isn’t much “there” there.

      4. I’m not sure why you omitted them, but the CT 130 and 909 both service the MTS.

      5. “there will be a lot of complaining about the lack of a parking garage at 130th.”

         Tell them to drive to Northgate or Shoreline South P&Rs. That’s easier for a car to do in the same amount of time than for a bus rider or pedestrian.

      6. @Mike Orr,

         “Tell them to drive to Northgate or Shoreline South P&Rs”

         Ya, that is what we should do! We should design our transit system to encourage more driving! LOL.

         Incidentally, I was just up at Shoreline North/185th Station checking on something at the sister-in-law’s house. This time I took the opportunity to walk through the parking garage.

         The parking garage at Shoreline North/185th Station is currently absolutely packed! I walked both levels and there was not a single space available. Not a single space. And this is just a normal Tuesday with no significant construction activity or road closures occurring.

         So it will be interesting to hear the whining when 130th St Station opens. No parking garage AND no bus infrastructure? Ya, designed for success (not).

      7. “… the overall ridership numbers at 130th will be pretty dismal.“

         To me, this is a mere example of our region’s lack of understanding that merely building a station doesn’t guarantee great ridership. Our elected leaders bend to the will of others that say “we are owed a station” yet there is no mandated effort to create higher ridership once the location is chosen. We leave it up to ST to lay out stations however they can up to the edge of the property — and separately leave it up to local jurisdictions to take advantage of getting a station so that they can develop what they want.

         There have been exceptions like I-5 pedestrian bridges. But those we separately sponsored by the jurisdictions after the Link station was approved and under construction. These are essentially reactive to Link being there and were not originally there to justify the station.

         I firmly believe that ST should require a joint plan with adjacent jurisdictions to create a minimum number of average daily riders before they approve any new station. The collaboration can use residential density, direct walking paths, parking garages, activity destinations (like a college relocation or an amusement park), a hotel district or whatever. A analysis estimating how those boardings (mode of access) get to the station needs to be presented and critiqued. But something more needs to be required before the regional merely builds a station somewhere.

         Like you, I have doubts that Pinehurst will get even 1000 average daily boardings. When I said that most boardings will be drop off or pickup it’s merely speculating on percentages rather than total riders. If Northgate gets 3600 average boardings and 300 are dropped off, that’s just 8 percent. But if Pinehurst only gets 600 average boardings (what I’m expecting) and 300 are dropped off, that’s 50 percent!

      8. @Al S,

         “ To me, this is a mere example of our region’s lack of understanding that merely building a station doesn’t guarantee great ridership.”

         The station was built for political purposes. Basically to buy an ST3 endorsement from one specific councilwoman. Ridership didn’t enter into the equation.

         But hey, you are correct. At the end of the day it is total ridership that matters most and not access mode share.

         Think of it this way: Shoreline North/185th Station isn’t even one year old yet, and I am pretty darn sure that boardings at the station will continue to increase while the percentage of boardings coming from the P&R will continue to decrease.

         Why? Because the P&R is already full, so the number of boardings coming from the parking garage will be fairly constant, while the number of total boardings will continue to increase. Thus a smaller percentage from parking.

         Some people might look at that and say, “parking isn’t important because the percentage of boardings is low, and getting lower!”

         Others might look at that same data and say, “the parking garage is too small!”

         Of course at 130th street people will say, “where’s the parking garage?” But that is a story of politics.

      9. @ Lazarus:

         Fully agree on your points.

         I wish ST to require two things for every station — existing or planned:

         – A station access profile and action plan to generate more boardings

         – A set or targeted minimum number of boardings out of each station plan, like

         – 2000 boardings for a surface station
         – 4000 boardings for an aerial station
         – 7000 boardings for a subway station

         If a planned station can’t show the minimum level of riders it gets deferred.

         If an existing station can’t show the minimum number of riders the local jurisdiction must prepare a sufficient action plan to bring it up to the minimum within a few years or risk it being closed.

         There are so many ways to create more station demand. It shouldn’t be hard to develop things like upzoning, selling land off that doesn’t attract riders for development, parking garages, better bus connectivity, promoting private shuttles, relocating high use public buildings to be at stations, bicycle giveaways to catchment areas, or more direct paths for pedestrians and bicyclists to get to stations.

         Jurisdictions need to quit looking to ST to do them a favor. ST has already gifted each station to that jurisdiction. The jurisdiction merely needs to show how badly it wants to keep it.

      10. “Tell them to drive to Northgate or Shoreline South P&Rs”

          “We should design our transit system to encourage more driving! LOL.”

          They’re already driving. This is the subset of people who won’t use Pinehurst Station because it doesn’t have a P&R. It’s better to tell them to use a neighboring P&R than to build a Pinehurst P&R for them.

      11. “The station was built for political purposes. Basically to buy an ST3 endorsement from one specific councilwoman.”

          It got the second-largest feedback support in the entire Lynnwood Link project. (The highest was a petition against Lynnwood station northern alternatives that would have encroached on Scriber Lake Park.) It wasn’t just one councilwoman’s arbitrary whim. She was responding to that and getting her constituents better access to Link, which ST should have done in the first place in Lynnwood Link.

      12. “Of course at 130th street people will say, “where’s the parking garage?””

          Some people in Rainier Valley said the same thing. But Seattle has an ordinance against building any new P&Rs. The Northgate and Shoreline South P&Rs were already there; they were just replaced, and the final Shoreline South station location is outside Seattle’s jurisdiction so the ordinance doesn’t apply.

          “Others might look at that same data and say, “the parking garage is too small!””

          Each P&R space costs $130K and is used by an average of 5 cars a week. 9-5 commuters fill them from 7am to 6pm; people going to evening activities can’t use them because the 9-5 car is still there; and there’s little demand for them evenings and weekends. So it’s a lot of money to spend on a few passengers, and an ever-shrinking percent of them. Plus P&Rs take up so much space that can’t be used for anything else, and pedestrians have to walk past the P&Rs forever. So they’re not a good use of transit dollars or urban space. The suburban P&Rs were a compromise to get suburban voters to vote yes on Link.

      13. If there’s any station that should be deferred/cancelled (apart from the entire 4 line) it is Boeing Access Rd station. Not only is the station area very sparse and constrained by highways, airport, train tracks, and river, but it’s also not a good idea to upzone it either because we don’t want thousands of people being subjected to the air and noise pollution of the jets at Boeing field.

      14. @ Delta:

          You make a great point about the BAR station. Without an implementation strategy to increase expected boardings, it shouldn’t be built. The station advocates should be hard at work on a plan on how to grow ridership there — rather than sit around feeling successful just because the site is set for the station’s construction.

      15. The first station I want to delete is Star Lake. Barely any walkshed, no village closer than Federal Way or KDM stations, and both of those have P&Rs.

      16. Somebody said the BAR station area is subject to low airway height limits.

      17. @Al S,

          “ – A set or targeted minimum number of boardings out of each station plan, like

          – 2000 boardings for a surface station
          – 4000 boardings for an aerial station
          – 7000 boardings for a subway station”

          While your numbers are aspirational, I would caution against such arbitrary benchmarks. And I certainly wouldn’t impose a short time frame on such goals. Because not only would such stations as Roosevelt and U-Dist fail to meet your numbers, but so would such venerable old stations as Pioneer Square.

          And while I agree with the concept of using policy to increase ridership, the reality is often much harder, and to understand that just look at 130th St Station.

          No P&R, no bus infrastructure, a wonky street grid, and extremely limited amounts of land for TOD. 130th St Station is the poster child for failed station planning, and there really isn’t any way to correct that.

      18. In the case of Pinehurst, Metro has really dropped the ball – this was always intended (and designed) to be a bus intercept station, which makes sense on a cross-town corridor between a major urban neighborhood and another that likely will become one, yet they’ve gone out of their way to avoid doing that except to central Lake City. Unlike so many of ST’s station locations that seem to go out of their way to make transferring difficult, this one is on Metro. Making routes like the 75 bypass it completely and travel an additional 10-15 minutes to another station is ludicrous. Right now Link is not reasonably accessible from the bus system east of Lake City Way and between 65th and 125th (and if you only know the area by looking at lines on the map, there are major elevation changes both east and west of LCW between 85th and 120th – a route on LCW doesn’t help anyone any distance to either side, any more than a route on 15th or 35th does).

          Right now – were the 75 to serve Pinehurst – it would literally be faster for me to take the bus there rather than to *drive* to Northgate, which is what I do now for events and things downtown and elsewhere near Link. For my daily commute I’ve given up on transit altogether and just drive to the eastside, much as I hate doing so, and despite being a block from the Bellevue TC and Link station. Transit from large swaths of NE Seattle simply isn’t competitive and may not be even when the 2 line opens, simply because of the time penalty to drive to Northgate. I will give it a go but without direct bus access to the Pinehurst station it at best will mean driving to Northgate rather than taking the bus to Pinehurst. The bus to Northgate is a non-starter.

          The mere existence of the Pinehurst station rather than any parking garage there would eliminate car trips like mine – if the bus service I use permitted it. Right now it does not; it bypasses stations on both the north (Pinehurst) and south (UW) ends before “serving” stations some 10+ minutes further along. Fortunately, unlike many of ST’s station decisions, the ability to change bus routings to serve this station can be made relatively easily – and hopefully Metro will do so sooner rather than later.

      19. I assume that this would also come with a proviso that as part of your extension, ridership at any of the other stations doesn’t drop below the criteria. Given those guidelines, Al, you don’t build Lynnwood Link. Or rather, you build it with one station. It doesn’t matter which station it is, as long as you send all the buses from the north to it. It could be at 130th, 145th, 155th, Mountlake Terrace — as long as the buses from the north terminate there, you get over 4,000 riders. Northgate manages to stay over 4,000 riders (just barely). Under that scenario, 130th (Pinehurst) would likely perform the best.

          There are other issues. These stations are clearly dependent on bus service. But service is arbitrary. Community Transit didn’t have to send Swift Blue to 185th Station. But they did, and now it gets about a third of its ridership from that one bus alone. There is no good reason to have the 522 serve 148th instead of Roosevelt. But when they do that, ridership of the 148th Station will go up, while ridership at Roosevelt will go down. Thus ridership numbers are highly dependent on how the agencies restructure and there is no telling what that will do.

          It just doesn’t make sense to look at things the way you are suggesting. You need to look at the network. In this case, what does Lynnwood Link offer? There are two major things:

          1) A good connection for buses from the north. This could be done just about anywhere but it happened at Lynnwood Station.

          2) Good neighborhood connections for buses heading east and west. It is worth noting that the Northgate Station fails in this regard. Buses heading east or west have to detour just to serve the station (and then detour again if they continue east or west). The 61 is the only route that keeps going the same basic direction and that is only because it runs diagonally. But every station in Lynnwood Link offers good east-west connections (especially Pinehurst).

          That’s about it. None of the stations will ever have a lot of walk-up ridership. A lot of the stations have park and ride lots, but that is not a cost-effective way to build ridership (especially since there is plenty of extra parking at Northgate). Biking always makes for a tiny segment of ridership (especially with a second-rate bikeshare system). It is all about those buses which means it is all about the network.

          This means enhancing the grid as much as possible. An ideal grid is about a quarter to half mile apart (400 to 800 meters). This is also common stop spacing for subway lines. It is what our most popular bus lines (like the A and E) offer. Of course the street grid doesn’t work that way. The arterials are not 600 meters apart. At best you are looking at around 800 meter station spacing (or roughly a half mile).

          Making things worse, there are only so many ways to cross the freeway. There are so few crossings that you could make the case for a station at every one. At the same time, building stations at major interchanges is problematic. Traffic is worse and you have even less space to develop around the station. There is an argument to build both, but building at 185th is better than 175th. Likewise, building at 155th is better than 145th. 236th (in Mountlake Terrace) is better than the county line. That basically leaves you with Northgate Way, 130th, 155th, 185th, 236th, 228th, 220th, 212th or 52nd, 44th. It is unrealistic for an agency like Link (that seems to hate building stations, even if very urban areas like the U-District or First Hill) to build a station at Northgate Way, given its proximity to Northgate Station. 228th is also problematic. It converges to the same corridor as 236th on both ends. Likewise 220th requires a dogleg up to 212th to head east. This leaves us with: Northgate, 130th, 155th, 185th, 236th, 220th, Lynnwood. Station spacing is quite wide but it manages to cover many of the big east-west streets. This is actually quite similar to what we are building. The only obvious flaw is that station at 148th. It should be at 155th.

      20. I’m not sure why y’all keep trying to recreate the elements from the lowest ridership light/heavy rail lines.

          1) first build it next to the freeway
          2) build giant park and rides
          3) make sure the station spacing is very far apart so it can only be used for commuting

          recipe for low ridership trains that end up running very infrequently and one can only use for commuting patterns solely.

      21. “ Al, you don’t build Lynnwood Link. Or rather, you build it with one station.”

          You’re taking the guidelines way too literally. I’m not saying to not build. You’re misinterpreting what I’m saying. I’m saying that the jurisdictions have to be put on the hook for guaranteeing some minimal ridership number. Once they get chosen to get a station, they should have to have an action plan in place to achieve enough riders. The thresholds I mentioned were also conceptual suggestions to illustrate how to adopt and manage ridership targets and could be adjusted.

          According to the 2040 numbers provided a few years ago on the blog , every Lynnwood Link Extension qualifies at these thresholds anyway except for Pinehurst. (https://seattletransitblog.com/2020/01/27/sound-transits-station-ridership-in-2040/)
          Most Lynnwood Link jurisdictions are actively promoting fundamental land use changes that should grow ridership in coming years except near the Pinehurst Station (Seattle). There should also be a ridership increase once 2 Line trains start running in Seattle (better frequency and new direct service to the Eastside) and again once Stride 3 starts running (at Shoreline South).

          I have no qualms about extending Link further — as long as the ridership would be there. The same is true for infill stations. My criticism is more that getting a Link station should be earned and not merely given away for political reasons. That would require the Board to quit giving away stations as favors — and for jurisdictions to implement effective ways to promote higher ridership..

          The alternative is to do what ST does now: To spend billions while ignoring ridership and get terrible productivity out of the expanded system that will eventually create needed service cutbacks. .

      22. @Al S,

          “ My criticism is more that getting a Link station should be earned and not merely given away for political reasons. ”

          The station at 130th is purely political. ST technical staff advised against the station based on the fact that it wouldn’t add any new riders to the system (as in zero new riders). ST management then added it in anyhow purely to buy an ST3 endorsement from one particular politician.

          This is well understood, but what happened next is equally bad. ST designed, and is currently building, a shell of a station. No parking structure, no bus infrastructure, no significant zoning changes, etc, etc, etc.

          My understanding is that the decision not to build a parking structure was based on the fact that ridership is expected to be so low that a parking structure isn’t warranted. Ouch! That is a pretty damning statement.

          The other odd thing about the station is that it is a purely residential type station, but I know of no plans for an RPZ around it. All of the other areas around stations near residential neighborhoods in Seattle have RPZ’s, and I know a very significant RPZ is already planned for the area around Judkins Park Station.

          Local politicians have been very serious about RPZ’s. But at 130th? Crickets.

          And the lack of bus infrastructure is equally as bad. No layover space, no turning loop, and only one street to operate on. Compared to any other residential type station the difference is glaring. Just compare the bus infrastructure at any LLE to what is being built at 130th. The station at 130th is clearly under designed.

          And only one bus is planned, and only at 15 min frequency peak.

          It’s a shame.

      23. The station at 130th is purely political.

          That is ridiculous. There is a stronger case for a station there than anywhere else on Lynnwood Link. It isn’t that complicated. Start by looking at a map. Like it or not, they built Lynnwood Link next to the freeway. There are no major communities close to the freeway anywhere north of Northgate. Therefore, the only way to get a substantial number of riders is via crossing bus service. The 130th corridor has more density than any other east-west corridor. There are no parallel corridors nearby (the closest is 145th which is 1.2 km away). As you go north from Northgate Station it is the second corridor you reach (the first is Northgate Way). The vast majority of trips on transit in the region will involve trips to the south. Therefore, it is closer to those trips.

          Thus it is has more proximity and density than other corridor. Density and proximity are key aspects of transit ridership (https://humantransit.org/basics/the-transit-ridership-recipe). Anyone with even a basic understanding of transit fundamentals understands why a station at 130th is essential. You have it backwards. The fact that it wasn’t included in the initial planning was political. People shouldn’t have to fight for obvious additions in the system (e. g. a station at First Hill). Yet they do, because Sound Transit planning is flawed. If you doubt this, ask yourself why they plan on running trains from Issaquah to South Kirkland but aren’t building a train from Ballard to the UW (despite their own research suggesting the latter would be the most cost effective addition to the system).

      24. ST designed, and is currently building, a shell of a station. No parking structure, no bus infrastructure, no significant zoning changes, etc, etc, etc.

          There is no need for parking. We have a surplus of parking at nearby stations. They tried to get rid of parking at Northgate but couldn’t (for legal reasons). There is also lots of parking at 148th.

          The zoning changes are happening, but they are being delayed by a mayor who is likely a lame duck (and the main reason he is a lame duck is because he hasn’t changed zoning fast enough). But even with the conservative mayor and council there are plans for upzones around the station. You know that, but you continue to pretend to be ignorant on the subject.

          My understanding is that the decision not to build a parking structure was based on the fact that ridership is expected to be so low that a parking structure isn’t warranted. Ouch! That is a pretty damning statement.

          Again, you are trying to mislead people. People have explained several times that Seattle has no interest in building new park and ride lots. I realize you are don’t understand much about Link (just as you don’t understand much about transit in general) but with a cursory examination of the stations you should have realized that. Sound Transit has not built any park and ride lots in Seattle. The only park and ride lots in Seattle are leftovers (e. g. Green Lake).

          The other odd thing about the station is that it is a purely residential type station, but I know of no plans for an RPZ around it.

          A simple search led to this. I see a pattern here. You make a claim that is false and then pretend to be ignorant.

          And the lack of bus infrastructure is equally as bad. No layover space, no turning loop

          The pattern continues. There will be bus stops. There will be some bus lanes. Not as much as I would like, but there will be bus infrastructure. There will also be a turnaround and layover spot for access vans.

          As for layover space for metro buses, it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t make sense for a regular bus route to end there. That is obvious but I’ll try and explain it to you (again). The station is in the middle of an east-west corridor. Thus a bus would serve it and keep going, ending either at the east or west end. This has been explained to you multiple times and you keep ignoring it and claiming that it is problem. You are like someone complaining that a submarine won’t have screen doors.

          and only one street to operate on.

          Wrong again. I know you like to plead ignorance when making these false statements, but in this case, just look at a freakin’ map. The station is at 130th & 5th NE. Thus it can be served by buses running on 130th or 5th. Thus there are two streets, not one. This makes it quite similar to every other station Lynnwood Link station. But given the one-way nature of 5th between 130th and 145th it is most like 148th station.

          And only one bus is planned, and only at 15 min frequency peak.

          OK, for once you made a true statement. The use of the word “peak” is misleading (of course) as it implies that midday frequency will be worse. It won’t be. But the fact remains that Metro plans on only running the 77 there. In my opinion (and the opinion of lots of people including a retired planner I know) the routing for the area is flawed. Don’t you agree? Or are you saying that Metro is doing a wonderful job when it comes to planning (or anything else)? If so, I’ll book an ice skating trip to Hell.

          Either way, in the opinion of many of us in this blog, Metro did a poor job with the restructure. There should be better service to the station. But as I’m sure you realize, but routes can change. Just because Metro fails to route buses properly in one restructure doesn’t mean they won’t eventually do the right thing. Just look at the 61. They planned on sending a bus from Greenwood to Lake City back when they did the original planning for Northgate Link. But it wasn’t until Lynnwood Link that they finally ran the bus there. Metro can always be trusted to do the right thing, once all other possibilities have been exhausted*.

          *That quote has been attributed to Churchill (talking about America) but there is no evidence that he actually said it. I like to fact check my statements. You might do the same sometime.

      25. “… , in the opinion of many of us in this blog, Metro did a poor job with the restructure…”

          Metro planned a restructure that best suits Metro operations and rider demand. Their main objective is not to generate riders at Pinehurst Station. Why serve it when buses can also get to Northgate pretty fast and there are many more reasons for locals to go to that station area anyway? And Metro has to provide layover space for buses so drivers can rest or take a restroom break which are provided at the next stations both just north and south of Pinehurst. Metro often needs places to end routes too so that they can turn around. Metro developed the restructure as a response to the cards that were dealt, as they should.

          If 125th/ 130th was a street lined with regional retail, medical offices, dense apartments and such, the corridor would be a no-brainer east-west bus transit trunk — but it’s not. With the announced closure of Fred Meyer in Lake City, the potential of a trunk need is eroded even further. And Seattle has had 9 years (since ST3 vote) now to propose something more urban for the station area and the corridor — meanwhile Shoreline has made great efforts to plan a busier station area.

          And there are a ton of low-income areas that are also just a mile from Link stations all over Seattle — yet no one tries to claim that a Link station is justified because of that. No one says that Alaska Junction Station is justified mainly because High Point is a mile away, for example. Had the Link tracks branched to Lake City Way it would have been a valid reason — but being a mile away makes that argument moot.

          As the station gets closer to opening day, the sentiment of both Metro and the City remain seemingly unmotivated. Even ST has designed the bare minimum of a station and no agency reviewing the plans pushed for something significantly more, indicating little interest in making it attract more riders. It now looks like the station won’t generate many riders because the building blocks of ridership (based on the way people get to and from a station) just aren’t in place and aren’t planned for the future.

          All the childish clapping in the world like Peter Pan while believing and chanting “Pinehurst has the strongest potential” won’t magically make the station well-utilized by Link riders. Instead, it takes all governmental organizations actively making major changes to the things that generate more ridership to attract more riders.

      26. Metro planned a restructure that best suits Metro operations and rider demand.

          Right. The planners are perfect. They never make mistakes and I can dunk on LeBron James.

          Their main objective is not to generate riders at Pinehurst Station.

          Yeah, no shit. No one said otherwise. How ridiculous. What a crazy straw man argument.

          Why serve it when buses can also get to Northgate pretty fast and there are many more reasons for locals to go to that station area anyway?

          Because it takes a very long time to get to Northgate and plenty of people just want to get to Link. Using your logic there is no reason for Lynnwood Link. Just run the buses to Northgate.

          And Metro has to provide layover space for buses so drivers can rest or take a restroom break which are provided at the next stations both just north and south of Pinehurst.

          Who said otherwise? Again with a ridiculous straw man. I’ve written dozens of restructure proposals. I’ve worked with high-level Metro planners in making these maps. Every proposal uses existing layovers! Of course it does. The only time it doesn’t I specifically call for a new layover. Every proposal I’ve made in the comments and the vast majority of suggestions by otherwise include layovers. When someone writes “send the 75 to Bitter Lake via Pinehurst” they of course mean using the existing layovers there.

          Metro developed the restructure as a response to the cards that were dealt, as they should.

          The point is they played their cards poorly. Just look at the 333. It is one of the few frequent buses in Shoreline. Most buses run every half hour midday — it runs every fifteen minutes. Yet it is a clearly flawed route. It reverses directions (going east, then west). The northern section is particularly flawed. From Shoreline College it goes up to 175th and then crosses the freeway (where traffic is worse). It then goes all the way to 15th and heads north. Thus it seems to be going way out of its way to miss the 185th Station! WTF? For a lot of people this means a tough choice. Either you ride the bus the wrong direction (all the way up to Mountlake Terrace) or you ride the bus west to Shoreline College, wait for it to loop around and then head back east. For example look at the options for trying to get from 175th & Aurora (one of the few places along the corridor where service that frequent is justified) to Capitol Hill: . The fastest option is to walk ten blocks and catch the 348. The 333 is irrelevant if you are in a hurry despite serving that very stop. The best option with “Less Walking” is to take the 333 but it is only one minute faster than taking the E Line to downtown and then a bus back to Capitol Hill! Again, WTF?

          This is one of the many flaws with the Lynnwood Link routing. Of course this is a judgement call. That is the nature of any restructure. But it is absurd to assume that the Metro planners are doing a wonderful job given the various restructures the last few years. Remember, they originally proposed running a bus on 80th as well as a bus on 85th. This is not only a stupid idea — it is in clear violation of their own policies! It was only after people pointed this out that they changed the routing.

          It is not like the Lynnwood Link restructure is an anomaly. The restructure for the RapidRide G is also flawed. Again, this is a judgement call. I argue all the time over various routes with an experienced planner from Metro. There is no plan that will satisfy everyone. But we both agree that the planning of late has sucked. It is full of flaws that in turn have led to poor ridership. I know many of the problems are due to lack of funding, but it is also quite clear that Metro planning is part of the problem as well.

          Which brings up back to Pinehurst Station. At one point the plan was to run the 65 there. This would have been a decent choice and resulted in good ridership without a lot of extra cost. But then the Metro planners realized that Sound Transit was going to stop running the 522 on Lake City Way. This suggests a clear lack of professionalism (how the hell could they have not noticed this?). So at the last minute they tried to figure out how to backfill service. There are a number of good options, the simplest of which is to just run a bus from Lake City (Fred Meyer) to the U-District. That is basically the plan but then they decided to run the 65 on its current pathway. They needed to run a bus to Pinehurst and decided to pick about the worst possible bus — the new 77. The result is a route that is clearly flawed (for reasons that should be obvious when you think about it). But it isn’t the only flaw.

          Lake City is a mess. The 65 and 72 will both serve 148th Station but on slightly different pathways. This means that the riders along Lake City Way that might be interested in just going along the corridor a mile or two have to pick a bus stop. Meanwhile, you have three buses running along 145th: The 65, 72 and 522. That is overkill, but the worst part is, none of them keep going west! If you are headed to Shoreline College from Lake City you have to transfer in the middle of nowhere. You miss the connection to the most frequent buses in the area (the 5 and RapidRide E). Remember that rider at 175th & Aurora? Not only does it suck to get to any Link destination, it sucks to get to the north end of Lake City. The rider is again forced to go the wrong direction on the 333 before transferring to one of the three buses that run along 145th. Why the hell can’t they just hop on the E and take a bus that goes straight across? Because neither Metro nor ST cares about them (or they simply don’t know what they are doing). At least the 77 will go all the way across — it is after it reaches Lake City that it is flawed.

          Oh, and this costs extra money! It is worth noting that the 75 will come close to the Pinehurst Station. But like the 333 (and 185th Station) it won’t really serve it. It is just far enough away to make it not worth it (especially if they don’t add any bus stops). The obvious solution is to send the 75 to Bitter Lake. This would save money!Existing riders would save about ten minutes on their connection to Link. The same is true with the 77 but a lot more riders would be able to take advantage of this connection. If you are at the east part of Lake City you could ride the 75 and get to Link much faster than you would if you went the other way. The same is true even as you get to Sand Point Way. Taking the 75 south and then taking Link takes a really long time. Pretty much everyone north of 65th on the 75 would have a much faster connection to Link. Thus you would have better service *and* save money.

          But that is just a simple example of the flawed routing in the area. Again consider someone in Lake City, trying to get to Link. They can get to Link several ways. But the options that are more frequent are the worst! There will be two buses to UW Station. These are slow and require a lot of walking. Or they can take one of two buses up to 148th. This is not particularly fast and it is the wrong direction for the vast majority of riders. Riders can take the 75 to Northgate but that is really slow. They can take the 61 to Northgate but it is only a bit faster. The fastest option is to head west on 125th to Pinehurst. The second fastest option is to head south on Lake City Way to Roosevelt. But Metro is only running one bus to those stations (despite being by far the fastest options) and it is barely skirting Lake City! If you are up by Fred Meyer you have to catch the bus towards 148th (or walk a long ways). If you in the east part of Lake City you have to catch the 65 up to 148th or the 75 as it slogs to Northgate. It is just bad routing.

          But that could change. I will be very surprised if the 333 looks the way it does now in a few years. Likewise it is quite possible that either Metro planners get better at their job or we hire Walker and Associates to give us a big makeover. Either way we would have a better network and that includes better service to Pinehurst Station.

      27. “Most Lynnwood Link jurisdictions are actively promoting fundamental land use changes that should grow ridership in coming years except near the Pinehurst Station (Seattle).”

          Seattle is planning to upzone the Pinehurst station area. It announced that over a year ago. It just got folded into the Comprehensive Plan so it’s waiting for that to be completed. It will be a small village but it will be something.

          “The station at 130th is purely political. ST technical staff advised against the station based on the fact that it wouldn’t add any new riders to the system (as in zero new riders). ST management then added it in anyhow purely to buy an ST3 endorsement from one particular politician.”

          You keep making this false allegation. The station got the second-most feedback for it of any aspect of Lynnwood Link. The board just ignored that, and ignored the villages west and east of it and their density. If the formula said it would gain no net riders, then the formula is obviously wrong probably. Formulas can’t always predict what people will do or whether future density will exceed assumptions. If you say it’s just one politician, you’re ignoring all the voters who wanted it, and transit best practices they’re basing their advocacy on.

      28. If 125th/ 130th was a street lined with regional retail, medical offices, dense apartments and such

          It has medical and social service offices in both Lake City and Bitter Lake. There are dense apartments in Lake City and Bitter Lake as well as some apartments in Pinehurst. There is also Ingraham High School. In short, it has more potential than any other corridor served with Lynnwood Link.

          And Seattle has had 9 years (since ST3 vote) now to propose something more urban for the station area and the corridor

          And they have! Come on man, I already linked to it. Here it is again: https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/OPCD/SeattlePlan/OneSeattlePlanZoningUpdateProposedCentersAndZoningD5.pdf#page=10. Remember, this is from a very conservative city council and mayor. It is quite possible that in the future (as our elected officials become more interested in upzoning) we will see further zoning changes.

          No one says that Alaska Junction Station is justified mainly because High Point is a mile away, for example.

          Yes they do! It is the main reason that West Seattle Link advocates use to justify the station(s). Without connecting buses it would have very few riders. Everyone knows that. The difference is that with West Seattle the buses (at best) are truncated. Riders in High Point won’t actually benefit. They will be forced to transfer. In contrast, folks in Bitter Lake will not only have a dramatically faster trip to Link but they will also have a much better bus network. They will have a one-seat ride to Lake City. The bus will cross other routes which means they will have much better two-seat options. In short, a station at Pinehurst improves the network. West Seattle Link does not.

          Oh, and there is another obvious difference. With West Seattle Link we are talking about spending over two billion dollars per station. Even with the major planning screw up the station at Pinehurst cost less than 150 million.

          Even ST has designed the bare minimum of a station

          What the hell does that mean? The station has two sets of escalators and elevators on both sides. If anything it is overbuilt. What more could they possible add? A food court? A Ferris Wheel? I really don’t see how it is any more minimal than the highest performing stations we have. There is no parking lot because it is in the city. There is no place for buses to turn around because it really doesn’t make sense as a terminus (neither does 148th but that didn’t stop ST from adding one). It doesn’t need those things because it isn’t that kind of station. Again it is like arguing that the submarine sucks because it doesn’t have screen doors.

          The fundamentals on the station are actually quite good. It is relatively close to the surface (unlike the deep bore stations and even Northgate). Ideally it would straddle 130th but it is fairly close to the street (the walk will be shorter than Lynnwood Station even if you have to cross 130th). Nor will riders have to wait as the bus makes a series of turns just to get to the station (unlike say, TIBS). It will be a straight shot from the east or west and one of the faster transfers in our system.

   3. “The remaining roughly 34% were classified as “Other”, meaning access via walk, bike, or P&R.”

      BART studies from 2015 have found that dropoff and pickup activity — from Uber/ Lyft to rides from others in the household to the occasional shuttle — has been much more significant than bicycling (as well as other ways). Some BART stations (especially suburban ones) had many dropoff shares of over 20-25% of all boardings in their 2015 study.

      At Pinehurst, I’m expecting that ST will see the main source of ridership from dropoff and pickup. There are no real walkable destinations, mostly low density residential development (or land taken up in parks or highways), just one bus route and no parking garage.

      I believe that ST should study access to the stations more. To date, they haven’t shown much interest. It would really help ST plan station layouts better as well as help other bus systems to do better route planning. And the Bluetooth location-based data analysis is getting good enough to begin to estimate how riders get to the station without actual observers or questionnaires.

      1. @Al S,

         “At Pinehurst, I’m expecting that ST will see the main source of ridership from dropoff and pickup.”

         It really is hard to say, but as they say, “don’t draw big conclusions from small numbers.”

         And 130th is sort of a hard place to understand for drop off type ridership. The only N-S street near the station is northbound only, and the freeway access is southbound only. So what kind of commute pattern would generate significant ridership given those constraints is a bit hard to understand.

         I do expect Uber type pickup activity at Pinehurst, but mainly just because transferring from Link to a 15 min bus will be problematic for a lot of people.

         “There are no real walkable destinations,”

         Across the freeway and at the corner of Roosevelt and First there is a Shell station. Maybe they have day-old weenies rolling on one of those roller grills. One can only hope.

      2. I believe that ST should study access to the stations more.

         Yeah, sure, but the bigger problem is making assumptions that turn out to be untrue. Pinehurst is a great example. First of all, as everyone has pointed out over and over, the key to the station is bus service. The station does not make sense as a terminus (few do, really) but as the midpoint of buses running along the east-west corridor (from Bitter Lake to Lake City). This means that the ideal layout for the station would be to straddle 130th, with entrances on both side of the street. That would allow all the riders to get off the bus and get to the platform without ever crossing the street.

         Unfortunately, they didn’t build it that way. My guess is they assumed that building it a little bit to the north would be cheaper. Fair enough. ST has made similar decisions in the past — Mount Baker being a great example. They knew that putting the station further east would have been better but that would cost more money. Fair enough.

         But as they got closer to building the Pinehurst station something interesting happened. It turns out their initial estimates were wrong. The hillside slopes more than they thought to the north. This meant that building the station was substantially more expensive than originally thought. At this point the smart thing to do would be to go back and see if straddling the station would have been cheaper (since it definitely would have been better). But they didn’t. They just went ahead and built it to the north. Making matters worse, it is overbuilt. While it is a simple station (and not extravagant) there are two sets of escalators on both sides. This is overkill. This approach would have made sense if the station straddled 130th but it doesn’t make sense now. Very few people will approach it from the north. I see the value in having an extra elevator (for redundancy) but two sets of escalators is a waste of money. Just have stairs north of the escalators (in case the escalators break down).

      3. At Pinehurst, I’m expecting that ST will see the main source of ridership from dropoff and pickup.

         I’m not sure why you think that. The other Lynnwood Link stations don’t have that many dropoff/pickup ridership or even park-and-ride ridership. They all rely on the buses. In that regard the station is excellent. Think of a bus from Lake City to Bitter Lake. The ride is short and there is lots of density. It has the most potential of all the Lynnwood Link stations other than Lynnwood itself (and that is mainly because Lynnwood pulls in riders from farther north).

         It is possible that Metro squanders that potential and never runs enough buses to Pinehurst. But even the poorly designed 77 is bound to get plenty of riders. Remember, density and proximity are two very important factors for ridership.

         What I find interesting is that all the stations are remarkably similar. What Lazarus doesn’t like about Pinehurst can be said for every Lynnwood Link Station. Consider:

         1) Every station is close to the freeway.
         2) Every station has a significant green belt or chunk of uninhabitable land nearby. Pinehurst, 148th and Mountlake Terrace have nearby golf courses. Lynnwood has a huge adjacent wetland. On the other side of the freeway from 185th Station there are big athletic fields.
         3) As a result, walk-up ridership will always be fairly small for the foreseeable future. Giant towers might help, but no one is building those. At best you have six story buildings (like Roosevelt) but the station areas will never be like Roosevelt since so much of the land is taken up by the freeway and green belts.
         4) While it is a bad idea to run trains so close to the freeway, at least they improve the network. Running trains north-south while buses run east-west is a proven way to get good overall transit ridership (see Vancouver BC).

         The only significant difference with Pinehurst Station is that it lacks parking. As Lazarus himself (a known opponent to the station) has written, that doesn’t matter. Not that many people park and ride to these stations. They take the bus and transfer to the train (call it bus and ride). Parking it’s very nature is more adaptable. Given the cost of these garages, building so many of them is a bad value. This is the big difference between park and rides and bus and rides. Someone from Bitter Lake trying to get downtown is screwed right now. There is no good way to get to a station (other than driving). The only bus option is a long, time consuming and infrequent trip to Northgate. Pinehurst Station (and the buses that serve it) will completely change that. In contrast if you are driving to the station, it really doesn’t matter. One station might be a bit more convenient but it is still very similar. I could easily see ST saving some money and simply not having parking at 185th. This would be a minor inconvenience at worst.

      4. “I’m not sure why you think that. The other Lynnwood Link stations don’t have that many dropoff/pickup ridership or even park-and-ride ridership.”

         We are all speculating. Outside of Orca taps and vaguely counting occupied spaces in the garages we don’t know how Link riders get from and to stations.

         Dropoffs are significant in BART’s station access research. If it isn’t dropoffs it pretty much would have to be bus riders. The residential walkshed is not very robust. There aren’t great walkable destinations nearby. There is no parking garage. There really aren’t any other ways to get to the station.

         You state that Metro won’t serve the station well. Both Aurora and Lake City activity and density are oriented north-south so riders are just as likely to go to the next stations (and Northgate is where the bus hub and some retail are). Plus, you’ve argued elsewhere that there isn’t a need for a service to run parallel to RapidRide E that then runs to a North Seattle Link station. So unless a resident is traveling between 120th and 140th they won’t use Pinehurst Station at all – and if they do live in that band there no more likely to use Pinehurst than they are Northgate (and Metro has lots more Lake City buses going to Northgate or Roosevelt). Plus Metro can use the stations at Northgate and Shoreline South as layover points and riders can wait for buses without having to cross a street in a well lighted area.

         If four riders on average (daylong) got off the planned bus at Pinehurst in each direction (rather doubtful) that’s only about 32 an hour (4 buses * 2 directions * 4 riders per bus) or maybe 400-500 all day.

         Even though it’s not great, dropoffs are pretty much the station’s other hope for adding riders.

   4. I would expect Metro route 67 to head to Pinehurst instead of continuing its u-turn to Northgate. I would also expect route 75 to go straight to Pinehurst rather than continuing its u-turn mere blocks blocks from Pinehurst.

      I’m pretty sure Pinehurst will draw more ridership from Northgate than from Shoreline South 148th. Simultaneously, I expect Pinehurst will induce ridership bumps on the 67 and 75.

      1. What makes you so confident Metro will reroute the 67? The counterargument would be that would bypass a regional center.

         I hope Metro will reroute the 75 to Pinehurst station like it should have done in the first place. But then why isn’t it doing it in the Pinehurst restructure? If it doesn’t do it now, will it ever? It’s the same issue as the Denny-Madison route, Broadway Nirt-South route, and the 196-Biren route that we were expecting in the G restructure but then they didn’t happen. Metro won’t say when/if it might do them.

      2. Sending the 67 to Bitter Lake (via Pinehurst and the Pinehurst Station) is quite reasonable. But I prefer combining the 67 and 348. Basically the 348 should just continue on Roosevelt Way to the U-District. Riders would retain their connection to Link (at Roosevelt Station) and connect to a much bigger destination than Northgate. This would save a considerable amount of money. Riders would still be able to get to Northgate with a transfer to the 61.

         I agree about the 75. It should go to Bitter Lake.

         If it doesn’t do it now, will it ever?

         The Metro planners make mistakes. Future planners can correct those mistakes. It has happened before. Running a bus from Greenwood to Lake City made sense with the Northgate restructure. But it didn’t happen then — it happened with a different restructure that had little to do with those areas (and was based on new stations north of the city). The important thing is that Metro at least did the right thing (eventually). Of course it would be nice if the bus route continued further west and connected to the 40 and D but a baby step in the right direction is still progress.

   5. I’m glad you have changed your mind about Pinehurst Station, Lazarus. I remember you saying that bus service to the station wasn’t that important. You either needed a lot of development nearby or a big parking lot. Everyone said that Pinehurst Station was worthy because of the potential bus connection — nice to read that you agree as well (now).

      I also agree that the initial Metro proposal for serving the station is wanting. But one great thing about bus service — it can change. In my opinion the 5 and 75 should be sent to Pinehurst. They should cross there, with the 5 ending in Lake City and the 75 ending at Shoreline College. But even the poorly designed 77 is a good start. It will do OK, given the density along the east-west corridor and proximity to the rest of the city. But eventually Metro should run more buses to the station.

      1. Ross is correct; 125th/130th should be a trunk service for buses with branching occurring at either end. Pinehurst station is well-located for that. Mike is also correct that Lake City should have been designated a regional center (it’s still one of the more densely populated neighborhoods between UW and Vancouver); since it wasn’t, upzoning here and at Bitter Lake should be more aggressive and car lots should not be seen as highest and best use in an urban neighborhood. Service on 5th should eventually be extended north of Northgate to both Shoreline stations as a Link shadow route rather than making a route take a U-turn right before it actually reaches a station.

   6. What’s wrong with Pinehurst station? It’s not the ideal station but that just comes with the I-5 routing. It’s a denser location than all stations further north, and bus connections generally look pretty promising from the E/W

      I think the biggest problem is that Seattle has dropped the ball on the comp plan. Pinehurst should have been rezoned years ago so that it could have been redeveloped now rather than in the coming years

      1. Pinehurst Station isn’t primarily for that village; it’s for the much larger villages of Lake City and Bitter Lake. Rather than leave them out of Link or making them take a long ride to Northgate station with congestion at the end, we give them Pinehurst station. It’s a transit best practice issue: all significant villages should have good access to a station in their area. Arguing against Pinehurst Station sounds like saying Lake City and Bitter Lake don’t exist. They’ll generate more ridership than Crossroads.

      2. In retrospect, Lake City should have been designated a regional center before 2007. Then it would have been must-serve by Link, and that would have changed the Lynnwood Link alignment debate. The Lake City Way alternative would have been harder to dismiss.

10. What stands out to me is how anemic ridership is on MLK. Othello does relatively well, but I tend to think that’s more because of the retail around there. Maybe that’s my own bias, because it’s the only station between Statium and Seatac that I ever have a reason to go to.

    In any case, I wish the city would upzone more around MLK. We evidently have unused Link capacity there.

    1. “Othello does relatively well, but I tend to think that’s more because of the retail around there. ”

       ST boarding data has consistently shown that Mt Baker, Columbia City and Othello boardings are all within 10 percent of each other. Othello is not a significant exception compared to the others.

       Rainier Beach is about 30 percent lower. It’s more constrained by hills and by a high voltage line corridor across Henderson from the station. That restricts where and how tall development should be as well as the walkshed as streets don’t always connect near there. It’s also a station with an exit in only one direction off of the platform.

       If I was going to look at ways to grow that, I would first look to bus transfers. In particular, a Rainier RapidRide should probably end there. It needs a semi-safe bus loading, layover and turn-around spot for buses to work well and that may be possible if ST could include a second access south of the platform. Although unlikely, additional bus service from Renton besides Routes 106 and 107 could add riders (especially Route 101 if it ended there although that’s not likely). Or maybe it can be morphed into the place where a special Museum of Flight bus or a Boeing Field bus returns goers to Link

       Other ways to grow the ridership would be to transition one of the industrial parcels near there into a medical office building (which aren’t that common next to a Link station in Seattle) if one of the big hospital chains was interested — or create a specialty retail and service village for a nearby prominent demographic — or even get Dick’s or Shake Shack or In-and-Out to put a high-volume location serving hamburgers there!

       Anyway, my bigger point isn’t proclaiming exactly what should be done at Rainier Beach. It’s simply to demonstrate that each low-ridership station should have a focused planning effort to add riders – and that building block is best defined by looking first at how people get to and from the station (or mode of access).

11. I’m working on my Parks Near Frequent Transit list, filling in the Lynnwood Link area. I’m focusing on parks that you can get to easily any time (at least Mon-Sat daytime), have woods or flowers, or have other notable features that can’t be missed (beach, large children’s area, large dog park).

    Is Scriber Lake Park finished renovating yet? It looks like a series of trails goes from there to Lynnwood station, then on the other (east) side of the station the Interurban Trail goes south to 228th St SW (CT 130 to MT station and downtown Edmonds) and terminates at 242nd St SW. Then there’s a huge gap and detour to the Interurban North trail starting at Aurora Village going south to N 110th Street in north Seattle (5 blocks north of Metro 40, 8 blocks west of the E with a small hill). Does the trail go north of Lynnwood station?

    What would be the most convenient way to get to the Interurban North trail from the 1 Line? (A) Shoreline North station + Swift Blue to Overlake Village. (B) Shoreline South station + 333 (which is 15 min) to 145th. (C) Northgate station + 40 to 105th. Maybe they’re all a wash, although A goes directly to one end of the trail.

    Parks I’m mentioning are: [Lynnwood] Scriber Lake; [MT] Veterans Memorial; [Shoreline North] Interurban North trail; [Shoreline South] Twin Ponds, Jackson; [Northgate] North Seattle College, (Northgate park has minimal interest); [Roosevelt] Ravenna; {U-District] UW campus; [UW] east Montlake fields to horticulture center, Burke-Gilman trail; [Capitol Hill] Cal Anderson, Volunteer; [Westlake] Pike Place Market/Waterfront, Seattle Center monorail; [Symphony] ferries; [Pioneer Square] Occidental, Pioneer Square; [CID] Hing Hay; [Stadium -SODO] none; [Beacon Hill] Jefferson; [Mt Baker] Mt Baker; [Columbia City – SeaTac] none; [Angle Lake] Angle Lake, infrequent van to Des Moines; [South Bellevue] Mercer Slough; [Marymoor Village] Marymoor; [Bellevue Downtown] Bellevue via route 550; [Downtown Redmond] several trails.

    Any others worth mentioning?

    1. I’m not sure what your radius from the station is, but here are a few in Rainier Valley:

       Mount Baker: MLK Memorial Park
       Columbia City: Cheasty Greenspace, Genesee Park (has a dog park), Rainier Playfield
       Graham St: Brighton Playfield
       Othello: Othello Playground, Chief Sealth Trail, Van Asselt Playground
       Rainier Beach: Chief Sealth Trail, Be’er Sheva Park, Pritchard Beach

       1. Also….

          Columbia City: Columbia Park

          Othello: John C Little Park

          Except for a few blocks, it’s possible to walk almost through all green space between Mt Baker and Columbia City Link stations. You can get off Link at Mt Baker, use the pedestrian overpass to get to Mt Baker Blvd and through Mt Baker on a trail to Lake Washington, stroll along the lake sidewalk southward to the boathouse, go through Genesee Park and by Rainier Playfields on a trail, and walk through Columbia Park to Edmunds and 36th —and you would be just a short distance from Columbia City Station.

       2. What’s MLK Memorial Park? Is that the one around the Columbia City library?

          I walked through Genesee Park a couple years ago from the waterfront to Columbia City station, and was unimpressed it seemed to be just a huge blank lawn and decaying. So what’s worth mentioning about it? Likewise, I’ve been to Cheasty Boulevard Park a couple times but didn’t find much of interest there.

          My radius is a normal 10- or 20-minute walk circle, though a frequent feeder bus or a large park can boost its chances.

          The goal of the list is to answer the question, “I want to go somewhere for a couple hours or a short visit; where can I go besides the same few places I always go; what’s relatively easy to get to and would work if I only want to spend an hour or two including getting there and back.”

12. Some takeaways from the data:

    1) As expected, north of Northgate there isn’t much ridership between stations. There aren’t a lot of people taking the train from say, 185th to Lynnwood or 148th to Mountlake Station. This is common in the suburbs. People tend to take transit “into the city” but not within the northern suburbs.

    2) In contrast there are a lot of people taking a “short hop” to the airport. It would not surprise me if a lot of these people work at the airport or are airport commuters. Given there isn’t that much development close to the station, some people transfer from other buses while others use the free parking as a cheap and fast way to get to the airport.

    3) There is plenty of bidirectional travel in Rainier Valley, including Rainier Beach. This means a fair number of people from Rainier Beach are taking the train south (towards Tukwila/SeaTac) or vice-versa.

    4) Capitol Hill is a 50/50 station. It gets about as many riders heading north as heading south. This isn’t too surprising, given that Capitol Hill is both a significant destination and has a lot of residential density.

    5) Ridership is not all about employment. Capitol Hill is the third highest station in terms of ridership and not that many people work there. This supports the “everywhere to everywhere” idea of transit, especially within an urban area. As you move towards the suburbs this approach makes less sense, although the airport stands as a clear exception.

13. It’s water under the bridge now, but it’s too bad that Lynnwood Link’s station was built so far away from the bus turnaround or the latter wasn’t moved closer. For the able-bodied, who transit planners design for, not much of a problem, but for the lesser-abled, it’s a long distance, similar to those encountered at Sea-Tac’s Link station-though that one’s covered-and at Paine Field (from Swift Green BRT).

    1. I agree. ST put the parking very close to the station and the bus stops far away. That is backwards. A better setup is at Roosevelt. There is a park and ride but it is several blocks away. The bus stops are closer to the station. Of course that is mostly luck. 185th is probably a better example of a good bus to train connection (although I’ve never used it). Originally the parking was going to be on the other side of the freeway with the bus stops closer to the station (https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/project-documents/NE185thSitePlan_2016_1103_OpenHouseBoards.pdf). But that turned to be too expensive so they built the parking lot close to the station and managed to run the buses on top (which means they are still close to the station). That is a good setup.

14. Data is not accurate! Data shows Lynnwood Station having many Northbound boardings. That is the northernmost end of the line and line does not go north of there. Notice how Angel Lake has almost zero Southbound boardings as it should being the southernmost end of the line.

    1. Less than a hundred is not “many”. We were unable to confirm with ST by publication time the reason it’s more than zero. The author said in a comment the data came from the Automated Passenger Counters that sense people crossing the door threshold. Those don’t know the difference between passengers and staff, somebody standing in the doorway, or luggage that looks like a person. But they’re still mostly accurate, enough to see the general trends and order of magnitude.

    2. Data is not accurate!

       We mentioned that! Read the post! Also read the first comment! I don’t know why we are using exclamation points!!!

       Seriously, it was mentioned in the post as well as the first comment (which the post referenced). A lot of the early comments delved into why this could have happened. Long story short, the data is not exact. That is the nature of most data. If you think you know exactly how many people live in Seattle, you are wrong. Or as you like to put it: Wrong! On the other hand we do have a pretty rough idea.

15. What is the cost per rider that we are taxed for.

Comments are closed.