Local Transit & Land Use:

National News:

Commentary & Miscellaneous:

This is an Open Thread.

64 Replies to “Midweek Roundup: first train ever”

  1. So, what is the plan when future construction work requires Link to single-track downtown after the full 2 line is already open? If combined frequency through downtown needs to be reduced to every 15 minutes, that’s one train every 30 minutes on each branch, which would be quite terrible.

    Another option could be to run the 1-line every 15 minutes and truncate the 2-line at Judkins Park, with shuttle buses to downtown. Which would be pretty bad, but there’s enough planned bus alternatives that it seems you could mitigate the impact if people know about the disruption back at Bellevue Transit Center (for example, to go to Capitol Hill, they could take the 270 to the southbound Link, rather than deal with the shuttle buses to catch the northbound Link, or, to go to the airport, they could just take the STRIDE bus to TIBS and ride the 1-line one stop, avoiding Seatle completely).

    Considering that such disruptions, when they do happen, are probably going to be on weekends, it would help considerably if Metro did not cheap out on the 270’s weekend frequency, as they currently plan to do (proposed: 30-60 minutes, yucch!). The 554 is another wildcard – we’ll know soon, whether the new route is expected to extend to the U-district.

    1. My guess is that they’ll just truncate the 2 Line at Judkins Park, using the big siding they built west of the station, and use buses to get riders in/out of downtown.

      1. Or, they turn back *most* trains at Judkins Park and alternate between 1 and 2 Line trains when single-tracking in Downtown.

      1. A second tunnel would not help as currently planned. There will still be trains every 4-5 minutes in the DSTT. In ST3, ST promised trains every 3 minutes — a promise that doesn’t appear to me mentioned in the report.

        Also, ST is designing the SODO segment in such a way that prevents easy track switching if there’s an obstruction in DSTT or the new tunnel.

        In other words, the lack of crossovers flagged in the report is also a problem with the planned DSTT2.

      2. The second tunnel is also some 9 floors below the existing tunnel. By the time you’ve gone all the way down, taken the train a few blocks, then come all the way back up, you might as well have taken a surface bus.

      3. Sorry to pile on, but the second tunnel won’t help much. That is one of the many flaws with it. As Al mentioned, the trains won’t be able to switch between tunnels. At best it provides an alternative for part of the journey but only if the breakdown occurs *between* Westlake and SoDo. For example imagine trains from the north can’t serve Westlake. They are turning back at Capitol Hill in the north and Symphony at the south. The second train tunnel doesn’t help in the least. Likewise if you are coming from Bellevue and there is a problem at CID (causing trains to turn back at Judkins Park) the second tunnel doesn’t help. You are going to have to take a bus from Judkins Park.

        A system that provides better overall coverage is often more resilient. For example imagine we built the Metro 8 subway. This means a train line that runs from Mount Baker to Judkins Park, then several stops in the Central Area before connecting to Capitol Hill (and then South Lake Union). Now consider those scenarios again. In the first example, the rider from the south end transfer to the other train in Mount Baker. This allows them to bypass the shutdown in downtown and quickly get to Capitol Hill, which may very well be their destination. If they are traveling farther (e. g. the UW) then it still works. If they are headed downtown, then a fast and frequent 7 would be very effective. Likewise someone coming from the East Side would make the same transfer at Judkins Park.

        Or imagine we build a train line from Ballard to the UW. We use small, automated trains that run frequently. Thus riders from Ballard have two ways to get downtown. They can continue to take the RapidRide D Line or take the train to the U-District and transfer. If there is something wrong with the train they will take the bus. If there is something wrong with the bus they can take the train. Even though the main benefit from such a network is not resilience, it has plenty of it anyway.

      1. Other cities have made this mistake — and had to live with them for years until they got fixed — and some still aren’t fixed.

        SF Muni Metro was probably the worst. When trains started in the 1970’s, the operation was easier as train cars from five different lines were often attached while running through the tunnel. As use increased and new vehicles were ordered it became harder to combine lines. It used to jam up so bad that it could take a train 20-30 minutes just to go from Van Ness to Embarcadero (rather than 6-7 minutes). They had to combine a loop turn around at a huge cost (like $1B) into the project when they extended Metro southward to Mission Bay. They also installed an expensive new signal system to let trains get closer and that has its own disastrous saga.

        The recent Chicago CTA Red-Brown modernization project includes fixing the crossover north of Belmont that was a major bottleneck. Even though they had four tracks to work with, they didn’t have a way to get across tracks without stopping trains. It bogged down the system for decades.

        BART was built without crossovers between 24th/ Mission and west of Embarcadero. BART has repeatedly studied the problem since opening in SF as any disruption can create massive delays. At the initial planning, the tracks carried three lines — and when the unanticipated fourth line got added through the Transbay tube it worsened. The fixes are so difficult and expensive that they’re never programmed even decades later. After many awful train delays, BART operations is acutely aware of how to identify ir avoid any problem and how to respond (learned over years of dealing with it) when they have it.

        In other countries, platform screen doors or gates are sometimes added. It cuts down on disruptions for lots of reasons. They still have problems but they’re not as frequent.

        While the HNTB report is noteworthy, it actually is not comprehensive. They could have identified lots more problems and solutions.

        Every system is different. I’m thinking that there are plenty of examples where cost-cutting was done to make budgets work — and that created significant reliability problems later.

      2. Some of this is also scheduling.

        Eg; when TriMet needed to single track the West Hills tunnel a few months back, the required work started at 10:30 pm and wrapped up by 4:30 am every night. This meant only the very early and very late trains were impacted, when frequency wasn’t really that frequent anyway.

        The work probably took longer and was more expensive than had they done day work, but nobody was really impacted that much.

        As best as I can tell, that’s how they’re rebuilding the 82nd Ave MAX station too. Service was disrupted for a day or two while they installed the temporary replacement station, and now the project is going just fine, with no real disruptions for anyone.

    4. “what is the plan when future construction work requires Link to single-track downtown after the full 2 line is already open?”

      We don’t know because ST hasn’t said.

      The last several single-trackings have been 12 minutes, so I don’t see it going down to 15. And ST has gradually realized that the north end needs more service, Sometimes ST has announced low frequency both north of Westlake and south of SODO, but then changed it mind at the last minute and increased frequency north of Westlake. Maybe that will also get it to just close DSTT rather than single-tracking it to 30-40 minute horrors.

      “it would help considerably if Metro did not cheap out on the 270’s weekend frequency”

      Metro is trying to distribute a limited number of service hours, as you have said several times. What other routes should it cut to get service up to 30 minutes, when almost all other Eastside routes are also running every 30-60 minutes then? And it seems to be based on a premise that there will also be a 2 Line alternative, which there isn’t now. That won’t help north Bellevue Way (an area I care about, and don’t want to see it have no better frequency than the 249 has now), but it will help people near the transit center.

    5. “Another option could be to run the 1-line every 15 minutes and truncate the 2-line at Judkins Park”

      My suggestion is to put a surface station just south of 4th and Jackson and terminate Line 2 at Jackson if needed. They already have the ramps in place, being used for construction.

  2. What needs to happen with the 4 line is an extension to totem lake, Costco HQ, and Issaquah Highlands. It should also stop at South Bellevue to facilitate quick transfers for riders going to downtown Seattle. Also can we get link extended north to South kirkland sooner?

    1. Spot on. The planned 4 Line is just the stub of the east side Kirkland – Bellevue – Issaquah trunk line. And the additional extensions needed to get to the activity centers at either end someday will be predominately surface running. Shades of the downtown Redmond extension.

    2. If it wasn’t for crossing Mercer Slough, the 4 Line would probably stop at South Bellevue. The South Bellevue Station has a center platform (better for transfers) and East Main does not. I’ve found the alignment to be a hollow reasoning as the current plan still crosses Mercer Slough anyway. It’s just that the public traveling on I-90 won’t see it. It’s certainly possible upon a thorough analysis that crossing at I-90 is less impactful to the environment.

      ST studies show projected low ridership at South Kirkland as now configured. Meanwhile, Metro and Eastside cities intend to open RapidRide K in the next five years that will not only make the connection pretty fast but will also provide direct service to Downtown Kirkland, Totem Lake and Bellevue College at a high frequency. Your wish about South Kirkland is being granted — but with a bus rather than a train.

      1. So we can’t get a train to cut through but it’s okay for a highway to do so. Got it.

      3. ST has. The plan currently is for 4 Line to cross up near SE 8th. But it’s still wetlands there.

      4. The highway was built in the 1940s before the environmental laws so it’s grandfathered in. The P&R and Bellefields office park are also grandfathered. Link doesn’t have that.

    3. What needs to happen with the 4 line is an extension to totem lake, Costco HQ, and Issaquah Highlands.

      This would be much better, but increase the cost quite a bit. Maybe you get twice as many riders but you double the cost. It still isn’t a good value.

      The best thing to do is stop pretending that a second subway line makes sense for the East Side. It doesn’t. The destinations are too spread out and they certainly aren’t linear. What you need instead is some new bus infrastructure and service to take advantage of it. The most important improvement (in my opinion) is to connect the HOV lanes of 405 to I-90. This would allow a bus to serve the Eastlake freeway station and then go to Downtown Bellevue without ever leaving the HOV lanes. Another improvement would be to run buses on the Cross Kirkland Corridor (the article mentions this). At that point it is easiest to think in terms of tiny segments, like the following:

      1) Highlands to Eastgate Freeway Station.
      2) Olde Town Issaquah to Eastgate Freeway Station.
      3) Crossroads to Bellevue College to Eastgate Freeway Station.
      4) Eastgate Freeway Station to Downtown Bellevue.
      5) Eastgate Freeway Station to Mercer Island.
      6) Downtown Bellevue to Kirkland via 405.
      7) Downtown Bellevue to Kirkland and Totem Lake via CKC.

      Then it is matter of plugging these together. For example:

      a) Highlands to Eastgate to Mercer Island.
      b) Highlands to Eastgate to Downtown Bellevue.
      c) Overlake to Eastgate to Mercer Island.

      Think infrastructure, then routing. It is like the Downtown Bus Tunnel. Metro didn’t know exactly what buses would run it but it knew a lot of them could. It completely changed transit in this city and was probably the best value in transit we’ve ever built.

    4. I think the following lines would do great things in the East side:

      1. SeaTac to Bothell (5 Line): SeaTac, Tukwila, Renton, Newcastle, Factoria, Eastgate, South Bellevue, Bellevue Downtown, Spring District, Kirkland Downtown/Totem Lake, Woodinville, Bothell Fwy Station, UW Bothell

      2. Issaquah to UW (4 Line, revised): Issaquah Highlands, Central Issaquah, Costco HQ, Lake Mont, Eastgate, Bellevue Downtown, Spring District, South Kirkland, UW

      And…
      2+5 Line riders can get to UW with a transfer at Spring District.

      Basically you can get between any major city and many employers in the Eastside, as well as the airport in just two seat rides pretty efficiently.

      1. Also I guess my proposed 5 Line should probably go to Lynnwood (and some transfer point from the Everett Line) as well to replace 532/535 service.

  3. Could it make sense to open Pinehurst station before the 2 line extension so that there is less closures and construction?

    1. I don’t know if it will be ready by then. Last I heard it was sometime in 2026. That could be before or after the 2 Line’s latest April estimate.

  4. “Reportedly about 7% of the airport’s daily passengers arrive and depart via Link.”

    I note that this doesn’t include employees who ride.

    The numbers of boardings at SeaTac have really boosted since Lynnwood Link opened. The extension may be why — but it could also see it as a coincidence because I’m hearing that Uber/Lyft trips to and from SeaTac have gotten lots more expensive.

    Are people changing planes in the denominator?

    The percentage will tick up a tad once Federal Way Link opens — and possibly when East Link opens too. Traffic seems worse too. I see that number reaching 9 or 10 percent in the next year.

    I’m even hearing how some people are now getting out of cars in front of SeaTac Link station on Pacific Highway and walking through the station to get into the airport these days.

    1. Yes, employees have long used SeaTac airport station to get picked up/dropped off for work. Now some passengers, though not a large number, are doing the same.

      Pro-tip for Uber out of SEA: my gf and I live in Cap Hill & Ballard. When we arrive SeaTac late in the evening and dont want to deal with transfers & walking, we’ll take Link to Tukwila Intl Blvd. Then order an Uber from there. The cost is usually 50% less than from the airport’s ridiculous surge price.

    2. I went on an Alaskan cruise this spring. When a British passenger found out I was from Seattle, she told me she absolutely loved taking Link from Sea-Tac to her downtown Seattle hotel for a mere $3. I’ve also seen some cruise vloggers raving about Link when flying from elsewhere and getting to the ship.

      Al Roker even posted an Instagram reel about Link. He had a four-hour layover in Seattle, but instead of cooling his heels in Sea-Tac, he hopped on Link, enjoyed one of the nice eateries in Pike Place Market, and took Link back to the airport for his flight home.

      (BTW, the British woman cracked up when I told her about our “Jesus Christ Made Seattle Under Protest” mnemonic on the south-to-north names of our major downtown streets.)

    3. It’s also not clear whether that 7% number includes passengers who never leave the airport as they connect between flights. I’ve previously had trouble disentangling the airport’s arrivals/departures passenger volumes from the number of people actually entering/exiting the airport via surface transportation.

      1. The Port reports the TSA screenings and that is a good way to not count people changing planes in the ratio.

        https://www.portseattle.org/page/airport-statistics

        It looks like they screen about 70 K people on an average day ( but with big fluctuations).

        The total SeaTac Link Station boardings are at roughly 12 K. However a good share of those are airport workers or going to nearby hotels. So 7 percent may be low by a tad but it’s hard to know.

        ST really needs more station profile research.

    4. “I’m even hearing how some people are now getting out of cars in front of SeaTac Link station on Pacific Highway and walking through the station to get into the airport these days.”

      I did it a few months ago coming from the airport. The reason being that it saves a considerable amount of money by avoiding the airport pickup fee. (Still far more expensive than public transportation, though).

      Going to the airport, this approach can be faster, due to avoiding congestion on the road leading to the main drop-off area.

  5. Why does single tracking happen so often in the downtown tunnel vs in other tunneled segments? Is it because of how the tracks are embedded in the concrete? How much effort would it require to install crossovers in the downtown tunnel, or change the rails to be like the other tunneled segments?

    1. It’s hard to guess why single-tracking in the original DSTT seems to be more common than in the Westlake to Northgate segment. My guess is that the lack of crossovers makes any single-tracking event more impactful than a single-tracking event in other segments, so we’d have to do some data analysis to figure out if the DSTT actually breaks more often than other segments.

      However, construction of crossover tracks between Stadium and Westlake would be extremely difficult, and have major impacts on DSTT operations for the entire construction period. The “easiest” way would be to expand the footprint of an existing station. To do that, ST would have to either shut down 3rd avenue for months/years to dig down from the surface, or mine laterally from inside a station box.

      If it’s true that the embedment of the rails in the floor of the DSTT is a source of problems, then fixing it would require either lowering the floor of the tunnel via demolition, or building new plinths on top of the concrete floor (which would also require building up the station platforms and redoing all the stairs/escalators/etc.). Building new track on top of the floor may not even be feasible if there isn’t enough clearance beneath the station mezzanines and the top of the tunnels.

      1. Why not put the crossover inside the station itself? the DSTT stations have that extra space between the platforms.

      2. Because then you can’t use the platforms of that station if the crossover is being used.

      3. Probably because the station would become completely unusable while the crossover track were in use. Which station would be reasonable to completely shut down during single-tracking operations for the benefit of reducing single-track headways by a few minutes? That’s a hard bargain to make.

        I feel like Tom Terrific has also commented in the past about the limitations of putting crossover “scissors” within existing station boxes, so maybe he’ll have more a more informative answer.

      4. Many of the single-tracking events are on weekends when Symphony station doesn’t have office workers. Of course, it’s now the transfer point for RapidRide G, so that could be a hardship if it’s closed. But the only other station I could see that could do it would be Pioneer Square. And that has the 3/4 to Harborview. Still, ST does close the downtown tunnel in spite of these, and it could have a 3-station van shuttle to the affected transfers.

        The DSTT was built in the 1980s to decades-old standards. That’s probably the reason for some of the single-trackings. It’s not always because the track itself is broken. There’s also these mysterious “signal issues” that keep popping up.

      5. The study recommends examining further study of options in the DSTT for an additional crossover.

        Surely there would be design challenges that may or may not be possible to overcome. Thru may make it infeasible. However, we shouldn’t dismiss the idea without further study. It’s better than a disruption that would eliminate train service entirely.

        One other quick fix could be to purchase a small fleet of articulated battery buses to operate on one side of the DSTT during longer disruptions. I’m not sure how they would turn around or impact the tracks and catenaries — but something like that could hopefully work in an emergency.

  7. Re: single tracking, here’s an idea that I haven’t heard yet: just close Symphony, Pioneer Square, and Stadium. Each removed stop saves about 2 min (you can calculate this by comparing the scheduled time to the time it takes the travel the distance at-speed), so this would save about 6 minutes per direction, 12 minutes between trips in the same direction. And the downtown stops are certainly within walking distance of each other.

    If my calculations are correct, that should be enough to run both the 1 Line and 2 Line at 20 minute frequencies downtown: first a southbound 1 Line train, quickly followed (say 2 minutes later) by a 2 Line train, then once both clear the downtown tunnel, both northbound trains similarly. There can be an overlay non-downtown so that every other train turns around, providing 10-minute service outside of downtown.

  8. Everything about line 4 is a mess; I agree it’s not worth the investment. As the article mentions, it will bypass downtown Issaquah & Kirkland. If line 2 has taught us anything, it’s that well located stations near housing and businesses do well (downtown Redmond), while freeway stations lag far behind.

    Then there’s the poor connection to Line 2 for those wanting to continue along the I-90 corridor into downtown Seattle. Line 4 should have met with Line 2 at South Bellevue and then interlined through Bellevue. Would have been a MUCH better connection to Seattle and would have save costs by not having parallel lines on either side of I-90 without any stations.

    2. The 4 Line doesn’t “bypass” downtown Kirkland and Issaquah any more than the 2 Line “bypassed” downtown Redmond in ST2. It just stops short on both ends. That issue has a straightforward fix: future at-grade extensions, just like Redmond.

      Agreed of course on the poor planned connection at East Main, advocating for a South Bellevue connection is the right thing to do.

      1. @Jackson

        I don’t see how an extension of Line 4 happens without another ST measure and another decade or two of construction. That would be the 2050s or 2060s at best, and it isn’t guaranteed that will happen at all.

        It would be like if ST2 ended at South Bellevue to set up for a future Bellevue extension. Or if we built a streetcar line that stopped just short of downtown Seattle and UW with the expectation of extending it later (hah).

      2. The 4 Line was always intended to serve downtown Kirkland. It was just the three-way controversy in south Kirkland that led to its truncation. ST didn’t say it wouldn’t serve downtown Kirkland, just that it was punting on it in ST3. ST hopes light rail will be extended on the rail-trail corridor. At the same time there are people saying Bellevue-Kirkland BRT would be better (distinct from S2, which bypasses downtown Kirkland). A BRT solution would orphan the stub to South Kirkland P&R, but that’s what ST gets for pursuing a dubious light rail line.

  9. I couldn’t help but notice per the ST home page that there are broken elevators at both Marymoor Village and Downtown Redmond. They’ve just been opened a few months.

    Way to go, ST — the champion of broken transit elevators in new stations!

  10. Regarding the automated shuttle at Seatac:

    They are running it on the pedestrian walkway between the Link station and the airport. This walkway is already full of pedestrians. The Port cheaped out when Sound Transit built Link and didn’t provide moving walkways or even a particularly pleasant walkway. Now ridership exceeds expectations. Putting a shuttle vehicle on what is a pedestrian walkway doesn’t serve anyone well. It disrupts the pedestrians. If the Port is serious about the shuttle, then use a lane of the parking garage and get the shuttle out of the pedestrian path. As it is the vast majority of the passengers on the shuttle are able-bodied airport employees without any luggage. It serves no social purpose for the airport employees to be shuttled on the pedestrian walkway disrupting the vast majority of riders who are walking.

    1. The social purpose is for the one person on the shuttle who isn’t able bodied. Once the shuttle is running anyway, there is no harm in allowing able bodied, but lazy people to fill the unused seats.

      If the shuttle ran less often to limit capacity to the number of people who actually need it, it would result in unreasonable wait times for disabled people, and it wouldn’t save any money anyway because one cart can go back and forth in very little time.

      1. I think Carl’s main point is a good one. The shuttle vehicles should travel in space already dedicated to other vehicles – through the garage itself, which is just on the other side of the wall from the walkway. Pickups and drop-offs could be in the same place as they are now. The pedestrian walkway is a tiny fraction of the garage – why squeeze the shuttle vehicles into the crowded walkway when the garage lanes are comparatively hardly used at all?

    2. “The Port cheaped out when Sound Transit built Link and didn’t provide moving walkways or even a particularly pleasant walkway.”

      The article says why there’s no moving walkway: “As for installing a moving walkway in the stretch, the airport garage’s infrastructure makes that challenging. There’s about 2 feet of mechanical elements underneath a moving walkway, and putting that in would require cutting into structural support below the floor, Cooper explained.”

      “Putting a shuttle vehicle on what is a pedestrian walkway doesn’t serve anyone well. It disrupts the pedestrians”

      It doesn’t take up the entire walkway, just a small portion of it. I’ve never seen the walkway so full people can’t walk around it, and it would have to go slowly because of people in front of it who don’t know it’s there. In any case, there’s only one shuttle in operation at a time, so it’s not like it disrupts the walkway much. A separate lane for it and the carts would be overkill.

      1. I agree. It is worth noting that SeaTac has had little golf carts for shuttling people all over the airport for a long time. Now they are automated. I know this because I just happened to use the airport and noticed the things scurrying around. They aren’t very fast (and they remain noisy). The shuttle service to the station doesn’t look much difference. Maybe its a bit bigger (and free) but similar.

      2. Two relevant comments:

        1. The original walkway was exposed to the weather more. It was upgraded several years ago to block the wind, improve the lighting and generally make it more pleasant. It used to be much worse!

        2. The walkway corridor probably should have been widened as part of that upgrade. Behind the barrier is just a row of parking spaces that could have been removed. Then the shuttles and pedestrians wouldn’t need to compete in such a narrow corridor.

  11. One annoyance in Metro service I just noticed. Routes 31 and 32 somehow manage to pass through the entire U district without a connection to routes 255 or 372 (well, you can connect by walking several blocks, but that adds to the trip time).

    It seems like, with a little thought, Metro could have avoided this, for example, by having the 31/32 take University Way or 15th to 45th, rather than Roosevelt/11th. This feels like an unforced error, and makes it unnecessarily hard to reach Fremont from anywhere the 255 or 372 go. Any possibility of this getting fixed someday? Roosevelt/45th already has frequent service in all directions via routes 44 and 67, so such a shift would not even entail a loss of coverage.

    1. 271 transferring 31/32 is also not seamless. Google often suggests I get off 271 at 15th Ave NE&42nd St and walk across U-District to ride 31/32 at Roosevelt&42nd St

    2. There are many factors and it’s probably hard to keep track of all of them. The 31/32 were rerouted from Campus Parkway to 45th probably to avoid going through campus, to avoid campus congestion and because the university wants fewer buses on campus. That’s ironic because their ancestor (30) moved from 45th to campus in the 80s to avoid congestion on the 45th viaduct. So I don’t know which alignment is better.

      The 255 transfer seems to be the 255’s fault. It should go at least to U-District station, not just turn around at Campus Parkway. The current alignment is convenient for Metro because there’s a layover space there and the divided street accommodates U-turns. But the purpose of transit is to make passengers’ mobility convenient, so if it’s not doing that because it gets so-close-and-yet-so-far to U-District station, it should make more effort. Before Link when the 372 terminated at Campus Parkway, Campus Parkway was a major transfer point, with the 71/72/73X to downtown and the 31/32 other routes. So I think Metro was focusing on some transfers and missed other transfers.

      1. I don’t think it’s that simple. Even if the 255 did extend to 45th, a transfer to the 31/32 would still involve spending a lot of extra time at a lot of extra lights detouring north to 45th on one bus, and back south to 40th on the other bus. A good transfer should not be doing this. You want the service to be frequent, the walk short, *and* the transfer point on the way. An example of a transfer that checks all three boxes would be the 255 to the 44 to go to Ballard or Wallingford. Frequency, check (the 44 is frequent). Stop proximity, check (both buses serve the exact same stops at 15th/Pacific). Directness, check. You’re going northwest on the 255, and continue going northwest on the 44. There is no doubling back.

        By contrast, if the 31/32 used University Way to go north/south instead of Roosevelt/11th, the transfer would take place on campus parkway, which is on the way.

        A 372 connection is similar. Even ignoring the walk from 43rd to 45th, the fact that, to make a connection, you’re asked to ride the bus south, then north, then back south again, in three slow slogs is unacceptable. Again, if the 31/32 used Campus Parkway and University Way, the overall route becomes a lot closer to direct.

        As to the argument about the 31/32 being routed to 45th avoid going through campus, 45th is actually fine, and having a more direct connection between the U-Village and the north end of the U-district is a quite good thing for the bus network – we don’t want to lose this. The problem with the 31/32 routing is not 45th, it’s the use of Roosevelt/11th to connect between 40th and 45th, as it misses multiple bus connections.

        Another aside, in a really ideal world, I think there should be a thru-route between some UW-eastside route over 520 and some east/west route going west of the U-district. It’s just a question of how to do it in a way that doesn’t compromise reliability of service. But, if that can’t be done, Metro ought to at least be able to make the transfers direct, rather than meandering.

      2. The 31/32 could not go up University Way and then turn on 45th. Not without changing the streets and my guess is the city doesn’t want to do it. I’m not sure I want to either.

        In contrast if you go up 15th it solves the connectivity problem. Basically everyone makes the bus-to-bus transfer at Campus Parkway (and walk a block at most). They transfer to Link at 45th & 15th (and walk an additional block). I suppose one option would be to run north on The Ave (and take a right on 45th) while running south on 15th. I could see that. Either way you would probably want to add or move some bus stops in the area (to retain a good connection with Link).

      3. All the SR-520 routes should lay on Memorial Way: 255, 270, 542. It was just pennies behind the Campus Parkway terminal. Note that in March, the 255 outbound pathway was changed so as to not delay route 44, as we warned them before March 2920.

    3. I was thinking about this very issue – but in reverse. Recently, I took the 255 and had to connect to the 44. This was easily done at UW Medical but I was baking in the hot sun. I much rather have transferred at UW Station.

      The 255 should be extended to serve 45th St. This would enable easier connections to other routes without have to double-transfer at UW Station.

      1. I think such an extension would be nice if it could be done for “free”, but if it requires either cutting frequency or diverting a bus from some other route (cutting frequency on the other route), I don’t think it’s worth it.

        It’s really only the 31/32 that the 255 has poor transfers with. The 44 is fine, if you make the transfer at the correct stop. And, as I said earlier, having to detour north to 45th and back south again to avoid having to walk for a transfer is still a pretty bad transfer (it just means extra time spent on the bus vs. walking). A modified 31/32 would keep the transfer “on the way”, while avoiding the service costs of a 255 extension.

      2. We could have both? The 255 definitely needs the extension to 45th. Not only for connections but the Ave area is a destination in of itself. The 31/32, from my experience, sometimes gets bogged down by traffic along 45th – despite there being a bus lane eastbound. So you’re right, it should be routed via the Ave or 15th Ave.

        When the J-line starts, isn’t there supposed to be redesigned routing and construction to allow buses serve U-Dist station from the south? Maybe the 31/32 can use that routing too.

      3. We could have both?

        I think the problem is layover space (and thus cost). The bus could go up 15th and then take a right and layover inside campus (at Memorial Parkway). But that adds to the cost of the route. While this would definitely add riders, at some point riders should be expected to walk or transfer. The problem right now is inadequate service along Campus Parkway. This will get better with the 77 while the 67 should follow the same pathway. That way someone headed to say, 47th & The Ave would transfer at Campus Parkway and have a short wait.

    4. The U-District could use a major makeover. There are a bunch of complicated, related issues. For example through-routing. It isn’t trivial deciding which buses should be through-routed. You can’t make a route too long. You should try and match the demand (since frequency has to match). In other words you don’t want to combine a coverage route with a ridership route.

      Ultimately there are bound to be trade-offs. Some considerations (other than the aforementioned through-routing):

      1) There is only one Link station in the U-District. Things would be simpler if there was a station at Campus Parkway.

      2) Unless you have a lot of buses along a corridor, the routes should be consolidated. It doesn’t make sense to have one bus running on a street and another bus running on a parallel street a couple blocks over.

      3) It isn’t always necessary for a route to serve every station. For example the 67 effectively skips the U-District Station. It serves Roosevelt and the UW Station (sort of).

      4) Ideally the transfers avoid backtracking or walking several blocks.

      This leads to several trade-offs. For example the 31/32 connects very well with the 67. However, it connects poorly with the 48 and buses coming from the East Side. Riders have to backtrack in some cases and walk several blocks in others. I would do the following:

      1) Move the 67 to The Ave (University Way). It should follow the same pathway as the 45, the infrequent 79, and the future 77 through the U-District. There just isn’t enough service on the Ave to justify a different bus route on a nearby parallel corridor (even with the addition of the 77).

      2) The 45 should turn on the Roosevelt couplet (south on Roosevelt, north on 12th). This would mean three buses (45, 67 and future 77) running along the same pathway from 65th to 45th.

      3) Similarly, the 65 should run on Stevens Way both directions. That means the 65/67, 45/75 and 372 all run on the same pathway through campus. Even as restructures juggle the through-routing, we should retain this pattern.

      4) The buses that run through campus (on Stevens Way) should go on The Ave. This follows from the other statements but is worth noting as again it gives a lot of riders more options. From the HUB you would have three buses that could take you to 45th & University Way. Two of those buses would continue up The Ave.

      5) The 31/32 should run like the 49 and 70 which means running on Campus Parkway before heading north to 45th on 15th. Riders from the north (45, 67, future 77) and riders from campus or the northeast (65, 75, 372) would transfer at University Way & Campus Parkway. Riders from Montlake or the East Side or Montlake (43, 45, 255, 271, 542) would transfer at 15th & Campus Parkway (and walk a block at worst).

      6) The future RapidRide J Line should eventually go north on the Roosevelt couplet past 65th (for example it could turn around at 67th). With three relatively frequent buses on the same corridor (which funnels to The Ave) additional service on Roosevelt is OK. You’ve reached a tipping point and don’t need more service on The Ave. You lose some connectivity but gain coverage for Roosevelt. Riders in the U-District have another option for getting downtown (especially South Lake Union). The loss of connectivity is minimal. You retain the connection to Link from the north — riders simply transfer at Roosevelt (instead of the U-District). You make the Link “wraparound” more difficult (e. g. Capitol Hill to Eastlake) but many of those riders would go the other direction (downtown first and then north). The main loss of connectivity is bus wraparound users. For example Eastlake to the part of Montlake south of the canal. There just aren’t that many doing that and it isn’t an impossible transfer — it just requires walking four or five blocks.

      There are other options (e. g. the East Side buses could dogleg up to Roosevelt) but I think this is the simplest way to balance speed, connectivity and coverage.

  12. The self driving “shuttle” is a pathetic joke. Absolutely no capacity whatsoever. I actually thought it’d be a tram or bus for a second.

Comments are closed.