Bob (bobco85) ranks every Link station on its access to a regional bicycle trail.
His focus is on biking and regional trails, so he doesn’t mention some smaller trails and parks that are withing pedestrian range, like Cowen/Ravenna Park a few blocks from Roosevelt Station.
We covered the Des Moines Creek Trail in a Friday Roundtable June. The next couple Friday Roundtables will also explore some pedestrian trails near Link.
This is an open thread.
The Scriber Lake/Scriber Creek park and trail complex is a nice little spot. I wandered over there once when stuck for a 1 1/2 hour layover between buses.
At the time Scriber Creek was mostly inaccessible as it was being used as a staging area for construction equipment for what appeared to be some sort of road project.
Oh, I’ve been meaning to visit it again, thanks for the reminder. The last time I was there on Lynnwood Link’s opening day, most of the lake park was still closed for renovation. Does anybody know if it’s fully open now?
Looks like about 2/3 is open.
https://www.lynnwoodwa.gov/Community/Play-Lynnwood/Parks-Trails-and-Open-Space/Scriber-Lake-Park
“The western two-thirds of the area and the boardwalk project are open. However, the eastern third and the section where the Scriber Creek Trail runs through are now closed.”
Will the shutdown slow down the opening of The Federal way extension, Pinehurst station, and cross lake connections for Sound Transit?
It shouldn’t. None of those are direct federal contracts. The federal grant money for building them was received and spent a long time ago.
At this point, I don’t think they could even do the non-constitutional block thing they are doing in New York (blocking funds already appropriated by Congress has no provision in the constitution)
In addition to ST’s openings to Downtown Redmond and Federal Way (in several weeks) for 2025, there have been several other new rail projects just opened or will open this year. They include:
– LA Metro Pomona Extension (September 19)
– LA Metro K Line LAX Segment and Station (June 6)
– Dallas Silver line (DFW to Plano) (October 25)
– Montreal REM Deux Montagnes (November)
– Honolulu Skytrain airport segment (October/ November)
– Phoenix South Central Line (June 7)
– Kansas City Streetcar Extension to UMKC (October 24)
– Sonoma SMART extension to Windsor (May 31)
– Toronto Eglinton Crosstown (still 2025 possible but looking more doubtful each week)
If I missed any 2025 North American openings, put them in a reply. If there are highlights from other areas that deserve mention (especially videos), feel free to add those too.
I haven’t put the LA Metro Purple Line extension on here even though it’s still officially supposed to open this year. That no longer seems probable. The LAX Peoplemover and OC Streetcar have both already been pushed to 2026 (as has ST’s East Link/ 2 Line cross-lake segment).
I think it’s interesting to keep up with what other cities are doing. Others may want to check out the various news videos on these projects. (I’ve not included many BRT projects that have opened or are opening by the way.)
I’m not sure if this will be the topic of a separate post. But I think it’s interesting to see what ST’s express bus thinking is — and to reveal a conundrum about it.
https://www.theurbanist.org/2025/10/04/sound-transit-queues-big-express-bus-network-changes-after-light-rail-openings/
Here’s the conundrum: Many ST3 big projects like Everett, Tacoma Dome, West Seattle and Issaquah all are in places where express buses are expected to move faster than light rail will by using HOV lanes and by using direct interstate paths rather than more circuitous ones that have been developed for Link. .
ST is now stating that they will continue express bus service if it’s significantly faster than Link will be. Yet all the ridership forecasts are based on these same express routes going away.
If this is now ST’s policy, then they should be revising their Link ridership forecasts downward, right?
Shouldn’t ST say if it’s one way or the other? They seem to need to say it’s one way or the other. Saying it’s one way for operations but the opposite for ridership forecasts is inconsistent.
We started discussion the Rider Experience Committee report October 1st. From the report wording it looks like ST will make a public announcement Monday with more details and a survey. I have some questions out to ST, which hopefully they’ll answer by tomorrow. We’re planning an article on Tuesday after the announcement comes out.
ST is walking back from the maximal-truncation position it took in the January 2016 planning scenarios, Metro Connects 2016-2020, and the first two rounds of the East Link Connections proposals. Part of that was the reality of having to make a hard decision in South King County/Pierce County, where Federal Way and Tacoma Link will be substantially slower than existing express buses and take almost/over an hour for just the Link portion of the trip. Several ST authors had misgivings about forcing people to both ride for an hour both an AND transfer. It was unclear whether ST would be maximal-truncationist or not, or whether South King/Pierce politicians and stakeholders would convince it not to.
Keeping the 545 is more surprising. It speaks to one-seat riders having significant clout, and to the demise of the Redmond-SLU peak-only route ST was going to replace it with. Maybe it found Redmond-SLU ridership was just too low, or the congestion getting to SLU was just too much.
“If this is now ST’s policy, then they should be revising their Link ridership forecasts downward, right?”
Any loss of peak-express riders will eventually be replaced by other riders. ST is predicting freeway congestion will continue to worsen and the buses get slower and slower over the years. Some estimates say it has already happened peak hours. The dramatically faster ST Expresses are mainly outside the peak and shoulder hours. And there are not full transit-priority lanes the entire way, and ST has no authority to force WSDOT to build them or convert HOV-2 to HOV-3. WSDOT could have done it a decade or two ago but still hasn’t.
It’s still to be determined what schedule the new 545 will run, which I assume will be significantly fewer trips per week than the current 545. They also didn’t say whether it would even continue run all day or be downgraded to peak-only.
The report says “No changes”. That implies the frequency and span as well as the route. I included in my questions to ST whether the 545 will really still have 10-minute weekday service. When the route details come out maybe Monday they may have a table giving the frequency.
“Any loss of peak-express riders will eventually be replaced by other riders. ST is predicting freeway congestion will continue to worsen and the buses get slower and slower over the years.”
Ridership forecasting should already be accounting for congested streets and roads. It should already have a full bus network assumed too.
Maybe my comment should not ask if the forecasts should be revised downward but should instead ask if these express buses included in the future overall transit network.
We aren’t usually privileged to see the nuances of the complete transit network — but most agencies want to demonstrate that the forecasted ridership will be as high as possible. So they are motivated to not assume faster parallel routes. Given the somewhat fantastical forecasts out of ST (Lynnwood Link stations aren’t even half of the projections for example), I seriously doubt that ST forecasts have included these parallel routes that would reduce their forecasted boardings. That’s what spurred my comment.
One question I’ve asked ST about is how much it will cost to keep the buses going to downtown. The truncated service was budgeted at a time when downtown office occupancy was higher, long-distance fares weren’t capped at $3, fare compliance was higher, there weren’t as many fare discounts, and ST3 project costs hadn’t ballooned. How could all that not make it unaffordable?
One answer might be that ST is putting more resources into operations, because having good service now is more critical than having it in two decades when they may be dead or invalid, and two decades is a long time to suffer with long travel times.
545s have usually refused passengers at Olive & Terry from 4.30-6pm eastbound. The 544 peak east bound would have likely met a similar fate before entering SLU during peak negating it’s purpose during peak.
If service hours are a concern, the 542 can be dropped and it’s hour’s reinvested in the 545 to maintain 15 mins headway (instead of the current 10 min during peak). A stop can be added at the Montlake Blvd stop for the 545 to allow for any added connections to the UDistrict. The 2 freeway stops at Evergreen and Clyde Hill will also connect with the 255/270 to UDistrict. Link connections northbound become a 10 min walk for passengers connecting from the Montlake stop but this revised 545 won’t be the ideal stop for those connections. Passengers could take the link at Redmond tech (5 min walk across the freeway). Passengers on the 255/270 would just continue to the link stops.
The 542 is the solution to Link’s U shape between downtown Bellevue and the U-Dstrict/north Seattle, so it won’t be dropped or reduced. That would hinder the total transit network improvements.
The 545 would dump people off at a freeway station in the middle of nowhere on the south side of the Ship Canal. That would hinder the goal of connecting the center of the regional centers together directly. And for what? Just to have two ways to go downtown rather than one.
There are arguments that would support the Link not really being a full replacement for the 545. The 545 serves some stops, such as Stewart/Denny, 520/Leary, and 51st St. freeway Station, which Link doesn’t serve, and Redmond Transit Center to 5th/Pine is generally a faster on the 545, assuming no traffic, because the 545 takes the freeway through Bellevue and has a shorter route, in distance. In addition, the 545’s eastbound Capitol Hill stop is several blocks away from the Capitol Hill Link Station.
The question is, are these arguments strong to justify the cost of continuing to run the 545, and would be route offer more benefit if it were modified to cover different parts of central Seattle, where Link doesn’t go, such as, SLU, Belltown, Lower Queen Anne, or First Hill. The International District tail of the 545 feels like it would be uncompetitive with Link for stadium events, even in cases where the Link option requires an additional transfer on the Redmond side, as the bus takes forever to get from one end of downtown to the other during events.
I guess, Sound Transit is choosing to defer to decision and let people vote with their feet over the next few years. If not enough people are choosing the bus over Link and a recession forces service cuts, the 545 will be among the first to go.
My personal feeling is the following:
1) If ST has extra service hours to spend, they should be making the 542 more frequent, first. With trains every 5 minutes, 542->Link is a very quick way to go downtown, while also solving the problem of Link taking 50 minutes to go from Redmond to the U district. The 542 should really be running every 15 minutes or better, 7 days/week, including evenings.
2) If ST still wants to run a bus between Redmond and central Seattle, it should focus on Belltown, SLU, and Seattle Center to complement Link, rather than duplicate it. Ignoring traffic congestion, I think it would be very awesome if the 545 could be made to turn on Denny and offer a direct Connection between Redmond, SLU, and Queen Anne, while also creating a hyperfrequent local corridor where the 545 combines with route 8. Of course, without bus lanes, the bus would just be stuck in traffic, but if the 545 and 8 combined provides the critical “bus mass” to justify bidirectional bus lanes across all of Denny, then it becomes a win-win for both routes.
The connection between the 545’s Capitol Hill stop and Microsoft is probably best done with a Microsoft Connector bus, rather than a Sound Transit bus.
Thanks for sharing my video! I was curious about how well the light rail stations connected with regional trails, as I am a ride leader and am always looking for fun ways to combine bikes & transit. Your point about pedestrian connections makes me wonder about the potential for combining hikes/walks/rolls with transit.
Cool. I have a few thoughts. I think UW Station probably has the most day-to-day bike/Link connections. There are a lot of apartments and other places along the Burke Gilman and the UW Station makes an excellent connection. But I also think Redmond has the most recreational riding trips. If you plan on cruising the countryside on a bike and want to start your journey with Link, that seems like the way to go.
Speaking of which, how do you (or people you know) do the bike/transit thing? I can think of three options: a regular bike, a foldable bike and bike share. A foldable bike seems like the best option if you were doing it regularly. It takes up a lot less space (which is especially appreciated if the trains are crowded). It also makes it easy to get on buses (you don’t have to rely on them having room). Bike share is great depending on the situation. Riding a regular bike probably provides the best ride.
Speaking of bike and transit, that reminds me of this: https://www.seattlebikeblog.com/2025/08/27/on-a-bike-train-bus-bus-bus-bus-ferry-bike-trip-to-lopez-island/. What a great adventure. On that trip they brought a folding bike to give them a better chance of getting on the bus (and it worked).
I think the main hurdles with combining bikes with transit are schedules and the act of putting one’s bike on a bus/train. For schedules, riding farther out from populated areas, especially on weekends, usually means you’re dealing with less frequent/reliable transit. And many cyclists dread putting their bike on a bus rack because it involves the bus driver and everyone on the bus waiting for them to figure it out and do it without taking too much time, really putting people in the spotlight for something they don’t do very often.
For planning rides that involve taking transit, I like to bike first and then use transit to get back. That allows me to potentially bike longer if I’m feeling stronger and take transit from a farther stop out.
On a side note, I think the next bike in my garage (a.k.a. part of my living room) is going to be a folding bike, to be honest! It’s not yet in my budget, so here’s hoping for the future.
Our bikes-on-buses strategy depends on only a few people using it. If a third or half the riders brought their bikes, the racks would get overwhelmed and a lot of people would have to wait for the next bus. Likewise, if we want to get passenger ridership up near 1920s levels and driving mode share down to 30% like New York and Oslo, we would need some three times more buses. The car infrastructure assumes that most people will drive and park, so it provides capacity for that. But the bus and bike and bus-on-bike infrastructure assumes only a few people will do it, and if more than a few do it gets overwhelmed. That in itself puts a cap on people’s willingness to take transit and bike.
Yeah, I think a folding bike or a good bike share system is the way to go if you use bike and transit together frequently. If you commute then it might be worth paying to store your bike somewhere. I used to commute from Pinehurst to Fremont. I would take the bus south to the UW and ride a bike from there to work. My wife worked at the UW and got a bike locker so that’s where the bike was stored. My guess is there isn’t much bike storage to go around (or it isn’t cheap).
Hi Bob, I meant to put a comment under your video saying it was featured on STB but I forgot to. I do have a piece of information for you: the missing trail connection at Tukwila International Blvd station will be addressed in King County’s plan in the next decade:
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/theres-a-new-stretch-of-trail-in-king-county-heres-where-to-find-it/
https://seattletransitblog.com/2025/06/27/friday-roundtable-des-moines-trail/
It will extend the Lake to Sound Trail east to TIB station and to the Green River Trail. That will create a seven-trail interchange at Fort Dent Park in Tukwila on route 150, going west to Des Moines, south to the Green River and Interurban Trails, north to the Duwamish Trail and Seattle, and east to Renton and the Cedar River Trail and Eastrail.
I’m working on an article this Friday on Mercer Slough, and next Friday I may go back to the Des Moines trail. Those will be from a pedestrian perspective, although Martin Pagel will add a section about the bicycle connection to the I-90 trail and going on to Eastrail.
I had a bike from 1989 to 2003 when I was living in the U-District and Ballard, and commuted on it to Harborview, the waterfront, and Ballard, and rode on the Burke-Gilman/Sammamish River trail to a Mac store in what’s now Marymoor Village, and along the waterfront from Golden Gardens to Alki, shopping at Costco, going to nightclubs, etc. I sold it when I moved to First Hill and everything was down a steep hill. Now I have leg tendon/arthritis issues so I can’t get on a bike, but I still see it as a promising travel mode.
When I went to shows and clubs in the evening I had a U-lock, a helmet with a hole in it, and a light jacket. I threaded the helmet and the jacket sleeve into the lock. That way I could leave my jacket and wouldn’t have to pay for a coat check or stand in line to reclaim it.
Thanks! I appreciate it.
I’m hopeful that the Lake to Sound Trail Segment F (according to earlier designs) will be built, but I’m not sure how wide it will be. There is a wide sidewalk along Southcenter Blvd from the Green River Trail to the I-5 interchange that functions like a multi-use path, but in the area between the I-5 freeway on-ramp and the narrow bike lanes (where the light rail tracks cross over Southcenter Blvd), the sidewalk gets narrow.
I lived from 2017-2021 off the bike lane portion of the Lake to Sound Trail in Tukwila, so I’m very familiar with the area. After not being able to find an apartment in Seattle while moving to the Pacific Northwest from my hometown of Arlington, Virginia, it was very convenient to live 2 stops off the RapidRide F from the light rail which could take me to downtown Seattle where my job is. But, it was NOT convenient to be 1 mile away from Southcenter because I had to deal with the I-5/I-405/airport freeway interchange traffic nonsense every time I wanted to get groceries/supplies!
Enjoy your trail walk on Friday!
I was surprised at how many stations are near a trail. It shows how much the counties and cities have been investing in the trail network, that Link can’t really be far from one trail or another because there are so many of them and they now go so far. One issue is that a trail that’s “close” by bike can be far by foot, and you don’t want to put so much time and energy into just getting to the trailhead. So I’m looking for things that start closer to a station than you are.
The head of the Seattle Transit Hikers, asdf2, is here, and has lead many hikes from bus and Link stops in Seattle, Issaquah, Juanita, the Cascade Foothills, Bellingham, etc. I went on some of the first ones; I don’t know how much he’s doing them now. The city ones are usually 2-4 hours, so each one includes several neighborhoods. The outlying ones are 4+ hours.
Individually I go on shorter walks, around one hour. I’m slowly making a list of parks/trails near frequent transit stops. Right now I’m not sure how to organize it, and some of the items are still just in my head.
We’ve all been excited about access to the Redmond trails with the 2 Line opening, and I thought it would be a sleeper hit. Downtown Redmond overall turned out to be an even larger sleeper hit, so all the trail riders may get lost in the total ridership, and Link doesn’t cross the lake yet so access from Seattle is still not quite easy yet, especially on weekends. But I expect riding Link to the Redmond trails will become an ever-bigger thing over the years and will be mentioned in travel guides.
Pinehurst yet again failing. Expensive. unnecessary. an terribly connected
@Paul Ventresca,
It’s a political station. Its sole purpose was to “buy” an ST3 endorsement from one particular politician.
It did that very well, but that is about all it will succeed at.
It cost the same as the parking garages to build. The expensive part is the elevated rail guideway. Once you build that might as well build the station.
Its sole purpose was to connect Bitter Lake and Lake City with faster transit. I get it — you don’t care what happens to Bitter Lake and Lake City. But other people do.
The ranking is largely a reflection of local work done by the city, not the station itself. From a bike-to-trail perspective, I would consider it “Doable” although I get the rating. Even with the bike lanes on 130th you have a bad crossing of Aurora.
This a reflection of the poor SDOT plans. Even after adding bike lanes it probably won’t be very good. If they put bike lanes (and safe crossings of Aurora) on 128th and 137th/Roosevelt it would be so much better. Then I would consider it “Good”. Not that it matters that much — connecting to the regional bike lanes is interesting but ultimately not that important. But this is also a reflection of the local bike network. If getting across 130th (from the station to the Interurban) still sucks after they spent all the money and effort adding bike lanes (and slowing down the buses) then the SDOT project is a failure. This is disappointing given how many really good projects they’ve added recently.