Judkins Park Station Access Improvements

62 Replies to “Judkins Park Station Access Improvements”

1. Rainier is the only remaining freeway exit between the Eastside and the eastern half of Seattle, and the only way to get off it before SODO. We use it occasionally to get from Bellevue to Capitol Hill with bulky loads, and my disabled relative used it when they could drive but not walk to the bus stop. So it would make I-90 into even more of a super bypass. As much as I favor prioritizing transit/ped infrastructure over cars, I’m not sure I’d want to eliminate freeway exits that much. This isn’t like SE 8th/NE 4th/NE 8th in Bellevue where three exits are next to each other; it’s the only exit for several miles, to an area denser than anything between Factoria and Renton. So I’m leaning toward #1.

   1. @michael thanks for the article

      I don’t think it explained the alternatives that well. The wsdot study is not removing directions in which one can drive in.

      When they remove the ramp you’ll take an alternative ramp and take a left turn instead.

      For example if they remove the i90 west to rainier northbound ramp. You’ll use the existing i90 west to Rainer southbound ramp and make a left turn. (They’ll reconfigure the ramp)

      Or if they remove the rainier northbound to i90 east ramp you’ll instead make a left at the (existing ) rainier southbound to i90 east ramp

   2. It is a ramp consolidation project. It doesn’t take away any movement but consolidating certain ramps. In this case, westbound exiting is consist of two ramp going to northbound and southbound of Rainier Ave.

      The benefit of ramp consolidation could includes fewer bridge structures for WSDOT to maintain and trading vehicular delay for better ped accessibility.

      A similar example is I-405 at SR 522 where ETL expansion projects downgrades the freeway-to-freeway system interchange to arterial interchange with signals at ramp terminal.

      1. The i405 sr 522 existing intersection isn’t strictly a downgrade. One of the problems with the existing layout is the cloverleafs at the southwest and southeast corners where it’s constrained by drivers weaving in and out.

      2. WL

         The loop ramp weaving was not the the only reason for the removal. WSDOT needed space for direct access ramps and new northbound mainline, so they took down the two system ramps connecting the side of SR 522 that will never be converted into freeway as it was planned long time ago.

         You could argue that removing cloverleaf loop ramp is not strictly a downgrade, but removal of flyover ramp from I-405 northbound to SR 522 is definitely a downgrade.
         It certainly took some works to justify that new configuration with signals at SR 522 ramp terminal can handle the traffic.

      3. @hz

         I didn’t say it was the only reason I said that the (two leaf here) cloverleaf was not strictly better either. It’s “better” during low traffic since you don’t need to stop but once traffic reaches moderate amounts it can be worse than having a stoplight and traffic lights.

         It’s why some other cloverleafs throughout America have been removed or at least partially removed and they added left turns for the freeway exit/entrance onto the avenue

         > so they took down the two system ramps connecting the side of SR 522 that will never be converted into freeway as it was planned long time ago.

         That time has long passed for sr522 to be a full freeway. One will hit a traffic light in half a mile to the west for uw bothell. Also they are removing the i405 nb to sr522 westbound ramps, but the sr522 westbound to i405 southbound flyover is being kept

   3. Yeah, removing the ramps entirely is not one of the options. But if it was, I would get rid of the ramps closer to downtown before getting rid of these. But once those are gone, I would probably start eliminating ramps like these as well.

   4. By far one of the worst located transit stations ever devised.

2. I like alternative 2 the most.

   Alternative 1 doesn’t make much sense to me. Currently the i90 west to rainier avenue north ramp flies over the park and there is a pedestrian under crossing. To create a T intersection means actually creating a grade crossing that didn’t exist before.

   1. It is possible that Alt 1 made it to final alternatives because it have the same (vehicular) safety benefit as others by removing the free-flow merge without reducing westbound off-ramp capacity as much as other three alternatives, but for transit access and peds, it is even worse than existing/no-build condition.

3. The near term improvements seem to have taken well. As the area gets more pedestrians to and from the station entrance, the investment will be more appreciated.

4. I don’t think a roundabout does much here. As a sub option it feels very gimmick-y. A signal with crosswalks and longer sight distance feels safer to me — even though the roundabout would slow traffic a bit better.

   1. The roundabout would provide turnaround capabilities for drop offs at the station coming from the south. So there is that benefit.

      1. Pick-up drop-off going through those intersections could be a traffic and transit nightmare. The best drop-off area for those coming from the south is probably the Valentine Pl cul-de-sac anyway.

   2. It is not proposing roundabout for those intersections. It is by WSDOT guideline that Intersection Control Evaluation should study roundabout as an alternative.

      Some of those intersections will definitely fail roundabout test due to constraint of right of way and high volume of through traffic. Roundabout usually works well at freeway ramp terminal where crossing arterial doesn’t have as much as through traffic compared to movements turning in/out of freeway ramps. That’s not the case for Rainier Ave.

5. I’ve raised this before of course, but how do buses get back on eastbound 90 if they stop at Judkins Park Station? With a major reconfiguration, it seems more than reasonable to try to accommodate the times when Link trains cannot cross the floating bridge and will have to stop at Judkins Park Station — where ST would be expected to have a bus bridge. As we’ve seen with Link, disruptions are not rare and often aren’t planned.

   I guess that the movement could possibly be accommodated with a left turn queue jump for buses when pulling out of the southbound stop on Rainier — but I’m not sure how that would work if it’s only needed for emergencies.

   1. The bus can just exit SB and loop anywhere. Or it can head NB, stop just north of Bush Pl, and stop near CID station.

      1. To clarify I mean riders could sit through the SB loop. It would probably be something like 5 minutes.

         I think heading to CID station would be best though, roughly following the path of the 554. It’s not that far, and then riders can transfer to a full-frequency 1 Line instead of waiting for a potentially partial frequency Line 2.

      2. @ John:

         The bigger challenge would be headed eastbound. 1 Line frequency is irrelevant that direction.

         Asking Link riders to backtrack a station and use a shuttle in front of King Street Station is a drastic inconvenience and a huge time waste. It would not be so bad at late night, but Jackson and Dearborn takes buses longer to use these days because of SDOT recently removing traffic lanes on Dearborn.

         It would be much better for riders if the buses would use the loop ramp to stop on the west side of Rainier and then could turn around while empty after unloading at Judkins Park. But then where would riders board at Judkins Park to get across the bridge? That’s the beauty of a special situation queue jump so buses could load at the same stop and then cross all the Rainier lanes to get to the eastbound 90 on-ramp.

         It might be cheaper in the long run too. Because of the added time for a bus to get further to get to IDS, likely twice as many buses would need to be assigned to function as the bus bridge.

         While it could be added later, it has value preparing for this now since things are to be changed anyway.

         Of course, if the 2 Line was actually running across the lake as originally intended, more people would be thinking about this. It doesn’t seem to concern many today, but Eastside interests will be thinking “This is stupid. Why wasn’t this better thought out?” upon the first disruption.

      3. @Al S

         There wouldn’t be any backtracking, eastbound passengers would board just before the bus gets on the freeway, most likely just south of Charles St.

   2. Alternative 1-3 proposes to realign eastbound on-ramp to be perpendicular to Rainer. That opens the opportunity for that, but the southbound left-turn has to be transit-only movement from curb bus lane and controlled by transit signal.

      1. but is it really worth it? It will be just 630 on I-90 after 2 Line fully opens.

   3. If the northbound merge lane gets shortened, there’s enough space to add a left turn lane.

      Because of the angle and location of the southbound to eastbound ramp, it’s not really that bad a turn, if the left turn is positioned right. The bus would have to cross 2 traffic lanes, one shoulder lane, and enter a lane that’s already at a 45 degree angle to traffic. There’s tighter turns going into transit centers that require buses to make a left turn and go into a platform going the other direction.

   4. It might skip Judkins Park entirely. For example, this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/VDNpbdPxDKDk2wV87. This means riders to Judkins Park would have to backtrack using the 7 or 106 (buses that are quite frequent). But I could also see a bus using the Rainier exit, stopping by Charles and then continuing to CID (https://maps.app.goo.gl/NVZX9ayVkCfdfry5A). There is no reason to try and get especially close to the station (as the station is in the middle of the freeway). Of course some people will be inconvenienced but that is the nature of a shutdown. Some riders would actually benefit (e. g. if you lived close to Charles).

      The biggest thing Link needs is a clearly understood plan. It is like a snow route. It is always an inconvenience. But as long as you know what the plan is for the buses, you can deal with it.

      1. So anyone coming from SE Seattle would have to ride 10 more minutes to IDS to get a bus bridge bus? And will those Route 7 or 106 or 48 or 8 riders know that 2 Line service is disrupted?

         You guys really like to overlook SE Seattle and CD transit riders!

      2. @Al, most likely if it does stop at judkins park, it will just stop at the rainier and dearborn bus stops. sure it is not perfect but it is semi workable.

         the idea of looping around at judkins park is just kinda complicated and not that large of a benefit.

      3. @Al — Like I wrote, I could see the bus using the Rainier exit, stopping by Charles and then continuing to the CID. That is not an extra ten minutes. More like one. Meanwhile, some riders come out ahead! If you are approaching from the north it is a shorter walk.

         Keep in mind, this is when the trains stop working. You can’t expect the same level of service when the trains stop working. Do you really think they will run buses every 8 to 10 minutes like Link? When the trains breakdown we are generally screwed. Spending an extra five minutes trying to serve the stop(s) closest to Link is not worth it. By the way, are you suggesting the shuttle bus serve both Rainier and 23rd? If the Roosevelt Station is no longer in service should we run shuttle buses on Roosevelt Way, 45th and 12th NE to get all the riders who maybe took a bus there?

         And will those Route 7 or 106 or 48 or 8 riders know that 2 Line service is disrupted?

         This gets back to the issue of communication. If the outage occurs while they are on the East Side then they most certainly will know the train is out. They will board this shuttle bus and get off wherever the bus driver tells them too. So basically half the riders would have all the information they would need. But otherwise it is the same situation everywhere. Riders have to know there is an outage, otherwise they wonder why the train is taking so damn long. Yes, it sucks that you would get off the bus, walk to the platform and then be told that you have to go down to the street. But by then it doesn’t matter that much if you have to get back onto a bus before you can take the shuttle or the bus picks you up right there. Either way, that isn’t your station. There is simply no way a shuttle bus can come close to serving the station (they can at some of the Rainier Valley stops but not that one).

         One of the key things is communication not only at the station but on the buses. Drivers of buses like the 7 should make an announcement while approaching the area that Link is out, and that they should use a different bus stop. So yes, communication when we have these outages is very important. What else is new.

      4. By the way, it should be noted that the 550 doesn’t on Rainier at all. It runs express to downtown with the first stop right by 4th & Jackson. This is not an unexpected outage but one that has occurred for over seven years! To be fair, ST does connect the East Side with Rainier Avenue via 554. The stop it uses is at Charles Avenue — precisely the stop we expect ST to serve. This means that in the unusual case of an outage, riders who routinely take the bus to the East Side would just walk to the bus stop they have been using for quite some time. If the bus stopped under the freeway they might get confused (since it never stopped there before). More to the point it would be very weird for ST to provide more coverage for a short term, unexpected outage than something that has literally lasted for years.

      5. Just noting that STX 550 and 554 will go away when 2 Line opens. Surely that means that the ST signage will go away too.

         https://www.theurbanist.org/2025/10/04/sound-transit-queues-big-express-bus-network-changes-after-light-rail-openings/

6. I don’t get why the northbound bus stop next to the Judkins Park Station entrance (and exclusive bus lane) is still blocked by traffic barrels. The station is long finished and ready to open. The delay feels really silly.

   1. I assume that they figure no one will use it until the station is open. I see no harm in opening the bus stop but my guess is that is the thinking.

   2. I think the overhead wires were moved more towards the center of the road when construction started and they haven’t been moved back yet. The barrels were removed briefly, but the 7 couldn’t use the bus only lane without de-wiring.

      1. This makes sense now. I could definitely see this overhead wiring being the cause. Thanks! It just needs to get done as it’s been this way for well over a year!

7. I hope this ends up with both ramps on the east side of Rainier closed. Then the NB bus lane could continue through the interchange at least til Dearborn

8. The most dangerous congestion in this area is with the left turning vehicles from southbound Rainier to eastbound Massachusetts. Cars coming from both directions off I-90 make this movement. The left turn lane is a very short distance south of the I-90 westbound ramp signal at I-90. Plus with the station opening, pedestrian crossings will be happening more often.

   It’s often congested. It can be so congested that it actually sometimes backs up traffic through the entire loop ramp and onto I-90 itself.

   Alternatives 2 and 4 would make this backup congestion much worse by sending more traffic onto the loop ramp. And Alternative 3 that eliminates the loop ramp would be even worse than those because it would significantly reduce the number of cars that could be queued before backing up onto the freeway. Only Alternative 1 would not make the problem worse.

   Having more queued cars sitting in the Mt Baker I-90 tunnel is not a safe situation. A rear end crash could result in a dreaded tunnel car fire resulting in a huge loss of life.

   Solving this would not be easy and would seem to require changes not proposed here. And surely residents on Massachusetts hate that their residential street has the heavy traffic volumes that it does. But the congestion upstream from this intersection creates all sorts of havoc and backups — and the plan not only doesn’t solve it, but proposes changes in alternatives that actually make it worse.

9. It’s worth noting that this stretch of Rainier is not friendly to pedestrians. The entire street is fully fenced off between Bush Pl and Massachusetts St — with the station entrances themselves being the lone exception to the restriction.

   Rather than have lots of little crosswalks with less visibility of crossing pedestrians, it seems to me that a bigger central crosswalk would be safer — as close to the station entrance as possible. Maybe it could even have a signature pavement marking (as long as Desantis isn’t running anything).

10. It’s mentioned in the article, but I think it’s important to highlight and celebrate how awesome the 23rd Avenue entrance will be for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit riders. It’s effectively “adding a Link station” by merely feeding a Link platform from the other direction and elevation. By having this entrance nowhere near I-90 interchange traffic, it will be much safer and easier to use. It’s also less of a vertical distance to the platform and does not require crossing a 2 Line track.

    This contrast to the Rainier entrance highlights how light rail stations along freeways but not located inside freeway interchanges are generally so much easier to use and safer for everyone!

    1. The comparative excellence of the 23rd Avenue entrance is why I commented (in a Metro survey) that I would like to see the 106 diverted to 23rd Avenue instead of running on Rainier Avenue to downtown.

       1. I like this idea!

          Another benefit is that it takes Route 106 out of the occasional interchange congestion that happens when the I-5 on-ramp from I-90 backs up at the metering lights. I’ve seen southbound Rainier almost barely move there and the loop ramp traffic sometimes backs up onto the I-90 mainline. (Those realtime traffic directions are used by lots of people.) It actually may make the route more reliable even though it would be a slightly longer distance.

       2. I had that as part of this proposal: https://seattletransitblog.com/2023/08/30/high-frequency-network-surrounding-rapidride-g/. The 106 would turn on 23rd and then head towards downtown via Yesler. That’s somewhat inefficient as it overlaps the 27 and 48. I don’t think there is an easy solution for the 106 but I do think it would be better.

       3. Yes, I recommended that route 106 be shifted to 23rd Avenue south and Yesler Way. Its current pathway is too duplicative. The 23rd Avenue South entrance is much better.

       4. Yeah, and I also remember some of my thinking with regards to that routing. Right now the 27 runs every half hour. The 106 runs every fifteen minutes. The combination is not that efficient but it still works. Half the time the riders have 15 minute headways, half the time they see a bus every 7.5 minutes. It is much better than mixing say, 20 and 30 minute buses.

          But it is also worth considering the long term. The 27 is paired with the 33. It is one of the higher performing half hour buses — especially in Seattle. It is what I would call a “borderline bus”. There is a good case for running it every fifteen minutes, especially if Seattle gets more funding. Thus there is a real possibility that the 106 and 27 would run every fifteen minutes. That would mean 7.5 minute headways on Yesler, which would be great and in my opinion justified.

          At that point most of the east-west corridors in central Seattle would have very good frequency. Here are the weekday midday headways:

          Denny/Olive/John/Thomas — 15 minutes (Metro 8)
          Pike/Pine — A frequent spine
          Seneca — 15 minute (Metro 2)
          Madison — 6 minutes (RapidRide G)
          James/Jefferson — 7.5 minutes (Metro 3/4)
          Yesler — 7.5 minutes (Metro 27/106)
          Jackson — A frequent spine

          The outliers are the Metro 2 and 8. But if they add more bus lanes for the 8 it would definitely come with a lot more service. It does seem like the “natural” frequency should be 7.5 minutes. Even running the bus every 10 minutes would be a big improvement. That leaves the Metro 2 as the outlier (and why I would like it to be part of the Pike/Pine spine).

11. It looks to me as though it would be possible to run the sidewalks diagonally away from Rainier and put pedestrian under crossings of ramps 2 and 4.

12. So here’s a hypothetical: why not study a two-way transit mall from Dearborn or Charles to Massachusetts or Grand on the east side of Rainier? It would be kind of a linear transit center right at the end of the escalator. Think buses on the east side of Rainier and traffic on the west side as a general layout.

    Buses could have special signal phases to pull back into regular traffic at the ends. Pedestrians could have an easier time by crossing Rainier with fewer lanes at one time (just 4 or 5). Buses would be able to not only skip merging traffic at the ramps but they could get special signal phases to get to and from freeway ramps if needed.

    SDOT already has the left lane queue jump for southbound buses in place already at Dearborn. The southbound buses could just stay in the left lane and enter this two-way busway rather than immediately cross back to the right.

    To load and unload southbound Rainier buses, the stop would need to be moved to the median and southbound Rainier traffic lanes would need to shift to the west a tad. The new southbound stop could then be barriered and buffered from Rainier traffic noise.

    Then the east side of Rainier can be unfenced and have street life next to the new busway and transit loading area, particularly if the northbound slip ramp goes away north of 90. Waiting there would not feel like someone is standing next to a busy arterial like these alternatives create.

    The pinch point at / just north of Massachusetts would still need to be addressed. But honestly that’s a fundamental problem that affects every other scenario. The Rainier Eastside businesses access north of Charles probably would also probably need addressing.

    I realize that planning has already proceeded to a point where this idea is probably a bit too far-fetched, but it is an interesting concept to ponder. Unlike these alternatives that mainly just move corners and crosswalks around, this could create a very different transit rider experience.

    1. I think the first step to that sort of thing is Option 4. That clears the east side of the roadway. For a northbound bus it is means signal work. Just as you can add northbound BAT lanes from Massachusetts to King you can add northbound (curbside) bus lanes. Thus cars are not allowed in the northbound right lane, even if they are turning on Charles (or further north). Of course that complicates the traffic signal. A northbound car needs a right-turn arrow to turn right at Charles (if not further north).

       You’ve mentioned some of the issues with a southbound bus. Yes, it does seem like a bus could easily enter a southbound bus lane at Dearborn. You would need two median bus stops — one at Charles and the other under I-90/Link. Massachusetts becomes a complicated intersection but it still works.

       I can see the value but I’m not sure it is worth it. I think a northbound bus would be better off with BAT lanes. Sure, sometimes a car would block that right turn lane. But otherwise you have to add a right turn signal phase which makes the light cycle longer. I can see more value with the southbound bus improvement but again I’m not sure it is worth it. You have two intersections (not that far apart) where you need a special light phase for the buses. Again, this would hurt the northbound bus.

       In the long run I see the flow of traffic being restricted southbound. There is no reason to have two general purpose lanes heading south. The roundabout would be an issue. But I could see a (curbside) BAT lane and general purpose lane southbound until about Charles. Then the southbound lanes merge. This allows the bus to get ahead of whatever backup exists. Then the bus goes into the roundabout. It might have to wait for a gap of cars heading towards the freeway but that should clear up fairly quickly (and be no different than waiting at the traffic light). Then the bus continues and soon after there is a southbound BAT lane (and a general purpose lane).

    2. “I can see the value but I’m not sure it is worth it.”

       Yeah maybe not. But it would probably be more “worth it” if ST hadn’t added the station exit on the west side of Rainier.

       The thing that made me ponder it was how Route 630 buses could also stop right in front of the station. It would be almost perfect for an occasional bus bridge disruption too as buses could get off at the Rainier loop ramp, pull through the intersection and turn into the bus lanes, stop at the station then quickly go back across the bridge.

       Then the more I pondered it, I realized that the bus stops could be much quieter and brighter with the right treatments. It would also get buses fully away from the interchange traffic congestion that reduces reliability too.

       That westside Link station exit isn’t the most inviting, by the way. I hope it doesn’t fall victim to scary things.

    3. Maybe this is an idea that can be explored with the RapidRide R final design and implementation.

       I was in the area last night. It may be too narrow to do this.

13. This is one of the “small” projects that could be huge. It is flying under the radar but there could be positive ramifications for anyone who takes a bus along Rainier. Since so many of our buses run along Rainier it impacts overall frequency as well. With that in mind, here is my opinion:

    Option 4 is the best. Option 2 is second best. In both cases you get rid of the eastbound ramp from I-90 to northbound Rainier. This is huge from a transit perspective. It means you can extend the northbound BAT lane all the way to Charles if not farther. It is worth noting that you can’t turn right on Bush or any of the driveways between the bus stop under Link and Charles. Thus not only is the BAT lane extended but no cars will turn right in that section. The cars coming off of the freeway will be to the left and the bus will be to the right (curbside). I could easily see the bus lanes extended all the way to King (at that point the bus needs to move into the left lane to turn onto Jackson). This would make a huge difference for transit riders.

    It is also more pleasant for pedestrians. Judkins Park gets bigger. The sidewalk can be extended. Pedestrians can walk on the I-90 trail if they want but they wouldn’t have to.

    While Option 2 offers that, Option 4 goes a step further. Ramps from northbound Rainier to eastbound I-90 are moved to the other side of the street. Again, this means moving cars from the right side (the curb side — the bus side, if you will) to the left. Again this means the BAT lanes can be extended and have less traffic to deal with. It is worth noting that if you are traveling northbound on Rainier, once you get past 23rd there is very few reasons to take a right. There are side streets (Plum, Holgate, Grand) but they are very short before they reach 23rd. Thus if you got rid of the freeway ramp you would have this relatively small triangle (bordered by Rainier, 23rd and I-90) where drivers could legally use the the BAT lanes. These could be extremely effective BAT lanes — far more effective than the ones to the south (and those have been effective).

    This would improve the pedestrian experience quite a bit as well. You could walk along Rainier from Massachusetts to Charles without encountering an intersection. It means accessing the Link station from the southeast is much safer and more pleasant. It also means that the Atlantic Street Park is much nicer, with a bigger buffer between it and the freeway. They could even plant some trees!

    All of the options add a roundabout close to Bush Street. This means that a southbound bus has to deal with the roundabout no matter what option is chosen. With options 2 and 4 a northbound bus could avoid it. Option 4 just seems like it is clearly the best option.

    1. Yeah I agree, this project will be transformative, for transit as well as for residents in the area. I think the area’s already been massively improved by the new development.

       On the roundabout, the slide says “Roundabout or New Traffic Signal” at Bush Pl; it doesn’t sound like they have decided on what will go there.

       Another potential benefit of shifting or removing the WB to NB off ramp (from the SDOT study): “In the northeast quadrant of Rainier Ave S and I-90, consider allowing development. This would activate the area and could help partially fund the intersection improvements.”

14. I’m very happy WSDOT is pedestrian safety and access here.

    I’m used to looking at traffic diagrams, but I’m having a hard time understanding the tradeoffs here. The graphics would be more useful and engaging if (1) the transit station, entrances and bus stops were shown, and (2) the functional differences were explained in English in an inset. If you can’t state clearly the advantages and drawbacks of a design alternative, don’t include it!

    1. The Link station is under the freeway on Rainier as well on 23rd. But from a project standpoint, the key issue is Rainier. Even if there was no Link station this is a very important area from a transit perspective. There are frequent buses on Rainier. You can see the bus stops on Google Maps but it really doesn’t matter.

       Micheal does a good job explaining the differences between the various alternatives but I agree, the diagram is not easy to read. The jpg comes from a pdf and the translation from vector graphics to raster graphics is less than ideal. I think it is easier to read the latest meeting notes: https://wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2025-08/I90-Presentation-JPSAdvisoryGroupMeeting2.pdf. The four concepts (alternatives) are listed starting on page 50. From a transit/neighborhood perspective, I focus on what they are getting rid of. With alternative 2 and 4 they get rid of the ramp from westbound I-90 to northbound Rainier. As John and I pointed out, that is huge. It means you can add a BAT lane for a long stretch of Rainier and no cars will be in it. Alternative 4 is even better. The BAT lane gets even better and for pedestrians (as well as those at the nearby playground) it is much better.

       Long story short, Alternative 4 is by far the best option.

       Now if you want a long story, it makes sense to dig into the background and read the previous presentation (https://wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2025-08/I90-Presentation-JPSAdvisoryGroupMeeting2.pdf). They go through all the options and what they consider the advantages of each. But to make things confusing, they use different terminology:

       Concept 6 = Alternative 1
       Concept 2 = Alternative 2
       Concept 1 = Alternative 3
       Concept 4 = Alternative 4

       With these “concepts” in mind you can read the earlier part of the report and see how WSDOT thinks it will impact various criteria. Basically Concept 4 (conveniently called Alternative 4) does really well on most criteria except “off-ramp queue length (avoid impacts to I-90)”. I can live with that. Frankly I think they exagerrate the advantages of Concept 6 (Alternative 1). Why is it is so much better than the alternatives when it comes to reducing vehicle operating speeds? I don’t see that at all. It is much better than now, but so is every other alternative. But again, even using this seemingly inflated value for that particular criteria, Alternative 4 (Concept 4) is the best option.

15. “Judkins Park Link station is scheduled to open with the full East Link Extension in Spring 2026.” April/May 2026 is just a conservative date being used for Sound Transits paperwork for the federal government and it will likely open in Q1 of 2026

    1. The previous date was in January but ST said a month or two ago it won’t make that. So it’s iffy whether it would open in February or March. In any case, it’s only three months difference. East Link was supposed to open in 2021, and has been delayed several times. Three months is no big deal.

       1. Well Dow Constantine(the ST CEO) did say on this podcast that April was a conservative date and that they would open sooner than that:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgwCxjXmuH4

16. Alternative 1 and alternative 3 I don’t really understand the rationale. The existing westbound i90 to northbound rainier avenue flies elevated and has a pedestrian underpass.

    While it’s not the best; to straighten it out and add a new pedestrian crossing there seems a bit odd. It’s not as if the existing pedestrian crossing is hard to use like a pedestrian bridge where one has to climb 1.5 stories.

    1. Alternative 1 is basically the status quo but with safer ramps. Drivers go slower if they approach or get off the freeway at a right angle. I agree about Alternative 3. It seems worse than what exists now.

       1. Alternative 1 will remove the pedestrian under crossing and create a new at grade crossing there. At the north east corner

    2. Alternative 1 mainly just tightens the ramps to make them actual corners. That reduces speed so that it’s safer for pedestrians. It’s almost a no-build with just some safety tweaks.

       Alternative 3 eliminates the loop ramp so all Rainier traffic would exit down a pretty steep slope to an intersection where a driver could turn left or right. As I mentioned above, traffic would start backing up into the I-90 Mt Baker tunnel very quickly because the distance from the tunnel to the new signal is quite short. (I just checked Google maps and the loop ramp was still entirely dark red at 6 pm.)

       I think it’s likely going to be Alternative 2 or 4.

       I do think that it would be good to see how the short-term changes help with safety before seeking more changes. Maybe it would be best to wait until the new station opens and there’s realtime observations of station users. It also would start to be enough time to see if the recently installed safety improvements actually make a difference or if any new unanticipated problems emerge. We are just 6-8 months away hopefully.

       1. I think it’s likely going to be Alternative 2 or 4.

          I hope you are right but we need to push for it. Alternative 4 would be huge and we should let them know we prefer it. But if for some reason they settle on Alternative 2 then it isn’t the end of the world.

       2. > It’s almost a no-build with just some safety tweaks.

          the northeast corner https://www.google.com/maps/@47.5905741,-122.308103,74a,35y,50.57h,44.21t/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e2?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MTAwMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D has the ramp currently as a flyover. There is no pedestrian crossing.

          To T up the intersection in the corner will involve demolishing the flyover and also a new intersection for pedestrians to cross there.

       3. IMO, it should absolutely not wait until the station opens. By that time, you will already see ridership being suppressed because of the unsafe walking situation, and this would not be a good baseline to start with. Avoid the conundrum of “not many people swimming across the river therefore not much need for a bridge.”

17. Another alternative is to have crosswalks with traffic signals at the ramps, no turn on red, camera enforced. At least make it so pedestrians have an opportunity to cross without the forced conflicts with cars.

Comments are closed.