Better Bus Service to Pinehurst Station

124 Replies to “Better Bus Service to Pinehurst Station”

1. Thank you for posting this. While reading about route 75 yesterday, I kept thinking that route 75 should be the bus to connect to 130th St. Station, since it’s already going east/west on 125th, but explaining the full details would have been too long to post as a comment. This post explains it perfectly, and I think it’s a great idea.

   The only weakness I can think of is that proposed route 76 is very short, with a significant chunk of the route within walking distance of other routes. The route also looks not quite short enough to be able to operate every 30 minutes with only one bus, so they’d have to run it with two buses, with each bus spending a significant portion of its service time sitting in layover to maintain clock-facing headways.

   The question is, would a route like this pick up enough riders to sustain itself, or would people vote with their feet and just walk to more frequent service. Looking at the map, it seems like most of the density along route 76 is south of 115th St., so it seems like people would just walk a block to frequent 5th/Northgate, served by several routes combined, rather than wait for an every-30-minutes bus that comes a little bit closer. Meanwhile, east of 5th is more frequent service on the 348, while west of 5th is I-5.

   I would if there are any other routes that could be extended down 5th, rather than a special shuttle route? For example, if the 67 took 80th to 5th, rather than Roosevelt to Northgate, that could do it, but then you leave a hole on Roosevelt itself, which would need filling. But, maybe the best long term solution is not to have service on 5th, in which case, doing as you said and letting the 76 die later due to low ridership is the best way to achieve that without the pitchforks coming out.

   1. The 76 would be short. I agree, short routes are less than idea. But this is not a big restructure. The 76 is basically a way to backfill service until a bigger restructure came along. Ultimately it would make sense to send the bus to Shoreline (and perhaps branch after that).

      It should be noted that just because a bus has a unique bus number doesn’t mean it has to stop and end there. For example I could easily see this as an extension of the 345/365. It would only do so one direction of course but it would be something like this: The 345 would start in Shoreline South, make its way to Northgate and then continue as the 76. It would go up to Pinehurst, make the loop and head back to Northgate where it would layover. The 365 would do the same thing. This would be similar to how the old 345/346 where paired with the 347/348. Not only did this save Metro some money but riders would take advantage of the combination. The same could be the case here.

   2. Let’s just drop the 76 and service along 5th NE. 3/4 of that stretch is within 2000 ft of bus stops on 130th or Northgate Way.

      1. There is an argument for that but as I mentioned down below (https://seattletransitblog.com/2025/10/14/better-bus-service-to-pinehurst-station/#comment-968736) I really want to see this change and I think the only way to do that is to minimize the complaints. Take away service on Fifth and a bunch of people complain. It would be a repeat of the 20. There is no reason to do that given this proposal would actually *save money*. I’m sure some people would complain but some would actually prefer the new 76. If you are going to Link anyway it is nice to have two ways to get there. It effectively means twice as many buses going to Link (although they couldn’t be timed).

         In the long run I think the 76 should be part of a route that keeps going to Shoreline. There are various places in Shoreline that have service with fewer riders.

   3. Metro Connect also suggest 75 making that little extra detour to connect Pinehurst. I think that’s a no brainer change to be proposed for now.

      1. Don’t just detour to Pinehurst, but extend to Shoreline CC via the 345’s old path, as you can transfer to the light rail at Pinehurst to Northgate, I am wondering why the council ruled out a connection to Pinehurst on the 75 though, 5th can only go northbound North of 125th though, so I agree, it’s a no brainer when you can eliminate service along 5th as the north side is closed, and you need demand to justify the Pinehurst Station.

      2. I am wondering why the council ruled out a connection to Pinehurst on the 75 though

         It wasn’t the council, it was the Metro planners. The Lynnwood Link planning process was complicated and flawed. They made a lot of mistakes. They had to completely throw out some early proposals. Making matters worse, the funding levels kept going up and down. At some point they decided to try and minimize churn.

         That is the short story. The longer story is this: They initially forgot to cover Lake City Way. There was no service there and folks had to beg for it (https://seattletransitblog.com/2023/01/27/all-of-lake-city-way-should-have-frequent-bus-service/). There were other mistakes such as running buses on two parallel corridors close to each other (a violation of Metro policy and just common sense routing). At the same time they had the 65 going to Bitter Lake (via Pinehurst Station). This is similar to sending the 75 there and in some ways better. I talked to a lot of people (including leaders in the neighborhood) and they liked the idea. Folks on this blog liked it too. Unfortunately a lot of people who lived in the north end of Lake City didn’t like it. They would lose their one-seat ride to Wedgwood. More importantly they would lose service to Nathan Hale and Jane Addams. So Metro backed off on changing the 65. (There was no consideration of the students who would have an easier ride to Nathan Hale or Jane Addams). Given all the other issues, they went with an approach that involved the least amount of churn. They realized they better serve Lake City Way so they created a new route (the 77). They figured they would combine the 77 with a route going from Lake City to Bitter Lake and thus the proposed 77 came into being. It is a clearly flawed route while the 75 is about to flawed. But it minimizes churn.

         Neither the council nor the planners ever proposed sending the 75 to Bitter Lake even though it is the intuitive choice. It allows the bus to go through Lake City without making any turns. It is quite striking, really. From NE 45th to Bitter Lake the bus would not make any turns. This allows the bus to go faster. There is also a geographic advantage to going as far east as possible to as far west as possible*. By doing so you maximize the number of very good one-seat rides. Bitter Lake to Sand Point for example. Not only that, but because the bus is the fastest way to get from Lake City to Children’s Hospital, U-Village and the UW Campus it works very well for trips like that as well. All of these trips complement the two-seat trips involving Link. In contrast the 77 seems to cannibalize itself. The main destinations on the bus are also served by Link. You have two ways of getting from Bitter Lake to Roosevelt. Two ways of getting from Bitter Lake to the U-District. But to get from Bitter Lake to Sand Point, Children’s Hospital or the UW campus you have to transfer to another bus. Sending the 75 to Bitter Lake is just better than the 77 but the planners never proposed it.

         *OK, the bus could go further west but there aren’t enough people in Broadview to justify frequent service with the current funding levels.

   4. Consider asking for the extension of Route 346 to Northgate station past the Pinehurst station via Meridian Avenue North, North/NE 130th Street, and 5th Avenue NE (southbound, it may have to use the roundabout and NE 125th Street). Further, it north terminal should be North Shoreline Link and not AVTC. Link is the best connection with CT service, not AVTC. This would improve service to Evergreen School, Ingraham High, Pinehurst station, and the Shoreline District court.

      Then, Pinehurst would have three routes: 5, 75, and 346.

      https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/metro/routes-and-service/schedules-and-maps/346#route-map

      1. RossB, also, since you broke routes 75 and 77, the latter could stop at Roosevelt station and not continue on to the U District. Route 75 could begin in the U District and not be too long to extend to SCC. This would save minutes and hours.

      2. I like that quite a lot. Like the below?

         https://imgur.com/a/i96xZWX

      3. If I was going to send the 76 north of 130th then that would be one of my branches. It is on the map that you and I discussed for a restructure of buses north of the ship canal. The other branch is not so intuitive and more disruptive. It stair-steps up to Shoreline College and then replaces the section of the 331 between the college and Aurora Village.

         I think it would be much easier for planners to just run a looping 76. I haven’t talked about headways but I was assuming the 76 would have headways similar to the 75. Maybe a bit below but not a huge difference. Again, this is so existing riders aren’t pissed off. If Metro planners decide to do something more elaborate (like branching, or half-branching) then I would be thrilled. If they decided to reduce frequency on 5th NE while improving frequency for the 75 I would also be very happy. But for now I just want them to run the 75 to Bitter Lake and I think this is the easiest way to get it. (I know the extension seems like it has no cost but I can still see how someone along Meridian might prefer going to 148th Station given that some buses connect there. I think going to Northgate is definitely better but I think erring on the side of the status quo is easier.)

         @jd — Yes, I think that is what Jack and I have in mind. At the risk of getting way off topic, here is the map I referred to in the first paragraph. At some point I will likely turn that map (and the document supporting it) into a post. But for now I am focused on what I think can be accomplished in the short run.

   5. I guess I’m sort of liking the idea of extending the proposed 345 along 139th to Pinehurst Station and have it take over the proposed Ross 76 between Northgate and Pinehurst, rather than have it add service on Meridian above that provided by the 365. It still has to make a left turn, but doesn’t get stuck in the mess of going all the way around North Seattle College (it really eats time on the 40).

      1. Shoreline is challenging as is the Haller Lake area. The wrap around (taken by the 40, 345, 365) is time consuming. Going via 5th would be faster but it has issues as well. I think the area needs a major restructure and while I have a plan it contains plenty of questionable trade-offs.

2. I’ve thought that the 65 and 75 should both travel E-W through Lake City, and the 77 should continue N-S.

   If the 65 was sent to Bitter Lake/Shoreline CC instead of the 75, there would be no need to backfill, and the 77 could take over the tail of the 65. That would also eliminate the awkward jogs of the 65. There would be some duplication on 125th but it’s a fairly brief segment of the corridor. Ideally the 125th corridor fills out a bit more, especially 125th/15th and 125th/Roosevelt.

   1. The original plans for the 65 were to send it to Bitter Lake. But that got rejected because riders north of 125th wanted the one-seat ride to Nathan Hale and Jane Addams. I don’t know if they would be OK with a bus like the 77. It is a bit of a walk from Lake City Way to either school and the students would have to cross Lake City Way. Otherwise sending the 77 farther north (and sending the 65 east) is a good idea.

      But the turn of the 75 is simply bad routing. It manages to get fairly close to Pinehurst station but not actually serve it. That is one of the major differences between the 75 and 76. The 75 does not connect to Pinehurst Station. The 76 does. This means that riders along 5th could take the bus north or south to get to Link.

      The 75 could be modified to serve Pinehurst Station but it becomes awkward. You would have to go into the station and turn around. 5th Avenue NE is one-way northbound between 125th and 130th (at least for now). You can do it but it is a pain. It is a better value to just backfill service with the 76. Eventually the 76 could be extended into Shoreline (but that would be a bigger restructure). That is another reason why I am proposing this: It is small. Only one or two existing routes would be altered (the 75 and 5). It seems highly unlikely there would be a lot of complaints about replacing the 75 with the 76 (unlike altering the 65). It would also save service money. I’ll admit sending the 5 to Lake City is a bigger reach but it would be a huge improvement and involves only one more bus.

   2. I like this idea. The 65 makes for a straighter EW route through lake City because its turn is further East. This also makes the 77 much straighter when it backfills the 65.

      1. Except again it isn’t politically feasible. They tried that and failed.

         You also have the 75 wasting service hours as it manages to get close to Link but not actually serve it.

      2. @Ross Bleakney

         Is the SB lane on 5th coming back? I haven’t been in the area in a while but it looks like there’s enough space for it. The most obvious route to serve 5th would head N/S from Pinehurst, most likely as the 75.

         Does 5th need to be served north of Northgate? It looks like there is some demand at 5th/112th, but that is very close to Northgate/5th and outside of that the corridor doesn’t have much ridership. All the multifamily buildings on 5th are within a 10 minute walk of Northgate/5th and a 20 minute walk of Northgate station.

         Otherwise if 5th has to be served it’s not really clear where the route goes. The 76 looks okay but it’s very short, and a through-route with the 346/365 doesn’t add that much value. Also, 5th north of 115th is not a great corridor; it’s sandwiched between I-5 and SFHs.

         Maybe there could be some coverage route that goes NB 5th, EB 115th, NB Roosevelt, WB Roosevelt, WB 130th? But I’m not sure buses can go on 115th and I’m not sure where that would go anyway. And obviously that would cost more money than the 76.

      3. Is the SB lane on 5th coming back?

         No. Obviously things could change in the future but you can see from this diagram that from 125th to 130th it will continue to be one-way heading north. At the intersection there will be two lanes heading left and one straight (or right). If anything I think they may get rid of one of those lanes. There really isn’t much point in having two lanes heading west when the street converges into one lane almost immediately. One of the two westbound lanes gets on the freeway but that basically just means a U-Turn. I guess by having two lanes turn left you do make for a short light phase. There is that.

         Does 5th need to be served north of Northgate?

         I think that has been asked and answered up above. Basically I don’t want to piss anyone off. This is essentially a place-holder to maintain existing coverage. In the long run it could definitely be part of a longer route. Or Metro decides it just isn’t worth it. I would prefer they keep it and extend it.

         It is worth noting that it isn’t just coverage. It increases frequency in more urban areas (south of Northgate Way). It is a bit redundant (do we really need three routes along that corridor?) but it actually isn’t the one I would eliminate. I would send the 348 to the U-District and get rid of the 67. Then the bus would be timed with the 61 to provide 7.5 minute midday headways from 5th & Northgate Way to the station. The 67 could then be extended into Shoreline where it would branch and provide coverage.

         But again, that is all long term. I think the best chance we have of sending the 75 to Bitter Lake is if we retain service along this part of 5th via the short looping route.

      4. How is the 75 getting through if there’s no soutbound lane?

3. I guess I was thinking the 77 should be the one extended to Shoreline CC and the 5 should end where the 77 does. If the 5 can be sent to Lake City instead of ending that could be good too.

   1. The 77 as an east-west bus is flawed (for the reasons mentioned). Sending the 65, 75 or 372 east would be much better. They all complement Link much better. The 75 is the ideal routing though because it offers the fastest bus connection to Children’s Hospital, U-Village and the UW Campus. It also means the bus avoids making a turn in Lake City (in contrast the 77 has to make two turns each direction). It is a more natural routing.

      As for the 5, there is tremendous value in going east. You connect Lake City with the Phinney/Greenwood corridor. Lake City is the biggest neighborhood in the area. At the same time, you make numerous connections to other buses as well as Link. You probably shave fifteen minutes off of a trip from Lake City to Ballard for example (https://maps.app.goo.gl/yXWDRdNjTggAgfUm6). That’s because the trip is a lot more straightforward. The 61 is a good bus but it takes a while to get to Northgate. But the big problem is with the 40. It goes all the way down to 92nd and then all the way back up to Northgate Way (which at that point is equivalent to 110th) before it heads south again. If the 5 was sent to Lake City then riders could connect to the 40 at the point where it was actually heading towards Ballard (no backtracking at all). So you not only have a lot more one-seat rides but you have greatly improved the two-seat rides.

4. I agree with the fact that the Pinehurst Link station needs another bus route, but the 76 is just not the way to go, it’s probably not going to function well as a link connector, and will just be a downgrade for people, another way to probably go is to have the 75 have two variants (a Shoreline variant, and a Northgate variant), it is a good way to replace the 345, but will be a failure for half hour service against 4 minute peak service that costs over a billion dollars. So I can just see the 75 being extended to Shoreline CC along the old 345’s path (serving Pinehurst), and transferring to Link which will combine 4 minute service at peak. The 75 will be a better idea (it’s extension) than having the 77 covering two needs at once (coverage on 522 and the Pinehurst Station), 5th Ave won’t need coverage for a low-demand station, to increase demand just remove service along this portion and have riders walk to very frequent link, and the frequent 75 (which should now operate 30 minutes off-peak and weekends). The 5 is not a good idea (it’s truncation to Lake City) as it removes a key connection between Greenwood Ave and the college, keep it how it is. Delete the useless 76 (and it’s useless ancestor of the 77), here’s what I propose:
   1. The 75 would be extended to Shoreline CC (replacing the 345), instead of laying over in Bitter Lake (serving Four Freedoms). Reduce frequencies to 15 minutes peak (30 off peak and weekends), and have stops removed in Sand Point.
   2. The 77 would be deleted, instead add all-day frequent service to the 322 (extending the 322 to Woodinville and Bothell, serving Bothell P&R via the 522’s path from Kenmore to Woodinville, except using 175th in Woodinville, it would run past Lake City every day, and combine 7-8 minute serving along Bothell Way (as the majority of the 522’s ridership is actually South of 145th), move the 522 to 98th/185th, and truncate to UW Bothell (matching with Stride), the 72 would be truncated to Lake City Fred Meyer (to encourage a transfer to low ridership portion of the 372 north of Lake City), the 322 would continue along 522 South of Ravenna to Roosevelt Station, and going to Latona to 45th (serving U District on some trips). This covers the loss of the 20. The 522 would be truncated in Shoreline South as proposed with no additional coverage along 145th west of Shoreline South. There still needs to be a way to get South of 145th from North of Bothell Way, and this portion is the highest ridership, you would also get rid of the 372. Giving its service to the 322.
   3. The 65 would now run to Shoreline South on all trips (on its proposed path when it does not end at Lake City Fred Meyer), as demand increases as the 522 is truncated. I am sure it’s infrequent due to the loss of the 330, but coverage that is frequent is still needed along 30th (a key corridor to students).
   4. The 28 would be extended to Shoreline South, via 145th (and it’s old path). Adding all-day service North of Crown Hill.
   5. Have both the 61 and 45’s frequent trips end in Licton Springs, infrequent trips would extend to Loyal Heights (the 61 actually), combining frequent service along 85th. The 61 would now end in Pinehurst Station to improve connections to Lake City (offering a transfer to the 75 or link), meanwhile the D would extend to Lake City via Northgate Way. Using current stops (similar to what Anthony D proposed and what Ross B proposed). Would replace the 40 and make a tail to Northgate Station via 1st, with the 40 now ending in Blue Ridge/Crown Hill vicinity. Offering multiple connections to Northgate.
   6. A new 16 route would run from Shoreline South/148th to U District, covering 50th and replacing the 345 from 130th to its northern terminus. It would run infrequently and overlap the 5 to make 15 minute service along Greenwood Ave, with the 5 now running every 30 mins. This would improve connections.

   1. The whole point of this proposal is to keep it simple. There is no way the county is going to do a major restructure at this point. I have issues with your proposal but it really doesn’t matter.

      1. Sorry that I went a little bit overboard, Ross B. I would just stick with the 75’s extension, the 65’s addition of service, removing service on 5th, the 72’s truncation in Lake City, and what I proposed to the 322, 372, and 522.

      2. A lot of people have questioned whether it is worth providing serving on 5th NE. I believe it is but I understand the reasoning. More to the point, I am proposing something that I believe can be implemented by the county fairly soon. There are some key elements to this:

         1) No one would lose service. Your bus might go to a different place but you still have a bus. At worst you would have to transfer.

         2) Very few people would have to transfer.

         3) A lot of people would come out ahead.

         4) It saves service money.

         Let me go into this in more detail. The 76 achieves the first goal. Riders along that part of Fifth have a weaker route but at least they have service. This should minimize the number of complaints from that area (which means I think it is politically possible).

         Then there is potential transfers and riders coming out ahead. Here is the current 75 ridership by stop: https://seattletransitblog.com/2025/10/13/ridership-patterns-for-king-county-metro-route-75/. South of 125th there are two sections that matter:

         1) The Northgate Transit Center (NTC)
         2) 125th to the NTC

         The Northgate Transit Center has way more riders. There are really only three reasons to go the transit center (instead of a nearby bus stop): transfer to Link, transfer to another bus or take the bridge towards the college. If you are heading to Link then going to Pinehurst would save you quite a bit of time. If you are going to the college you would have to transfer using Link. But given the increased frequency of Link (five minutes midday) this really isn’t that bad. It is quite possible you would get to the bridge faster by taking Link than via the existing 75.

         That leaves transfers to other buses. Transfers are a bit complicated because there are two options here. I’ll start with the simplest one (keeping the 5 the same). If you are transferring to the 345/365 it is generally better. It is faster for trips to Northwest Hospital and a lot faster for trips to the north (like Four Freedoms). If you are transferring to the 40 then you have to take the train in the middle. Meanwhile you improve transfers to the RapidRide E and the 5. I would consider the connections to the RapidRide E and 5 to be valuable then the direct connection to the 40. Using Link as a connection in the middle of a three-seat ride is common and not nearly as bad as using a bus for that. Overall the connection to the other buses or Link is better.

         Now consider the transfers with the 5 extended to Lake City. It is the same idea, except even better. The transfer to the 40 would be much better than it is now. This means for most trips, every transfer would be better.

         That leaves the riders between 125th and the NTC. At worst they would have to transfer. Some of those riders would simply use a different bus. At most you have less than 200 riders that would have to transfer. But in exchange many of those riders would have more options for getting to Link. If you are at 5th NE and NE 112th (by far the highest ridership stop along this section) you could go north to get to Pinehurst Station or south to get to Northgate Station. This means that if you don’t want to cross the street (coming or going from Link) you don’t have to. It also means that if you miss a bus going one way there is a good chance that you can catch one going the other way (instead of having to wait fifteen minutes like now).

         Getting back to the main point, I believe this can be implemented before Pinehurst Station is built. Very few riders would be inconvenienced. Many riders would come out ahead. All the while, Metro would be saving service money. This is politically feasible for this reason. A major restructure is not.

      3. @Ross Bleakney,

         Or you (Metro) could consider the 61 being sent to Pinehurst Station via 5th (instead of Lake City), that way you can transfer to the 75 (or somewhere else via link), as the 20 used to provide service near Northgate Link stations (it at least stopped close to Roosevelt), that way you can improve connections there and elsewhere. Ross, you did some good explaining why to keep buses on 5th, but definetly not the 76 (probably a waste of money like the 77), the D would extend to Lake City, here’s a breakdown:
         1. Have the 61 go on 5th to Pinehurst Station (with the loop like the 76) rather than Lake City. The 61 (if money is backed up) can also be safely extended to Loyal Heights. Creating 7-8 minute frequencies along 85th St.
         2. The D Line (like you proposed back in February 2020 for North Link) would extend to Lake City via the 40’s path, it would make a tail to Northgate Station, but go back up to Northgate Way, where it would continue to Lake City via the 61’s path (with the loop). It would use existing stops. This is also what Anthony Devera proposed for Lynnwood Link back in 2017.
         2. One route covering one corridor (the 371) would run from Mountlake Terrace to SCH, combining the 67, 333, and the 348. It would go to UW Station and Children’s Hospital without through-routing with the 65. Running every 15 minutes.
         3. The 333 (for now) becomes a circulator, instead replacing the 365 and making a loop in the middle of the route to Shoreline North/185th, the 331’s Hillwood section would become its DART section. The DART section would take the 331’s path from Shoreline CC to 1st/200th, but go south on 1st to Shoreline North.
         4. The 331 would go away, with a 931 extension going through North Kenmore/LFP (similar to a route in Metro Connects), then go to 104/178th, and go to Ballinger Way and take the 331’s path from LFP to Mountlake Terrace. This would provide one seat between Mountlake Terrace and Duvall, the 931 would also (if expenses can be covered) get all-day and weekend service. New DART areas would apply.
         5. The E (as planned) extends to Mountlake Terrace.
         6. The 522 gets truncated at Shoreline South (with no extra coverage on 145th east of 5th), and sent on 98th/185th and truncated at UW Bothell rather than continuing to Woodinville (like Stride), the 322 would instead get frequent all-day and weekend service. It would extend to Woodinville via the 522’s path from Kenmore to 132nd/522, but take the 256’s path from 132nd/522 to Woodinville P&R. It would also go to Roosevelt Station (covering the previously proposed 77’s path), and on some trips go to Latona to U District Station (via 45th).
         7. The 75 extended to Shoreline CC via your proposed path, and the 72 truncated at Lake City Fred Meyer. And the 65 will go to Shoreline South via the proposed Metro route on all trips and not go to Lake City loop, improving connections with the 522.

      4. I went overboard again, didn’t I? So to break it down (actually), here’s what I propose for now:
         D: Lake City to Downtown Seattle
         E: Mountlake Terrace to Downtown Seattle
         61: Pinehurst to Loyal Heights
         65: Shoreline South/148th to U District
         72: Lake City to U District
         75: Shoreline CC to U District
         322: Woodinville to Roosevelt/U District
         348: Edmonds to Northgate
         ST 522: UW Bothell to Shoreline South/148th
         DART 931: Mountlake Terrace to Duvall

         I also abandoned the Hillwood neighborhood, there is less ridership there than Latona, I would just recommend the 348 plus an E Line transfer. I sent the 348 to Edmonds as Richmond Beach is a weak terminal.

   2. Having the 28 continue down the old route would be great for Broadview, but it does leave a lot on 3rd with close overlap of the 5 on greenwood. What is really needed is the little jog down to 8th.

      What if we made a simple loop bus? It could start at lake City Fred Meyer, go down 125th/130th to 3rd, then do the nw 132nd/125th/8th loop in Broadview that the 28 did and then return down 130th to layover in lake city. This would be simple and enable frequent new service on the corridor as well as serve more of the ingraham population.

5. Ross, as always I appreciate your insights into this issue, particularly in NE Seattle where we both are very familiar with the issues involved. Your solution here is elegant; not only does it have the benefits to Lake City that you mention, it also gives 75 riders actual direct service to the first Link station it approaches rather than, as today, bypassing one at both ends to go to another 10 minutes further along (U District and Northgate). Bypassing UW Station makes some sense until they someday get Montlake figured out so that buses can use it; bypassing Pinehurst absolutely does not.

   The 75 is a good bus; its frequency is decent and it serves an area of the city that can’t be served by crosstown routes between 65th and 125th, and for all of that length is more than a walkshed away from any other route (65). Allowing that area to directly access Link while beefing up crosstown service from Lake City *and* providing service to the NW side of town is a win. With a connection to the E it would even make trips to LQA and the Center easier. I’m only one anecdote, but I’m a “choice rider” who has no better option than to drive on my commute due to these connection issues despite much preferring transit; your recommendations would allow me to dump the drive and take the bus/train. Thanks for putting this together!

   1. Thanks. I think people don’t realize how fast the 75 is. Mike just assumed it was slower than the 65 and 372 but it is the opposite. This is a guy who knows a lot about transit, too. This led to this comment here: https://seattletransitblog.com/2025/10/13/ridership-patterns-for-king-county-metro-route-75/#comment-968709.

      Long story short, sending the 75 to Bitter Lake creates a bunch of new one and two seat rides. My guess is ridership would increase substantially even though it wouldn’t cost extra money. It would actually save money.

      1. Even driving in the afternoon commute, from Montlake or U Village direction, Sand Point Way is generally faster than going 35th or 25th/LCW (even when you get stuck behind that pesky 75 picking up/dropping off folks!). The 75 moves pretty quickly from Children’s north.

6. I think the 77 should be extended past 145th to enable easy same direction transfers to stride/522, probably to lake forest park (since it is hard to turn around). Maybe the 67 can take over service on 5th instead of doing a u-turn and heading to Northgate station. I agree with the 75 reroute; a full-length east-west route on 125th/130th would be great.

   1. I agree. Ideally we would send the 65, 72 and 77 to 148th Station to better connect with the 522*. Riders would avoid having to transfer twice. But that requires a lot of extra service. We have to pick and choose. Any of the buses would connect to Lake City. Extending the 65 or 72 provides more value because they serve more easterly destinations (Children’s Hospital, U-Village, UW Campus). In contrast the 77 serves mainly Link destinations (Roosevelt, U-District). If someone is on the 522 and headed to Roosevelt or the U-District they will just stay on the bus and use Link. If the 72 is sent to 148th Station then the only places that would make be significantly faster with a 522/77 combination are those on Lake City Way and Roosevelt between Ravenna Avenue and the station (https://maps.app.goo.gl/eCTjEPTjXNw3VdNH9). I don’t think that is enough to justify sending all three buses there. I think sending the 65 and 72 to 148th Station is the best we can hope for.

      *Ideally the 522 continues on its current pathway and is extended to the U-District but it is too late to change it.

   2. Trevor Jones, I disagree.

      I find it hard to justify your proposal of the 77’s extension past 145th.
      1. A 77 extension is not auxiliary to the 522, but redundant.
      2. Lake Forest Park is a weak terminal.
      3. The 67 is redundant with light rail already, and you’re just making it worse.
      4. I also agree with the 75 E-W extension.

      So here’s a solution for you, Mr. Jones:
      I would just rule out the 77, I also agree with Ross B that it should be two routes instead of one. The 331’s extension to UWB/CC is redundant, so in the meantime we would add an extension to the 931 from UWB/CC to Mountlake Terrace Station (covering areas north of 522, and Ballinger Way), the 522 would truncate at UWB/CC and cover 98th/185th, with the 322 getting all-day service frequently, and getting weekend service on the full route.

      The 322 would extend to U District via 522 and Latona (with some trips ending in Roosevelt), covering the 20’s loss. And the 322 would also use the 522’s current path from Kenmore to 522/132nd, now serving Downtown Woodinville. The 522 would be truncated at Shoreline South/148th with no additional service (just truncate the 72 in Lake City).

      The 331 would become a peak only DART route (the 932) from Aurora Village to Shoreline CC, with the 931 getting all-day service.

      The 75 would extend to Shoreline CC, the 372 and 77 go away, and the 65 gets frequent service to Shoreline S/148th on it’s proposed tail from Lake City to Shoreline South/148th (no service on 522 or front door service to Fred Meyer which is closing anyway).

      1. I also forgot to add the new 371 (running from Mountlake Terrace to U District) via 15th, Pinehurst Way, and Roosevelt Way, being less redundant with light rail. The 333 would go away (it’s failing), or you could truncate it at Shoreline North. The 348 would either use the 333’s path from 15th to Shoreline South, or go on 5th to Shoreline South (replacing the 365).

      2. So you are saying no service along Lake City Way between Ravenna and Roosevelt?

         Actually, let’s table this discussion for now. Feel to bring up your ideas on an open thread. At some point I will propose a “grand restructure” for the north end but that probably won’t be for a few months. Let’s try and focus on easy to achieve goals for now.

      3. Ross Bleakney, I never said that.

         I suggested the new 371 would cover the latter area, with the 371 going to 45th to end at the U District Station, anyway (off topic) I also doubt that riders would like to transfer at UW to Link to U District (as the majority of riders is at U District and not UW), if this were a WWE situation, the U District Station takes the belt, so NO TRUNCATING ANYMORE PLEASE SOUND TRANSIT, WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH. (they will truncate even at the high ridership stops)

      4. Ross Bleakney, by the 371 I meant the 322, what I said later is off topic.

7. Who cares if there’s bus service to this station? It’s not a place; it’s just a freeway interchange. Nobody wants to go there, and everybody (except the tiny number of people in walk/bike distance) has a more convenient access point to get to Link. Bus service should be placed where pedestrians are and want to get to.

   As far as I can tell, the only reason this station was proposed at all was to promote a new dense neighborhood at a freeway interchange, as if putting lots of people in a pedestrian-hostile location is a solution to our housing shortage. No, it’s another expensive government-funded incentive to promote some real estate development.

   1. Quasimodal, it is still a key connector to Lake City and the lakes near 130th. Bus service is crucial to Link stations (as they provide transfers and front door connections that high capacity Link can’t do). Voters approved this station as part of the ST3 package, I used to agree with this being a useless station, but looking at it closely makes it a crucial station, the only issue I have is only having Shoreline North at 175th instead of 185th, there’s nothing to do at the point, but still something they should have rethought.

      1. Off topic but you think they should have had the station at 175th instead of 185th? That seems backwards. 185th has less traffic and connects better to Richmond Beach. I think for the same reason they should have had the station at 155th instead of 145th (a lot of people do). Anyway, too late now. Pinehurst Station makes sense because the main corridor connecting Lake City and Bitter Lake runs under the train there.

   2. Who cares if there’s bus service to this station?

      Seriously? You don’t think we should run buses to Link stations? That is absurd.

      As far as I can tell, the only reason this station was proposed at all was to promote a new dense neighborhood at a freeway interchange

      Wrong! It was proposed as a way to improve transit for people in Lake City and Bitter Lake. It is the same reason most of the stations north of Northgate were built. They mainly serve as connectors to the neighborhood. I mean holy cow, look at the future Stride 3! It goes from Bothell and Kenmore to … a Link Station! There is nothing much there *but* a Link station. They are spending hundreds of millions of dollars making that pathway faster so that riders can get to Link.

      Or hell, look at the entire transit system in Vancouver! It is by far the best transit system in the Northgate and arguably the best on the West Coast. It is designed so that the buses and trains can work together. Ridership on SkyTrain is very good — about 500,000 riders a day. Ridership on the buses is better, about 750,000 a day. Ridership on the buses in now third in English-speaking North America. This is because the buses and trains work together. They form what Jarrett Walker calls “An almost perfect grid” (https://humantransit.org/2010/02/vancouver-the-almost-perfect-grid.html).

      That is the same idea for one little corner of the city. You create a very good grid. Riders can take the bus to the station or they can take the bus to one of the other neighborhoods or they can transfer to another bus. This is so freakin’ obvious I’m surprised I have to explain it.

      1. “Wrong! It was proposed as a way to improve transit for people in Lake City and Bitter Lake.”

         If an area is further than one-half mile from a station, it’s not actually providing transit within walking distance for those people. Some hardy walkers may do it, but Bitter Lake is almost a mile away and Lake City is over a mile from the station platforms. 23rd and Jackson is much closer to Judkins Park than this station is to these areas. No one seriously suggests that West Seattle Link is serving High Point. Suggesting that these areas are served better than another station because it’s walkable is pretty silly.

         So it really boils down to if a feeder bus can make transit access much better. Using 130th may save a few minutes seated on a bus, but there are plenty of other buses that these residents use today — and those other buses also serve local destinations because there aren’t many destinations between Bitter Lake and Lake City on the 125th/ 130th corridor.

         Tweaking a route structure may sound the least difficult and most viable, but that alone will not change the reality much. Maybe some sort of ultra-high frequency connection would begin to be, but that’s not envisioned here.

         So, where is the RapidRide proposal for 125th/130th? Or a gondola or streetcar? Or something like an automated Waymo or micro shuttle? Those linkages would make the argument that the station is somehow creating connectivity to these areas more believable— but merely moving one more route doesn’t make this station justification of serving these areas profoundly more convincing to me. Instead, it’s merely moving a route.

      2. So it really boils down to if a feeder bus can make transit access much better.

         Yes! That is why they built the station! Come on Al. I sat on the group that helped make it happen. I talked to the representatives that made it happen. It was all about connecting bus service to the station because it would save those riders a huge amount of time.

         there are plenty of other buses that these residents use today

         Yes, and before U-Link people used other buses. Before Northgate Link people used other buses. Before Lynnwood Link people used other buses. What the hell does that have to do with it.

         there aren’t many destinations between Bitter Lake and Lake City on the 125th/ 130th corridor

         So what? Lake City and Bitter Lake are destinations. So are Pinehurst and Ingraham High School.

      3. “If an area is further than one-half mile from a station, it’s not actually providing transit within walking distance for those people.”

         That’s why we want a bus feeder! The issue isn’t one thousand people within walking distance of the station, it’s tens of thousands of people in entire urban villages that wouldn’t have a time-efficient way to get to Link without Pinehurst station. Obviously the BEST thing to do would be to have a Link station in the center of the largest village, but we can’t do that, so we have to do the second-best thing. That means giving them a feeder bus to the closest possible Link station location, which is Pinehurst. The fact that they’re urban villages, and one of them is a large urban village, within 1-2 miles of the station, makes this important and worth the cost.

   3. @ Quasimodal:

      In the big picture, I’ve long argued that stations that are built should have a minimum number of expected riders. Those riders should be identified by how they get to and from the station — and the station design should accommodate that access.

      Just like no one would expect a driver to park their car at a station if there are no parking garage spaces, no one should expect a bus to lay over and maybe turn around with nowhere to do it quickly and safety.

      The thing is that both stations to the north and south have full-service transit centers. On top of that, Northgate has a number of local destinations that are used by local residents. They act like magnets when Metro looks for a terminal stop and transfer point for a route. However, both adjacent stations are a few blocks off of the cross street so that’s it’s hard to have a route that runs east-west and quickly stop at a Link station entrance like 130th. (A bus on 5th Ave that stops at the station north of 130th actually looks quite unsafe in contrast.) This is how Pinehurst could probably best be used advantageously.

      But crosstown buses alone probably can’t add enough riders to justify a Link station if a minimum ridership is required for justification.

      We have comparable examples along MLK. The buses that go to MLK stations do add riders, — but most riders appear to access the station by walking to and from denser housing or destinations like supermarkets and such. Each station has plenty of places within walking distance, with Rainier Beach having the least — and consequently that station has lower station use than the other ones.

      This is the land use curse at Pinehurst. It’s surrounding land use is much more limited than Rainier Beach is. Not only is the access severed by a freeway, that freeway and nearby park land prevent a dense trip walkshed from developing. Outside of creating some significant land use change like a 30 story residential building or a high volume adjacent land use like a hospital or multi-use arena (or a massive adjacent parking garage which Seattle would never support) I don’t think we will see many riders using the station.

      But will adding more bus routes by Pinehurst Station generate much more station use? I have my doubts. And frankly, it’s not Metro’s primary job to push riders to an underutilized ST station. It should be ST’s job to do that before locating a station and laying that station out. And our local political universe conveniently overrules this logic anyway.

      So in assessing changes proposed here, I suggest looking at it from how it more improves local connectivity more than Link connectivity. Link stations are going to be easy to serve. Getting from Lake City to Aurora destinations directly (with safe walking access) is where I see the systems challenge.

      1. So now you are back to the old “we shouldn’t have gone by the freeway” argument. Absolutely! You are completely correct. All the stations north of Roosevelt are flawed for that very reason. People laud Northgate because of the pedestrian bridge (or the handful of buildings nearby). But it would be much better if the station was actually next to the college or in the middle of the developed area (on Fifth).

         This is Northgate. The other stations don’t even have that nearby college. Every single one is a feeder station. That is the hand we were dealt by ST when they decided to follow the envelope of the freeway. The only thing we can do is make the most of it.

         In the case of Pinehurst the situation is actually very good. Lake City has a lot of density (about as much as Northgate if not more). Like Northgate, the vast majority of people can’t walk to the station — they have to take a bus. Like Northgate a trip on the bus doesn’t take long. You also have Bitter Lake on the other end. It is not as big as Lake City but it is growing and it is relatively big (there isn’t much to the north that is bigger). It is a similar dynamic as exists with Northgate. Northgate provides trips along the way (not related to Link) and so will a future bus from Lake City to Bitter Lake.

         The biggest difference is that the corridor that serves Pinehurst is much better than the corridor that serves Northgate Station. Northgate Transit Center is largely a dead end. The only way to serve it and keep going the same basic direction is with the 61. But that is slow; it requires a lot of turns. In contrast a bus from Lake City to Bitter Lake just keeps going straight the whole way. The 61 path is also diagonal. This means it doesn’t work as well with the preponderance of north-south buses. A trip from west Green Lake (e. g. 65th & Linden) to Lake City is great. Take the RapidRide E and transfer to the 61. But from Licton Springs (e. g. 95th & Aurora) it means you are backtracking. The same is true for the Phinney/Greenwood corridor. Worth noting: that first example (65th & Linden to Lake City) may actually be faster if you just stay on the RapidRide E until 130th and take the bus across. The corridor connecting Lake City and Bitter Lake has a lot of destinations (just like the pathway to Northgate Transit Center) but it is a lot faster. We should take advantage of it.

      2. “So now you are back to the old “we shouldn’t have gone by the freeway” argument.”

         Not necessarily. Had Seattle intended to redevelop the area to be an east-west dense urban village along 125th and 130th between the two areas, the station would make lots more sense. But Seattle hasn’t done that and the neighbors aren’t asking for it. Plus, with Northgate, North Aurora and Lake City as denser places, the latent demand for this is certainly muted.

      3. The neighbors never ask for it. It’s against their intrinsic best interest.

         That’s why the decision making for increasing density should never, even partially, reside with those living their now. That’s city-wide or state level decision.

         We should simply remove all zoning and start over. And create rational rules around when you would incorporate them that doesn’t involve rich people not wanting to live near poor people.

      4. Had Seattle intended to redevelop the area to be an east-west dense urban village along 125th and 130th between the two areas, the station would make lots more sense.

         But that is what it is, Al! Lake City is very dense. Bitter Lake is close. Even Pinehurst has density. Between the freeway and Aurora there isn’t much density — but there is a high school. The area next to the station doesn’t have much density — but they it will soon (as they change the zoning). The corridor has density. Again, in terms of potential ridership per mile it is one of the best corridors north of the ship canal.

         No, it isn’t continuous, but few of them are. Compare Pinehurst Station with 148th, 185th and Mountlake Terrace. They are all remarkably similar. There are some moderately dense areas along with low-density areas. Every station north of Northgate is highly dependent on feeder buses. The main difference is that the fundamentals for Pinehurst are stronger. There is more density and it is closer. The destinations are closer too.

         Hell, even Northgate is highly dependent on the buses. Yes, it gets some riders walking to the college and some riders making a long walk to the station. But eliminate buses like the 61 and 348 and ridership would dry up almost immediately. Holy cow, just look at the 75! Only a handful of riders get off the bus headed to Northgate. Between 125th and Northgate Transit Center. Less than 150. Meanwhile 500 get off the bus at the Link Station. Sure, they might be all headed to the college. Except look at the 40. It runs right by the college. Yet again less than 150 riders get off the bus anywhere near the college. Over 600 use the stop at the station! It is highly likely that Northgate is getting a huge portion of its ridership from the buses. Either that or people are transferring to other buses. Either way this routing is much better!

         But the overall strength despite the gaps just shows the potential. The area around the station will grow — that is a given. Other areas may grow as well (just as they may grow along 145th, 185th, etc.).

      5. “It is highly likely that Northgate is getting a huge portion of its ridership from the buses.”

         This gets at a core problem with ST planning that I keep describing but get little traction about: a lack of basic field research and reporting about how people get to and from Link stations. The lack of field research by ST keeps us speculating on STB what’s useful and what’s not, and how ST and Metro could improve things for both riders and productivity.

         For comparison, here is a hyperlink to BART’s station profile studies (describing how riders to and from a station) from 2015:

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

         With current gps tracking and AI, these data sets could be easily and cheaply researched. And without it, everything becomes a gut instinct. And spending large sums of public money running transit service that may not be productive because that’s what gut instincts recommend is really, really negligent and likely wasteful.

         Consider that without field research, everyone looks at the forecasts and wonders why things look so off. Why is ST forecasting that just as many riders will walk to SODO Station as Alaska Junction (700 at peak hour per this Table 3.5 — https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/03-WSLE-FinalEIS-transportation.pdf)? Why is Downtown Redmond forecasted to have the lowest boardings rather than what is currently the highest boardings on the 2 Line (https://seattletransitblog.com/2020/01/27/sound-transits-station-ridership-in-2040/)? The data being provided about the forecasts is not even believable. And that’s traceable to the forecasts based on models that are not directly based on how people get to and from the station today.

         On and off data are useful. But without seeing research about a rider’s full trip through the lens of station profiles on how people get to and from stations we are missing key information.

         So rather than we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars implementing gut instinct route changes, why don’t we first encourage ST and Metro to pay for lower cost field research?

         Once Pinehurst Station and full 2 Line open in the next 9 months, no new Link stations will open for quite awhile. The Metro restructure has already been approved for North Seattle already. Rather than try to urge our transit systems to adjust things (which won’t happen anyway), let’s push to have the agencies better research the travel behaviors first.

      6. So rather than we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars implementing gut instinct route changes, why don’t we first encourage ST and Metro to pay for lower cost field research?

         Except I’ve got the data, Al. I have the stop data. For example we can see that with the 75, very few people use the bus stops in the Northgate area other than the station itself. We can see that with the 40, way more people use the station than the stops next to the college. Putting those two bits of data together it is pretty obvious: The station itself is the main attraction in Northgate. Not the shops. Not the clinics. Not even the college. The station.

         For the 75, it really doesn’t matter why they are headed to the station. Maybe it is the college. That’s OK, because you can access the college via Link. It might even be faster.

         Now if there were huge numbers of people heading to the various destinations in Northgate *not* close to the station then sending the 75 would be a big loss. But there aren’t. Along 5th there just aren’t that many riders. Other than the station itself, there are almost as many people taking the bus from Pinehurst towards Lake City as there are Northgate to Lake City. Northgate itself just isn’t that big of a destination. It the station itself that is a big destination.

      7. “Except I’ve got the data, Al. I have the stop data. For example we can see that with the 75, very few people use the bus stops in the Northgate area other than the station itself.”

         No you don’t, Ross. You don’t have data telling which routes are getting transferring riders nor what trip pairs on a direct route actually are. It’s just stop data. While it’s useful, it doesn’t explain a lot.

         RE Northgate: Very few people will transfer buses to get closer to a destination that’s less than a five minute walk from a stop unless they see the bus right there or have major mobility issues. I’ve seen riders avoid closer stops because they’re perceived as unsafe or at a busy, wide corner that’s scary to cross.

         But we don’t really know without better field research about why riders are on the bus and how they are transferring (to another bus, to Link, to a waiting ride or to their shoes).

         Are you suggesting that Metro route planning should be based only on on/off data by itself?

   4. “the only reason this station was proposed at all was to promote a new dense neighborhood at a freeway interchange,”

      No, the point was to serve Lake City better. Here’s the history:

      1. In the Lynnwood Link representative alignment in the ballot measure, it was along I-5 with stations at 145th and 185th.
      2. The Alternatives Analysis (the first phase of the EIS) had four alternatives: Aurora, I-5, 15th Ave NE, and Lake City Way. The Aurora alternative had an extra station at 130th.
      3. The 15th and LCW alternatives had lower ridership estimates and were discarded.
      4. There was a big debate between Aurora and I-5. Transit fans wanted Aurora because of the huge potential to walk to future housing and retail and transfer to the E. But ST chose I-5, saying Aurora’s 4-minute-longer travel time would lose more Lynnwood riders than its future villages would gain. I always thought that was inaccurate, but that’s what ST said.
      5. Throughout step 4, transit fans thought serving Lake City was unfortunately a lost cause.
      6. After I-5 was chosen, transit fans realized that if Aurora could have an extra station at 130th, then I-5 could too. And that would at least give Lake City faster access to Link than slogging to Northgate and through Northgate congestion, or going around to 145th.
      7. There was also increasing awareness that Lake City was Seattle’s 4th or 5th largest urban village, and should have been designated a PSRC regional center. If it had been, it would have been must-serve by Link, and that would have given the Lake City Way alternative more clout.
      8. Bitter Lake (130th-140th & Aurora) was also getting significant housing growth.
      9. A station at 130th would allow an east-west feeder to serve both Lake City and Bitter Lake.
      10. ST could add a station at 130th, or move 145th station to 130th, or spit 145th into two stations at 130th and 155th. So we advocated for one of those.
      11. Pro-130th comments and petitions got the second-biggest feedback in all of the Lynnwood Link public input. (First putting Lynnwood station on the south side to avoid encroaching Scriber Lake park.)
      12. ST refused to include 130th Station in Lynnwood Link.
      13. In ST3, ST agreed to backfill 130th station, and to include an unfinished shell in Lynnwood Link construction plan to allow it to be retrofitted with less disruption and cost.
      14. The City of Seattle committed to a small upzone in the station area to get a little more housing there.

      So the station-area village was only a small part of why 130th station was added. It was never going to be as large as Lake City or Bitter Lake, or even as large as Beacon Hill. It wasn’t the reason for adding 130th, and it alone would be insufficlent justification for it. The reason was Seattle’s 4th or 5th largest urban village and de facto regional center — Lake City.

      1. There was also a 0. stage that envisioned a Link line from Northgate to Lake City rather than Lynnwood. Maybe Forward Thrust? I remember seeing it on one of the early maps.

         So, better transit service to Lake City has been around as a concept for a long time.

      2. That was Forward Thrust in 1970. It went to Lake City, Renton Boeing, Bellevue-Redmond, Issaquah, and I didn’t look closely enough at what it had for West Seattle and Ballard.

         From a 2010s-2020s perspective it was astounding that it didn’t go to Northgate, the airport, Southcenter, or anywhere south of that. But you have to remember the situation in the late 1960s. I-5 had just opened a couple years earlier. 405 and 520 may have been just built or were still under construction. People hadn’t realized yet that the freeways would change job locations or bring a rise of freeway-exit shopping malls, and air travel was too expensive for more than maybe once or twice in your life. Northgate was still a minor mall, one of the first covered ones in the US. Southcenter was going to be in Burien, but it switched to Tukwila when the 405 plan solidified and the owner saw an opportunity at the junction of I-5 and 405. Kent and further south were still rural towns, and Auburn and Tacoma were separate job markets from Seattle.

         Link was always predicated on the Everett-Tacoma-Redmond Spine, which would serve Northgate but not Lake City. Lake City was in a later phase, a line from Northgate to Lake City and Bothell.

         Before the 522, Metro 307 went hourly express from downtown to Northgate, then switched to local to serve Lake City and Bothell. I rode it in the early 80s in high school. So the 522 initially served Lake City because the 307 had and it was on the way, but Northgate got a new route 41 instead. East King was paying for the 522 and all Eastside ST Expresses, and what the Northshore cities wanted was an express to downtown Seattle.

      3. That’s a slightly wrong history, Mike. Route 41 was introduced in the early 1970’s as a nationally-funded transit test called “Blue Streak”. The bus was originally called “The Blue Streak” rather than a number and used a custom fleet of blue-painted GM Transit Buses with big diesels (V-8’s I think). The contra-flow lane on Fifth is from that test project.

         It was so successful that the “5 Blue Streak”, the “7 Blue Streaks (3 branches)” and the “8 Blue Streak” followed quickly all using the 42nd Street reversible ramp.

         Those were renumbered to 55, 71, 72, 73, and 74 a few years later, for clarity.

         You are tight about the 307.

      4. You never really lived unless you rode the 357 (Wednesday only shopper service to/from Northgate and Skykomish). It ran a couple of times each way, so you could head out in the morning, spend a few hours in the mountains, and head back in the evening.

   5. That is the approximate nature of all the Lynnwood Link stations. ST chose the I-5 alignment. The south Shoreline site may be the worst as it has a full interchange and more traffic. The City of Shoreline is spending many millions to make it acceptable. The Pinehurst station is on direct line with two denser places: Lake City and Bitter Lake. That is something south Shoreline lacks.

8. “Yes” to all this, Ross; well done. I lived on the 5 west of Green Lake for three years long ago and almost never saw anyone who was obviously connected to Shoreline CC. That may have changed, but if SCC students want to live in the City, they could find an apartment north of 130th, along 130th, or in Lake City. Those are all neighborhoods less expensive than Phinney Ridge.

   You like straight bus lines, and changing this would violate that, but, what you gain is that Shoreline CC would immediately get a single-transfer connection to all of Seattle north of the Ship Canal and east of about Third NW. And Phinney Ridge, which has great service to and from downtown would get a single-transfer connection to the same area while keeping it’s single-transfer connections to Ballard and Crown Hill. Grant, SCC would lose the single-transfer connection via the 40 to Ballard and Crown Hill, though a person who HATES transfers could ride to Northgate and eliminate one. Most would probably just change at Aurora and walk up the hill to the college.

   Yes, Phinney Ridge would lose the one-seat ride to SCC, but, as above noted, not that many riders use it.

   1. Thanks Tom. I agree with all of your points. Let me back up here and say that I think sending the 75 to Bitter Lake is a no-brainer. If anyone reading this isn’t buying the argument for sending the 5 to Lake City I get that. At the very least I hope you will support sending the 75 to Bitter Lake (and backfilling service with the 76).

      The 5 is more complicated. I had a really good email conversation with Mike about it. I’m going to copy many of the points here (and this means repeating some of the points you made).

      It makes me nervous to have the 5 turn like that. It breaks the grid. Here is the thing though: We can’t make an ideal grid. You can make a good north-south grid but you can’t make a good east-west grid. We can’t have buses running every ten blocks east-west because the street grid won’t allow it. This changes the dynamic. There are trips that would be trivial with a grid that simply aren’t realistic. One of the main benefits of a grid is that you can get anywhere with a simple two-seat ride. If your destination is to the north east you take a bus north, then east. But without a bus that goes east (anywhere close to your destination) you are out of luck. If we stuck religiously to a grid we would have more three-seat ride.

      So turning and going all the way across makes sense. But there is a trade-off. The sooner you turn the more you lose. For example the 5 could go to Northgate via 85th but then all of the people that ride the bus along Phinney Ridge (through Greenwood) would have to transfer. You would be losing a lot more.

      But in this case you don’t lose that much. From a one-seat perspective the loss is significant but not huge. Shoreline Community College gets less than 200 riders a day. The 5 only has forty more riders a day than the old 330 (and that was when the 330 only ran hourly at best). From a destination standpoint it is just better. Shoreline College has decent ridership but Lake City is bigger. There are a lot more good one-seat rides.

      From a connectivity standpoint you gain a lot more than you lose by sending the 5 to Lake City. You lose the connection to the 331 and 333. But the Phinney/Greenwood corridor gains a connection with the E, the 345/365 combination, Link, 348, 65 and 72. There are other advantages (not involving a trip to Phinney Ridge or Greenwood). Since the 5 crosses the 40 at 105th the trip from Lake City to Ballard is much faster. Thus you take advantage of the fast part of the 40 and skip the slow part.

      But moving the 5 isn’t just for connectivity. It also means doubling the frequency of buses along the Bitter Lake/Pinehurst/Lake City corridor. This is worthy in its own right but it also gives riders along Aurora a clear choice for getting to Link. Imagine you are at 165th and Aurora and want to get to Capitol Hill. You have several choices:

      1) Walk ten blocks north to 175th and catch the 333 as it loops around before finally getting you to Shoreline South Station.
      2) Walk ten blocks south to 155th and catch the 345 to Shoreline South Station. The problem is, this bus is infrequent.
      3) Take the RapidRide E all the way downtown and then take Link back.
      4) Take the RapidRide E south and then transfer to the 333 (or the future 77) and take that east to Link.

      Even though it seems crazy to transfer twice, it may very well be the best option. The same is true if you are going to various north-end Link destinations (Roosevelt, UW, etc.). It is also true if you are starting at various places on Aurora. Even if you are on a street with a crossing bus it might make sense to use this approach. Imagine you arrive at the 185th & Aurora bus stop just as the 348 (heading to Shoreline Station) pulls away. You look north and see that the RapidRide E is up the street. The crosswalk is green so you cross and take the E Line heading south. But where do you get off the bus? There is no clear-cut advantage to the 333 or 77. You have to quickly check your phone and hope it has everything right (or you just pick one arbitrarily). But if buses are running every 7.5 minutes on 130th then that is your transfer point. Having one east-west corridor that has a high-frequency combination of buses (i. e. 7.5 minute headways midday) makes that three-seat ride a lot more attractive. It is also the best location for a high-frequency east-west connection. There are good anchors on both sides (Lake City and Bitter Lake) with a lot of connections. It is also the last really good connection (for a while) if you are headed south. The corridors to the south are 105th and 85th — both of which have slow connections to Link. If you had to pick a corridor for high-frequency transit, that would be it.

      Then, of course there is the simple fact that it is a strong east-west corridor in terms of potential ridership per hour of service. There are plenty of people on the corridor as well as a high school. It is also a fairly short, fast trip which means doubling up service doesn’t cost a lot. I would love to see the 44 run every 7.5 minutes but that would cost a lot more. The case for sending the 5 to Lake City is a lot more complicated but I think it is a good one. Again it wasn’t my idea — Jack came up with it.

      1. Excellent analysis of solutions to the jump between the two parallel trunk lines. One thirtieth is the cleat winner.

9. Are you sure that this route for the 75 is legal, given that the 45 and 75 are interlined? I am worried that the route is too long and that rules about driver breaks and things like that prevent the 75 from being extended without a major restructure of U District layover space for the 45 and 75.

   1. Metro’s restructure will interline the 75/77 instead of the 75/45. A former Metro planner reviewed Ross’s suggestions and didn’t have a problem with them. Ross’s 75 would be significantly shorter than Metro’s 75/77.

      1. The 75 and 77 are just one of the worst pairs and would not get along, they both overlap along 125th, like is that enough references?! If the 45 and 75 are bad enough, then the 75 and 77 are going to be a big smack down (in a bad way).

      2. “The 75 and 77 are just one of the worst pairs and would not get along, they both overlap along 125th”

         That doesn’t matter if the bus changes numbers in the U-District, far away from 125th. New riders and occasional riders won’t even know they’re through-routed unless they look closely at the complete schedule. They’ll think they’re two completely different routes. They’d have to look the complete schedule closely to see that they’re through-routed. The limited schedules at the bus stops probably wouldn’t mention it.

      3. My version of the 75 could be paired with the 77 but it would probably be pushing it: https://maps.app.goo.gl/dxggnEMbz5eSGfdq5. A 77 paired with a 75 would be strange. That would be like this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/tqt9VRwGF17Z2WxA7. A driver would have to remember which leg they are are on (the 75 or 77). Not only is it really long but it seems like a weird combination. I would expect drivers to make mistakes.

   2. Metro plans on breaking the 75 and 45 into two pieces anyway. The 45 would terminate on its southern end at University of Washington station and operate on NE Pacific Street instead of via the University of Washington campus. The 75 would operate on 15th Avenue NE instead of University Way NE and terminate at U District station. Stephen Fesler gives a rundown of these changes here. Notice that future timetables for the 45 and the 75 no longer line up. The 45 runs a little more frequently.

      It is worth noting that it takes about as long to get to Bitter Lake as it does to Northgate. Thus if you just sent the 75 to Bitter Lake (laying over where the proposed 77 is supposed to lay over) then it would likely work even when through-routed with the 45. But going to Shoreline CC as a through-route would probably be too much.

      Interlining is a tricky issue. I could easily see them pairing the future 72 with the 45 if they want to go back to pairing the latter. Based on my calculation it takes about the same amount of time for the 75 to get to Northgate Station (from the U-District) as it will for the 72 to get to Shoreline Station.

      1. “The 75 would operate on 15th Avenue NE instead of University Way NE and terminate at U District station.”

         Then where will the 75 and 77 interline? The 75’s other end is Northgate, and the 77’s other end is Bitter Lake. It would have to get from Northgate to Bitter Lake, and that would be a huge deadhead, or a very inefficient way to get from 125th to Bitter Lake. That’s why I assumed they must interline at the other end in the U-District, where it’s only a few blocks between them, and tons of students getting on and off everywhere south of 43rd.

         Why can’t Metro just keep the highly-successful 75/45 interline? It creates a southeast-northwest grid segment between Children’s and 85th & 24th NW.

      2. I still remember the time I was on the southbound 75 and going to the northern Ave or 65th & Roosevelt. The 75 used to be interlined with the 31/32 so I thought I’d have to transfer at Campus Parkway. I knew the 48 had been split into the 48 and 45, but I couldn’t remember where the 45’s closest stop to Campus Parkway would be. I assumed the 45 was on 15th where the 48 had been, so I’d have to walk 1 1/2 blocks to the 45 stop probably.

         As we got close to Campus Parkway I asked the people around me if anyone knew where the closest 45 stop was. One said, “You’re on the 45.” I said, “It was 75 when I got on.” Then I remembered the 45 was on the Ave and had replaced the 71/72/73, and that the 75/45 were through-routed.

         That through route has been such a success to get to the northern Ave, Roosevelt, Greenlake, and Greenwood, that I can’t fathom why Metro would break it.

      3. Then where will the 75 and 77 interline?

         They wouldn’t. Where did you read they would?

         Why can’t Metro just keep the highly-successful 75/45 interline?

         Others have asked the same question. I can think of a few reasons:

         1) It is pretty long as it is. It is pushing it.
         2) Operational flexibility. They want to run the 45 more often.
         3) More one-seat rides to the UW Medical Center.

         It is a trade-off for sure. Even if you want to pair a bus it isn’t clear what the best combination is. You want to match demand but also want to make sure the combined route isn’t too long. From the west (i. e. serving U-District first) I think the 67 is the faster but the future 77 might be close. The 45 is the slowest. To the east the current 65 and 75 are about the same. I think the future 72 will be similar. I’m not sure what the best combination is. I think it is more important that the buses be staggered through the UW (and run on the same corridor). If your bus arrives at the U-District Station and you have to transfer to another bus to get to the middle of campus it would be nice if you knew that the longest possible wait would be five minutes. With three buses running through campus that seems possible.

      4. As we got close to Campus Parkway I asked the people around me if anyone knew where the closest 45 stop was. One said, “You’re on the 45.” I said, “It was 75 when I got on.” Then I remembered the 45 was on the Ave and had replaced the 71/72/73, and that the 75/45 were through-routed.

         Yeah, my wife has taken the 75 to U-Village and the 75/45 switch is confusing. To be honest I think it should just be the same number (like the 3 or 4). But by having different numbers it is less confusing if they ever split it.

      5. “Then where will the 75 and 77 interline?”

         “They wouldn’t. Where did you read they would?”

         I thought that was part of the restructure. That Metro was separating the 75/45 in order to join the 75/77. Am I misremembering? What will the 75 be through-routed with then?

      6. “You want to match demand but also want to make sure the combined route isn’t too long.”

         Any north Seattle pair would be shorter than the 5/21, 28/131/132, whatever the 125 is paired with that I’ve forgotten, or the single route E.

      7. What will the 75 be through-routed with then?

         Nothing. This is my understanding based on the article. Then again the timetables for both the 75 and 77 match so maybe they expect to pair those. That doesn’t seem any better (in terms of time). I wouldn’t bother. I would send the 77 to the U-District and layover at Campus Parkway if not the station. This gives Metro operational flexibility. You can send the bus to Roosevelt (like the current 522) if times are tight. You can send it to UW Station when you have money. Meanwhile the 75 can be extended to the college.

         As I said, through-routing gets complicated. First consider buses from the east and the west. The east being buses that go to U-Village before the U-District. So, to the east you have the 65, future 72 and Metro’s 75. All of these are about the same. My 75 would take longer. To the west the 67 stands out as being significantly shorter than anything else. My 77 might be close while Metro’s 77 is most definitely not. The 45 is also long.

         Thus pairing the 65 with the 67 is great. It is a somewhat arbitrary pair but it works out well. In contrast consider some different pairs:

         • 45 and 75 — Takes a while.
         • Metro’s 77 and 75 — Also takes a while. It isn’t clear this is any quicker than the 45/75 combination.
         • My 75 to Bitter Lake and my 77 — Shorter than Metro’s combination.
         • My 75 to Shoreline College and my 77 — About the same as the existing 45/75.
         • My 77 and the future 72 — Appears to be the shortest combination not involving the 67.

         So this means that you stick with the 65/76 combination. No reason to change that. Then you have a couple choices. Either pair the future 72 with my 77 or just truncate all the other buses.

      8. “long” in terms of time. The RapidRide E is long in terms of distance but not bad at all in terms of time. In contrast the 45/75 combination takes a lot longer for an operator to fulfill.

   3. Today, routes 45 and 75 are paired. Under Lynnwood Link, Route 45 would not be paired; Metro would pair routes 75 and 77 via the U District. Per RossB, the Route 77 pathway imposes more walking transfers. If more change was on the table, both routes 65 and 75 could be broken from their through routes, begin in the U District, and extend to SCC; Route 75 via Pinehurst and Route 65 via South Shoreline. The former Route 330 common stop transfers with the E Line at North 155th/160th streets would be restored.

      Metro could look at the Lynnwood Link routes; they probably have two signups of data. What does the stop, trip, and route level ridership show?

      1. Under Lynnwood Link, Route 45 would not be paired; Metro would pair routes 75 and 77 via the U District.

         OK, that is different than The Urbanist article but consistent with the timetables shown for each route on the Lynnwood Link Connections page. There is nothing explicit either way but you used to work for them, so you would know. If you have a link to something official that shows this pairing, please let me know (via email or another comment). I would like to update this post because this is another argument for the change.

         If the 75 is sent to Bitter Lake and the 77 is truncated in Lake City the pairing is shorter and simpler. To see why, I made another map. It should be clear that the combination proposed on this blog is significantly shorter.

         This is another argument for this change: It is much better for drivers! This proposal is significantly shorter. There have been issues with the through-routing in the UW because the combinations are too long. It is also just easier for drivers. We’ve all been on buses where a driver makes a mistake. It is a tough job and it is easy to do. The last thing we need is a route that requires the driver to remember where they started as the approach the roundabout on 125th & Roosevelt instead of just going the same way every time.

         As much as I would like to see the 5 sent to Lake City I have changed my mind about what we should advocate for (at least in the short term). I think we should leave the 5 alone for now and go with the first proposal. This is a simple change that:

         1) Would be much better for riders.
         2) Save service hours.
         3) Be much easier for drivers operating the 75/77 combination.

10. I have friends in the neighborhood West of 15th Ave. NE been 125th and the golf course that are extremely upset about how the intersection of 125th, Roosevelt, and 10th Ave NE is being transformed into a traffic circle that they’re being told is to facilitate transit access to the new station. As I understand the situation they will loose the ability to depart to the East on 125th. I believe that the project is in a final state and construction is about to start.

    https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/programs/transportation-planning/ne-130th-and-125th-mobility-and-safety-project

    1. The project is primarily to improve the experience for pedestrians and cyclists. It will most likely slow down buses a bit.

       I believe the only street that is going to be right turn only is 10th. They will need to drive to 12th or 15th to head east.

    2. They will be able to “go straight” on 125th from west of 10th/Roosevelt toward Lake City. They won’t be able to “turn right” onto Roosevelt southbound legally without going around the traffic circle completely and then taking the Roosevelt exit, though some will no doubt try.

       Look at the diagram in the article you linked. There is a clear path from West 125th to east 125th in both directions.

       Now, I do wonder if two-laning 125th is going to carry the traffic, both bus and private.

    3. Oh, now I think I understand the problem. You are writing about folks to the north of 125th, not people on 125th to the west.

       Cars coming south on 10th NE will have to turn west at the intersection with Roosevelt which is too far west to be a part of the traffic circle.

       Yes, that’s true. They will have to go around on 127th and 12th NE as jd says. And there’s no light there to help them make the turn. So practically speaking, they’ll have to go to 15th NE. I can see why they are upset. Especially for trips from 10th in that first block, it’s a double-back.

    4. OK, that is off topic but at this point it looks like a short conversation so no reason to move it anywhere. jd and Tom covered it but I’ll throw in some maps (because it’s what I do).

       You are right, R. The problem isn’t the traffic circle exactly. It is that drivers heading south on 10th northeast will not be able to access it. They will be forced to make a right onto Roosevelt at the intersection (and head towards the Bitter Lake). You can see this from the slides.

       Drivers heading east (towards Lake City) will turn on 127th and either go south on 12th and east on 125th or they will just go all the way across on 127th and take a right on 15th. Those that want to go south towards Northgate will take a left on 127th, a right on 12th, another right on 125th (heading west) and then enter the roundabout and head south.

       I don’t really see this as a big problem. It is a little annoying but you get used to it. As someone who lives in the neighborhood I find the lack of a street grid to be the most annoying aspect of the area. For example I live close to 10th and 123rd. If I want to go north (towards Shoreline) this is the way Google sends me. I never go that way. It is really annoying to make that left turn onto 125th. I instead go around. So imagine they eliminated the left turn from 20th to 125th. Obviously it wouldn’t bother me but others would complain. At the end of the day, it really is no big deal. In contrast, look at what it is like to walk from that intersection to the Safeway. You have to go all the way around. That’s because 123rd doesn’t go through. It is a real pain.

11. What about deleting the nearly useless at this point 303, add service hours to the 76, and extend a few 76 trips up Meridian to Aurora Village?

    There used to be a half hourly bus on Meridian between Aurora Village and Northgate. Obviously, it didn’t survive one of the restructures.

    As congested as I-5 is during peak periods, I’m not convinced a peak period only express like the 303 really helps that many people any more in this stretch of I-5.

    1. Glenn, uh… NO! Well, I agree with the 303 deletion, but the 76 should be a 61 extension to Pinehurst (instead going there up 5th), but I disagree with de facto the 76 going up to Aurora Village, it would be redundant, yet Ross has proposed this in the past, I will never agree with a route going on Meridian and deviating to 130th just to serve a Link station that won’t even be the course apple of the eye, so if you wan’t a good system…
       1. You can extend the 61 to Pinehurst Station up 5th rather than Northgate Way and Lake City Way, similar to pre-2021 levels with the 41.
       2. You can also extend the 75 to Shoreline CC (like what Ross proposed), but without sending the 5 to Lake City (replacing the 345 and doubling frequency from 130th to the college.
       3. In the meantime you can also truncate the 40 in Crown Hill and extend the D to Lake City (like what Anthony Devera proposed in 2017).
       4. Delete the 345, for now you can retain the 365 and 346. The 346 would be restored to pre-2024 levels (now deviating to N Seattle College), the 5 would instead go to Shoreline South/148th (for now), and the 65 would run to Shoreline South/148th via it’s proposed path (via the old 330’s path), but not end in Lake City, but continue to Shoreline South/148th on all trips (including frequent ones) to replace the loss of the 522’s connection).
       5. The 522 would not only truncate at Shoreline South/148th, but also at the UWB/CC campus, it would go up 98th/185th to Beardslee rather than using Woodinville Dr and Kaysner Way. To match with stride, you can also truncate the 72 in Lake City with no additional coverage on 145th east of 5th (rather than the 522), the 331 would merge with the 931 to become a DART route from Shoreline CC to Duvall (going North of 522 via North Kenmore and Bothell HS), and the 322 would run from Roosevelt to Woodinville via the 522’s path (except using the 256’s path through Woodinville). The 322 would get all-day and weekend service every 15 minutes.
       6. Areas that would get 7.5 headways are 85th and Bothell Way.
       So do I make myself clear?

       1. 3. In the meantime you can also truncate the 40 in Crown Hill and extend the D to Lake City (like what Anthony Devera proposed in 2017).

          No, you can’t. There is no place to layover in Crown Hill. Otherwise the 61 would be extended there (and connect to both the 40 and D). As far as the D and 40 goes, several of us have proposed extending the D to take over the tail of the 40. Then the 40 could go to Northgate and Lake City via 85th (replacing the 61). At that point the 40 is ideal but too long. It would have to be split in Ballard. This costs extra. Extending the D costs extra because it is RapidRide. You would need more “stations” as well as special buses. All of this is a big deal.

          Once again we are drifting off topic here. I’m trying to propose something that can realistically done before the station opens.

       2. Ross, I never proposed that.

          1. I just suggest extending the 75 to Shoreline CC (under one option).

          2. I would just send the 61 to Pinehurst Station (via 5th), and the 40 would extend to Lake City via its path.

          3. The 76 just seems like a waste of resources and won’t attract much ridership. Just retain the 77 (but truncate at Lake City), and the 5 would not get any changes.

          4. The 65, 72, 331, and 522 would not receive changes under my administration (for now). Because the goal here is to just change Pinehurst buses, Pinehurst Station would be served by the 61 from Pinehurst to Loyal Heights (using the 76’s loop), and the 75 would extend to Shoreline CC (just have it overlap for now).

          Alternative option:
          Or you could delete the 345, send the 346 back to pre-2024 levels, the 5 could go to Shoreline South (not a fan) via the 345’s path.

          I’m not really a fan of these Trump v Harris style restructures (with options), you get too much options that could leave out a lot of irony, so I would just go with your first option without changing the 5 (it’s basically a key corridor along Greenwood Ave).

       3. “several of us have proposed extending the D to take over the tail of the 40.”

          That was part of the original feedback when the D was in planning, to extend it to Northgate. Metro said the RapidRide D capital budget wasn’t large enough to do that. It would have to procure more red buses, pay for more street improvements, install a fiber-optic cable for the ORCA readers and next-arrival displays, and buy those readers and displays. So the initial D terminated at 100th as had been the original plan, and there has never been a project to extend it.

          Extending it would require a capital project, like the one Metro is currently doing to improve the 40. It hasn’t been inclined to spend money for red buses to extend the D, when the money can go further on regular bus-route projects.

    2. There are a lot of options for a bus on 5th NE. But the idea here is to keep it simple. This would not be a major restructure. It would only effect two buses (at most) — the 75 and 5. If we simply send the 75 to Bitter Lake than it only effects one bus (the 75).

       The 303 is a peak-only bus to First Hill. I’m sure it has fans. Getting rid of it means this proposal is less likely to be implemented. At the same time, getting rid of it doesn’t save that much service. An extension up Meridian is a good idea in the long run but it would come with changes to the 345, 346, 365 at a minimum.

       1. Ross,

          Okay, so let me get this straight.

          Your proposal extends the 75 to Bitter Lake.
          I would personally extend it to Shoreline CC.

          You truncate the 77 in Lake City (with a shuttering Fred Meyer).
          Delete the useless 77, and have the 322 get 15 minute all-day and weekend service, extend it to Woodinville via the 522’s path from Kenmore to 132/522, but take the 256’s path to Woodinville P&R, better serving Woodinville.

          Meanwhile ST 522 is entirely redundant in Metro’s proposal, you take zero action.
          This has zero sense with this, but I would do what ST proposes in 2026 Service Plan, but have it go 98th/185th to Beardslee rather than 522/Kaysner to Beardslee, instead to reduce the overlap, have the 322 serve Bothell P&R, truncate the 522 at UWB/CC, to match with Stride. No extra coverage on 145th east of 5th (to make the 522 have unique paths).

          What happens to the 331?
          The 331 is terrible, you compete with frequent service along Bothell Way with local service, so to improve this. Just retain its current path (as truncating in LFP would lose a lot of the current ridership, let’s not forget transfers).

          And… The 372?
          Just renumber it the 72, except have all trips end in Lake City (like on weekends), this is also what Metro proposed, except no connection to Shoreline South.

          The 65
          Just keep the proposed path by Metro, except going to Shoreline South on all trips rather than ending in Lake City on some trips.

       2. Actually, to keep it simple and for Pinehurst:

          1. Extend the 75 to Shoreline CC instead of laying over in Bitter Lake.
          2. For now, just keep the 77 (agree with your truncation at Lake City), I would delete it and replace it with more 322 service (and 522), but I won’t do that to keep this simple.
          3. The 61 would extend to Loyal Heights (to improve connections, and to increase service with the 45), but go up 5th to Pinehurst instead of Northgate Way to Lake City Way.
          4. Keep the 72 and 65 proposals like Metro’s, but extend the 40 to Lake City via the 61’s path.
          That’s it for now.

       3. Your proposal extends the 75 to Bitter Lake.

          There are two proposals here:

          Option 1: Run the 77 from Lake City to the U-District. Send the 75 to Bitter Lake at the layover for Metro’s proposed 77. Create a new route (what I call the 76) to backfill service on 5th NE.

          Option 2: Run the 77 from Lake City to the U-District. Send the 5 to Lake City. Send the 75 to Shoreline Community College (on the current path of the 5). Create a new route (what I call the 76) to backfill service on 5th NE.

       4. Ross, the reply I just sent I meant to reply to your bottom reply, so sorry and read it.

       5. The 77 is not useless. There are two parts to the proposed 77. One provides service along Lake City Way. The other runs between Bitter Lake and Lake City. The latter can be done better via the 75 (with a minor modification).

          But the former — a bus route along Lake City Way — is essential. No other provides service on that part of Lake City Way You mention the 322 but it doesn’t serve that part of Lake City Way. The 322 is largely redundant. It overlaps the 61 and 522. You could send the 61 somewhere else but that would mean losing functionality. The 61 connects Greenwood with Lake City — the 322 does not. The 322 is bound to get a lot fewer riders per service hour. It really only makes sense as an express overlay (when the main 522 is too crowded).

          Meanwhile ST 522 is entirely redundant in Metro’s proposal, you take zero action.

          Obviously the current routing of the 522 is ideal. But ST is going to replace the 522 with Stride 3. There is no way they will send Stride 3 to Roosevelt (or the U-District). There is no point in fighting that battle.

          I also have no idea why you call the 522 redundant. A lot of people have actually complained about the lack of redundancy (e. g. they want to keep the 372 like it is now or do something similar).

          I fail to see why you think the 331 is terrible. It is a coverage bus that runs infrequently. What other bus would you send on Ballinger Way?

          Truncating the 72 in Lake City is reasonable. Several people have proposed that. I can it both ways. It goes back to the poor routing of the 522. Without an extension you are forcing two transfers just to keep going on the same corridor. It is a judgment call but it is not unreasonable to extend it.

       6. 1. Extend the 75 to Shoreline CC instead of laying over in Bitter Lake.
          2. For now, just keep the 77 (agree with your truncation at Lake City), I would delete it and replace it with more 322 service (and 522), but I won’t do that to keep this simple.
          3. The 61 would extend to Loyal Heights (to improve connections, and to increase service with the 45), but go up 5th to Pinehurst instead of Northgate Way to Lake City Way.
          4. Keep the 72 and 65 proposals like Metro’s, but extend the 40 to Lake City via the 61’s path.
          That’s it for now.

          OK, but again, that is a major restructure. I have a lot of issues with your proposal. For example it really doesn’t make sense to extend the 40 to Lake City unless it runs on 85th. Even then it might be too long.

          But that is beside the point. I am not proposing a major restructure of buses in this post. There are dozens of little changes I would make, many of them in Shoreline. But that is not the focus of this post. I’m just trying to come up with a plan that can realistically be implemented in the next few months.

       7. So, here is my response to your feedback:
          1. I suggest truncating the 322 to Roosevelt Station (providing coverage on Lake City Way which is the 77’s path), similar to pre-2024 levels, but also extend the 322 to Woodinville via Bothell Way/Woodinville Dr, Kaysner Way, Beardslee Blvd (serving 110th to the UWB/CC campus), I-405, SR 522, 132nd, 175th, 138th, and 178th. In the meantime you can add 15 minute all-day service to the 322, and would also run 15 minutes on weekends.
          2. The 522 would use the Stride S3 path, except not yet going to Bothell/Woodinville TC, just going on 110th to the UWB/CC loop. No extra coverage on 145th east of 5th to avoid redundancy. It would be truncated at UWB/CC.
          3. The 372 would be renumbered the 72 (like Metro’s proposal), and always end in Lake City. Requiring a 322 transfer (which is probably the segment which is north of Lake City that does worst).
          4. Delete the 77 proposed by Metro and for now just extend the 75 to Shoreline CC (deleting the 345, having the 346 use pre-2024 routing, and having the 5 end at Shoreline South/148th).
          5. The 61 would get sent to Pinehurst Station via 5th instead of Lake City, and extend the 40 to Lake City via the 61’s path from Lake City to Northgate.
          6. Retain the 331’s routing how it is to avoid a “Sabrina Carpenter vs Billie Eilish” argument. That’s right, no extension to Bothell (learn how to transfer). Please ask what I meant by that.

          So, do I NOW make myself clear on the 322? I suggested having it go to Roosevelt Station via the 522’s path but no further, such as no extension to First Hill.

       8. Re: the 72, I think the overlap on 145th is okay. 145th/15th gets quite a lot of ridership, Lake City between 130th and 145th does okay, and the 145th corridor should be reasonably fast.

          If anything the tail of the 65 is duplicative and should potentially be eliminated

       9. Re: the 72, I think the overlap on 145th is okay. 145th/15th gets quite a lot of ridership, Lake City between 130th and 145th does okay, and the 145th corridor should be reasonably fast.

          If anything the tail of the 65 is duplicative and should potentially be eliminated

          That may be Metro’s thinking. The 72 is supposed to go to the 148th Station via 145th (the fastest option). It will due this every time. This means it overlaps the future Stride Line on 145th. The 65 in contrast will stair step its way up to 155th and then circle around to the stations, providing more coverage (https://cdn.kingcounty.gov/-/media/king-county/depts/metro/documents/projects/lynnwood-link-connections/routes/065.pdf). Even then it won’t do that section all the time. Thus the 72 is the main connection between Lake City and the 522.

          Just from a big picture perspective there really is no good alternative. Either you send various buses up to 148th Station or you live with two transfers. In this case someone heading from Wedgwood to Kenmore would have to transfer twice unless they manage to time it just right. But in general I would much rather have overlap on 145th than overlap on Bothell Way. Ideally a bus could just stop at 145th but it just not worth it to send it up to Kenmore. You just can’t justify that level of service for so few riders (especially with the future Stride 3).

       10. “There are a lot of options for a bus on 5th NE. But the idea here is to keep it simple. This would not be a major restructure”

           This is important. The simpler it is and the fewer changes it makes, the easier it is to convince Metro to do it. There’s already a large hurdle since we’re not in a planning phase of a restructure (that has already finished, and the 77 route was the result). We have to convince Metro to open it up again.

           If we just ask to reroute the 75, and have it do the northern part of the 77 that Metro has already agreed to, and reroute the 77 in an obviously-sensible way (which the 522 is getting high ridership on), and have a 76 placeholder that backfills 5th Ave NE — that’s a lot easier to convince Metro and the county council to do than if you throw in the 5 and other things.

           One risk is always that naysayers will protest the changes, and that will scare Metro into not doing them. So when you’re asking Metro to reopen a decision, it’s best to avoid controversial things that will bring a lot of protesters. 5th Ave NE is a small issue, and our proposal backfills it. There aren’t enough people there to raise a large political objection to losing a one-seat ride to Lake City. But if you propose rerouting the 5, that would raise a hornet’s nest of Broadviewans losing a one-seat ride to Greenwood/Phinney/Fremont, and Greenwodites losing a one-seat ride to Shoreline CC, when they may have moved there because the 5 had those connections, and transit fans divided on whether it’s a good idea to break the unity of the Phinney-Broadview-Shoreline CC corridor. (There was similar uneasiness about splitting the 7 at Mt Baker.) So we need to keep those issues for another day, and just fix the eastern Lake City to Pinehurst station issue, and the Lake City Way to northern Lake City issue.

           We’re offering Metro a way to easily backfill 5th. Metro probably realizes as we do that 5th is the least important issue in the area, and the necessity of a route on 5th is debatable. So we can offer Metro a placeholder route on 5th, and Metro can either implement it, or be bold and choose not to implement it (thus withdrawing bus service from 5th). But we’ve given Metro a simple choice there, and a way to preserve the status quo (which we know it likes to have).

       11. Good point. If we want to play it safe we just argue for the first proposal. That is far more likely to get implemented for a number of reasons — one of which is cost. It saves service hours. Sending the 5 to Lake City is bound to be more controversial and more costly. Logistically it is easier as well. The 5 is paired with the 21. Would that make it too long? Should we split the 5 and 21 instead?

           I guess I’m just tired of a poor network when it would be so easy to make this change. I get why big things (like sending the RapidRide D to Northgate and the 40 to Lake City) are bound to be difficult. But sending the 5 would be a huge improvement for a lot of riders and only a handful would be inconvenienced. Yet we are likely stuck with the current mess for a while.

       12. I mean we could send the 5 to Lake City, but not via your proposed and redundant path. I mean via taking over the former 330, Shoreline CC to Lake City IS a key connection, but I’m sure peeps wouldn’t mind taking the 333 or just a short walk to Westminster Way, it’s not much of a big deal (if you know what I mean). The 5 would continue on Greenwood which becomes Westminster. Then turn on 155th to follow the 330’s old routing (going on 30th Ave like the old proposed 336). I mean connecting 155th to Link (where some peeps wanted a station at) won’t be a big deal if you have a double connection from Greenwood Ave (the 75 and 333). I’m also sure people wouldn’t want their one-seat local ride taken away for Link. So I’ll propose an extension of the 5, with the 75 being able to extend to Shoreline CC (like Ross’s second proposal involving the 5). I’m sure people wouldn’t want their one seat taken away, but you have two transfers at Bitter Lake. Let’s also have the 75 go to Four Freedoms. This allows the deletion of the 345, for now we can have the 346 go to Northgate similar to it’s path before 2024, the 72 would be how Metro proposes it, the 77 would just be truncated at Lake City, and the 65 would just end at the Lake City Fred Meyer area (shutting down soon). This way you can clear up the system. I agree with the 77 needing to be two branches, because they just decided to make a waste of money covering two needs. And the 61… Oh no, 5th Ave NE has come!
           So we have lots of options.
           1. We could either send the 61 to Pinehurst up 5th Ave NE, while another route covers its path through Northgate Way, three options include the D, 40, or maybe even the 6-7! (why did I reference that).
           2. We could also have the 75 continue to Shoreline CC half of the trips, and the other half going to Northgate on the current route (something that might be a bad idea but could be considered).
           3. An extension of ANY route that ends in Northgate (yeah… Maybe not).
           4. eVeN bEtA, lAkE cItY bUsEs gO tO tHiS sTaTiOn!!! (that’s worse).

           So don’t worry, King County Metro. We have this under control (or do we?).

12. wow, what a waste of money. Just route the buses a few feet north given this station is within walking distance of shoreline south and save taxpayers millions. Better yet, operate a shuttle

    1. Neither station is within walking distance of Lake City, a significant portion of which gets worse service with the plan to reroute many of its buses to Shoreline South.

       This plan is about serving all the places that don’t get good service under the current plan.

       The “shuttle” you suggest is the Ross proposed 76, which would replace a short section of the 75.

       1. Glenn,

          I personally think the 76 will be a waste of money and resources, when you can simply just run the 75 at frequent and infrequent levels, you can have the bus run every 15 minutes from Roosevelt/125th, trips would alternate between Shoreline CC and Northgate, one trip would go on it’s current route, and the second to Shoreline CC via Pinehurst Station, I do think that Pinehurst is worthy of 15 minute frequencies though, so you can make the Pinehurst Station (the second option) from a 61 extension (using the 75), the 75 would go to Shoreline CC on all trips, and the 61 would go on 5th up to Pinehurst (using the 76’s loop which will be a waste of money), meanwhile the Northgate Way segment could be an extension of a Northgate route (likely the 40, or the 67) But again this isn’t much of a “Billie Eilish defeats Sabrina Carpenter” situation, so you have plenty of alternatives if the first one doesn’t work, you have another.

       2. you can have the bus run every 15 minutes from Roosevelt/125th, trips would alternate between Shoreline CC and Northgate, one trip would go on it’s current route, and the second to Shoreline CC via Pinehurst Station,

          Wait, what? You want to run the bus to Bitter Lake only every half hour? That would be terrible. Hell, the current plan — as wasteful as it is — is better than that. It is a terrible place for a branch.

       3. Scooby:
          Ross did a whole analysis of ridership on the 75 here:
          https://seattletransitblog.com/2025/10/13/ridership-patterns-for-king-county-metro-route-75/

          The ridership on the section served by the proposed 76 isn’t exactly 0.

       4. To me it looks like cutting service on 5th would be the best option, though perhaps not politically feasible.

          The ridership isn’t zero but most of the ridership is at 5th/112th, which is a few minute’s walk from 5th/Northgate. Riders headed to U District, U Village, or Children’s would swap to the 67; riders headed to Lake City (or Northgate) would take any of a number of buses; riders headed elsewhere would unfortunately need to transfer.

          Perhaps deleting the segment could get tied to increased service on the 67. The 67 is already a very productive bus and could use more service anyway.

       5. Micheal did the analysis. But yes, there is ridership on that segment. I don’t think service should be eliminated there for simple political reasons (in the short run). But in the long run I think the corridor has value as part of a larger restructure. If for no other reason than it makes it easier to combine the 67 and 348. That would save a considerable amount of service while maintaining good combined headways between 5th between Northgate Way and the station. The savings would go into running buses more often. For example the 61 and 76 could each run every 12 minutes for combined headways of 6 minutes on that section of 5th.

       6. There is a subtle aspect to the routing and its worth considering the impact based on the ridership numbers. Consider the riders that would be just as well off with a looping 76 as with a 75. It is worth noting that because of the looping nature of the bus it serves 125th & Roosevelt. There are 61 riders who take the bus (from Northgate) to that stop. There are 208 riders that would be just as well off with the 76 as the 75. These are the riders that rode a bus that starts at Northgate and got off the bus at 125th & Roosevelt (or sooner). That actually works out to more than 10% of the riders*. Some of those riders would end up catching a different bus. But that is still not as good. It means more waiting for riders along that corridor. By adding the 76 you give those riders the same level of service they have today.

          Then you have riders that will have to transfer. These are riders who board the bus along that section. This works out to 185 riders. At worst, these riders will have to take the 76 and transfer to the 75. Some will use a different bus — or more likely, catch the first bus that arrives. Some will just put up with the transfer. Hard to say. But there is no reason to abandon the corridor at this point. Not when serving it costs so little.

          Note: These numbers don’t include those that go to the station. I am basically asking them to transfer using Link (at worst). It is likely that the vast majority of riders take a bus to the station so that they can board Link. This will make their life much better.

          *The numbers are for heading one direction. You have to double that number for the total trips. It is also a slice in time (when we got bus stop ridership figures). Ridership is up a bit since we got that report.

       7. As far as I can tell most of the riders headed between 125th/Roosevelt and Northgate are headed to Link. A revised 75 would be better for most of them. Those headed to Northgate could walk to 125th/15th for the 348, 6-7 minutes away by foot.

          In the end some people lose out but I think there’s more to gain from spending the frequency elsewhere.

       8. Regardless of how the segment gets covered, I think creating Route 76 is dooming the segment to failure.

          For a route to be successful it has to offer direct service to other places besides Northgate (which is somewhat within walking distance of the southern area) and Pinehurst Station (within walking distance of the northern area).

          The way this is proposed, it probably will not attract very many riders. Then Metro will cut it back. Then it will lose lots more riders. Then Metro will end up cancelling it aa its uselessness relative to other routes becomes apparent. Metro can’t do what ST does and run things just because they can; Metro has adopted productivity standards that must be fairly applied across the entire county.

          If service on the segment is to survive it should be an extension or rerouting so that it also connects to other things. Going the stand-alone option will certainly doom its long-term sustainability.

          I’m not advocating for another particular route to be extended. The comments already have identified some of them. But I am saying that the stand-alone Route 76 concept will likely just set the route up to be cancelled.

       9. As far as I can tell most of the riders headed between 125th/Roosevelt and Northgate are headed to Link. A revised 75 would be better for most of them.

          Except a revised 75 won’t serve them. That’s the problem. It will serve others quite well, but without a 76 those riders have to find a different way to get to Link.

       10. “The way this is proposed, it probably will not attract very many riders. Then Metro will cut it back.”

           You could tear up the South Lake Union Streetcar and reinstall it here. That way it never gets cut back no matter how little ridership it gets.

           The important part of an L shaped route is how much demand is there between the two corridors?

           I’m not convinced the two corridors served by the current 75 have that much interest in each other.

       11. Regardless of how the segment gets covered, I think creating Route 76 is dooming the segment to failure.

           The way this is proposed, it probably will not attract very many riders.

           Who cares? I am not trying to attract new riders on that segment. I am trying to retain them and not piss them off. Again, look at the numbers. There are 208 riders who take the bus from Northgate to 125th & Roosevelt. That doesn’t count the riders who are headed towards Lake City. In contrast there were 125 riders on the Metro 20 in Tangletown who lost their bus. They had to walk a little bit farther to catch the 62 in one of the most pedestrian-places in the city and yet there was a full-scale rebellion. A group was formed to resist the change. People were pissed. Way fewer people were involved and yet they hated it.

           Why the hell would you do that when it is so easy to prevent?

           Then there is the timing of buses. As of a year ago, about 200 people took the bus that started at Northgate Transit Center to (roughly) Northgate Way & 5th NE. They took one of three buses (the 61, 75 or 348). Each bus runs every fifteen minutes in the middle of the day. That is enough that Metro doesn’t bother trying to time them. It is, essentially, a spine. But if you take away one of those buses you have to try and time the 61 and 348. It can be done but Metro doesn’t have a great record in that regard. So now you are running buses with ten minute gaps on an area that has become one of the most urban areas in the north end. It is like a giant Fu** You to the greater Northgate area. Again, that is just that one stop. You look at the other stops along there and it is the same thing. Maybe they don’t get quite as many riders but it is still well over a hundred — way more than the TangleTown riders.

           Take things one step at a time. If this route performs like a typical Shoreline route than Metro can modify it when they modify the Shoreline routes (which clearly haven’t performed as well as Metro expected).

       12. Here is another way to look at it. There are three options:

           1) Keep the 75 as is.
           2) Send the 75 to Bitter Lake and do nothing else.
           3) Send the 75 to Bitter Lake and run the 76.

           The first option is terrible. It means you ruin the 75 because you want to preserve service for only a handful of riders (between Northgate Transit Center and 125th).

           The second option is the other extreme. You are willing to screw over those riders.

           The third option keeps service for those riders (a majority of whom won’t notice the change other than the route number) while also making the 75 much better. It does so in a way that actually saves money. It means the 75/77 combination is much better for drivers. It is the best option.

       13. Those at Roosevelt/125th would head to Pinehurst via the 75. Those at 5th/112th would head to the stop at 5th/Northgate.

           I understand that it’s not politically feasible to drop the coverage but at the end of the day 5th is a weak corridor. The strongest nodes are already served by other routes, and the rest of the corridor is freeway adjacent next to low density

       14. Ross,you didn’t quite get jd’s point about “a revised 75 would be best for most of them” [emphasis added].

           “Them” is “riders headed to Link”. So they will be advantaged by a 75 that goes to Bitter Lake, wherever it terminates.

       15. I understand that it’s not politically feasible to drop the coverage but at the end of the day 5th is a weak corridor. The strongest nodes are already served by other routes, and the rest of the corridor is freeway adjacent next to low density.

           I don’t think it is that weak of corridor. It depends on the network. Obviously the looping 76 is a place holder. It is weak. But sending buses up 5th and then across 130th (past Pinehurst) is a reasonable approach. Already folks have said they want to send the 346 that way and I agree. You would give those riders something other than just a connection to Link. It is pretty easy to see how you could do the same with another coverage bus which means it would branch to the east of the station and you would retain 15 minute service along that corridor.

           That can be considered overkill but only because of the current network. If we combine the 76 and 348 (which I think we should do) then the 61 would have to do all the work. It would be the only bus on 5th (south of Northgate Way). You could either run the 61 very frequently (every 7.5 minutes) or combine a bus coming from Pinehurst Station so that the two have good combined headways through there.

           But that is a moot point. For now, the best thing to do is whatever is politically easiest. Keep in mind, I’ve already given up on sending the 5 to Lake City. I think doing so would be fantastic — it would transform transit in the north end. But it seems highly unlikely we can make that happen (in the short run). I don’t want to change the 346 even though it is obviously very weak and extending it Pinehurst Station is a no-brainer. I’m not even sure if we can make this happen despite it being much better. But backfilling service via the 76 makes it far more likely to happen.

       16. @Ross Bleakney

           In the longer term I think combining with the 346 makes sense, but it doesn’t need to be via 5th. Of the three options below I think 5th looks like the weakest by far, especially in the case where the 348 and 67 are combined, since then there is a weaker corridor from Roosevelt/Northgate to the station.

           5th:
           https://imgur.com/a/i96xZWX

           Roosevelt:
           https://imgur.com/a/ChKef0k

           15th:
           https://imgur.com/a/tWCdK6v

       17. It’s funny because I was thinking the same thing. The main advantage of Fifth is speed. From Pinehurst Station to Northgate Station it is by far the fastest option. But using Roosevelt or 15th gets you a lot more. There are a lot more places along the way. Of course things can change (and likely will change) making Fifth a stronger corridor from a density standpoint. The speed advantage will likely remain though as a bus can just go straight through there.

           But turning on 15th or Roosevelt has much better connectivity, especially if you combine the 67/347. It would mean combined headways (of 7.5 midday) starting at Roosevelt & Northgate Way (not 5th & Northgate Way). Not only is this (more or less) where the density starts but it means transfers are much better. Riders from a combined 67/347 trying to get to Northgate would have two buses to choose from (i. e. double the frequency). I think from a political standpoint you would almost have to do that (just to placate those that would be losing their one-seat ride).

           I tend to err on the side of speed (I don’t like detours) but in this case the connectivity advantages are worth it. Even the slowest option (15th) is still faster than going via Haller Lake and 92nd. I would likely choose the middle option (Roosevelt). It is a good compromise. It is not as fast as 5th but not as slow as 15th. It retains a lot of the coverage — instead of riders walking over to 5th they walk over to Roosevelt. It is a new pathway so SDOT would have to approve it and Metro would have to drive it. I don’t see any issues with it though. Turning on 15th has the advantage of doubling up buses through Pinehurst. That is handy if you are in the area and just want a bus to Link (either one will do) but with Pinehurst Station many of the potential riders will just head there.

    2. Just route the buses a few feet north given this station is within walking distance of shoreline south and save taxpayers millions.

       What the hell does that mean? Send a bus up to 145th? How is that supposed to save money?

       Better yet, operate a shuttle

       Again, how would a shuttle save money? And where is this shuttle supposed to go.

       1. Exactly, Ross Bleakney!

          I bet Sound Transit isn’t willing to pay for a shuttle connecting ALL the link stations, like if that happened I would go out of my mind and declare that the transit department has officially lost their mind, like I said it’s not a “BILLIE EILISH BEATS SABRINA CARPENTER” situation, but you get what I mean, 145th is probably one of the worst streets in terms of congestion, 130th is probably going to be a waste of money but is a better location than 145th, like 145th is absolute hell and is so uninteresting, Jackson Park is so underused and 5th Ave would just reopen for no reason if we were to reopen it without sending a bus.

13. If you’re going to try to advertise your products in the comments here, you might want to actually read the article rather than give an AI attempt at a summary.

    None of the problems mentioned here are readily solved by some sort of high cost per rider taxi service.

Comments are closed.