SR-167 BRT

55 Replies to “SR-167 BRT”

1. Great article. It would be nice to also serve the Valley Medical Center exit for route 153/160/906 transfers. But the issue is southbound that exit sucks for transfers, and not easy for the bus to turn around and re-enter the highway.

   1. Better would be if WSDOT builds an HOV inline exit there…

      1. the traffic is so bad, and the stoplights already so frequent on 43rd that adding another exit would seemingly be possible. But an inline freeway stop, a la the inline station on I-5 at mountlake terrace, with pedestrian access to both Valley Med on the east, and the Spot on the west ;) might be good.

         They should fix the ‘sidewalk’ on the 43rd street overpass too. It’s about 1.5 feet wide on either side of the bridge, and that is it. Try walking it and you will want to walk sideways to avoid vehicle mirrors as they whiz by. not joking!

      2. Yep. The region between Renton and Kent is the last place for major growth within the 40 minute circles around both Seattle and Bellevue-Overlake. There should be an express stop to serve it.

         An inline ramp there would be a perfect pulse point for all of SE King County and Northeast Pierce express service and eventually could connect with an east-west semi-RapidRide from Maple Valley via Petrovitsky and Carr to the hospital, 180th and the airport via 176th, improving the “grid” across the valley.

         By a “pulse point” here’s what I mean. Assume that one STEX BRT line runs from Federal Way to Auburn (“Freeway”), Kent (“Freeway”), and Bellevue, and another operates the Sounder Shadow Wesley proposed. Assume also that ST continues to run the 566 as is only more frequently.

         All three of those expresses would converge on South 180th, allowing passengers to board at essentially any significant city in South King County or Northeast Pierce and change at a protected common stop get to either Seattle or Bellevue roughly as fast as they could drive, and faster at the rush hour. The “Sounder Shadow” and Federal Way-Bellevue express would bypass South Renton.

         This might make it worthwhile for 566 riders to change to a following FW-Bellevue run if it was close enough behind, saving all those turns through Renton.

      3. I was thinking the same thing. Before Wesley published this we discussed the differences between inline bus stops and direct access ramps. In general, inline bus stops add the most value when buses are passing by the area anyway and there is some place that can be reached within an easy walk. I specifically used the example of Valley Medical Center. The medical complex is large and quite close to the freeway. It isn’t hard to imagine an inline station in the middle of the freeway a bit north of 43rd. You would need a big pedestrian ramp connecting riders to the hospital itself (going over the on ramp). As jas mentioned, it would be similar to Mountlake Terrace (or what they are building for TIBS).

         Tom raises a good point. The other way that freeway stops add value is with connecting buses. Often this is a same direction transfer. But crossing bus routes have a lot of potential as well. In this case it is not great but it does seem possible that a rider could take an express from Seattle or Bellevue, get off the bus by the freeway, walk over to the 160 or 906 and then head home. It wouldn’t be a short walk but it might be a lot better than the alternative.

      4. “… walk over to the 160 or 906…”

         Or walk over to Rapid Line I when it is built. That line also will go right by Valley Medical on the other side of the hospital from the freeway.

      5. It seems like a strategic place for a stop. With Valley Medical on one side and IKEA on the other, it does have destinations.

         I have ridden both Routes 160 and 153 and used bus stops around this area. RapidRide I will be an improvement in frequency but I’m not sure if it could operate at a higher speed north of there.

         As others have noted, the pedestrian sidewalk on the bridge over 167 at S 180th St is really awful! The whole area needs a more cohesive pedestrian circulation and land use plan that includes a separate pedestrian crossing over 167 or an expanded sidewalk on the bridge. That crossing could tie into an eventual freeway express bus stop. However it’s so terrifying that something needs to be done sooner rather than later.

   2. The closest thing I can find is a SW 27th Street Direct-accessRamp sketched (as part of I-405 Master Plan I believe). This ETL access idea probably didn’t make it to the final recommendation but was not completely killed either. It will probably keep show up in the forward compatibility plan of I-405 and SR 167 projects in the future.

2. Great article as always W! Agree that it would be awesome to have a one seat ride from Bellevue to Puyallup so hope that makes it into the final plan 🤞

3. I think the bus would need to serve stations rather than just the hov ramp. It could probably travel on local roads between Puyallup and Sumner.

   With option B it may be faster to transfer to the 101 rather than Link

   BAR station with HOV stop might be the best endpoint. I think BAR would have pretty high value for south King and Pierce as a transfer point for express buses and Link.

   1. The station is going to be on East Marginal at 112th, not BAR. If you could get ST to move the station back to the original location it might be fine.

      But a much better thing would be a westbound left exit and eastbound southside entrance both bus only ramps at East Marginal and SR599. Then take the empty space between the existing HOV lanes and the northbound general traffic lane to widen the northbound I-5 HOV starting about South 142nd and add a second lane northbound HOV lane. It would immediately begin rising ramp to an elevation high enough to overlap the southbound HOV ramp and then continue as a second level above it on structure and follow the profile of the eastbound 599 to southbound 5 center ramp but a couple of yards higher. The northbound lanes are a few yards higher than the southbound through the hill and summit north of I-405. The new lane would then follow the existing center bridge around to join with the lefthand northbound 5 to westbound 599 lane on the left. Perhaps force the two lanes of general purpose traffic into one on the bridge so the HOV just gets the left lane to East Marginal.

      Or, for a bit more money, add a left bus-only lane in the median.

      Buses would get a signal at East Marginal and Interurban, and then turn left to stop directly under the station on 112th at East Marginal. After discharging they would pull forward to a layover yard under the City Light lines. A couple of minutes before departure time at Allentown Station, they’d pull out onto Tukwila International Boulevard northbound, make the U-turn loop at TIB and East Marginal and stop under the station southbound on East Marginal.

      Now that would be a bus intercept at Allentown worth cheering. It has direct connections to both directions of I-5 HOV and both directions of I-405 HOV to and from Renton/Southeast King County.

      I grant that this has some “theoretical” weaknesses compared to exiting at Martin Luther King Jr Blvd and interchanging at Rainier Beach. That route is shorter by about 3/4 of a mile, but it has these shortcomings.

      First, and very bad the northbound buses would discharge north of Henderson, forcing riders to wait through two stop lights. The southbound transfer would be better, requiring only one light to cross MLK.

      Second, and this is non-trivial, the buses would have to merge into and out of the HOV lanes somewhere between 144th and 129th, and that can be slow and is certainly a bit risky.

      And third, the intersection of MLK and Ryan Way can be quite congested. The buses will occasionally miss the light and have to wait through two cycles.

      An intercept at Allentown requires no pedestrian crossing, only the climb up and down the stairs to the platforms. The traffic is light on East Marginal and Interurban; the buses could get priority signals.

      1. “First, and very bad the northbound buses would discharge north of Henderson, forcing riders to wait through two stop lights. The southbound transfer would be better, requiring only one light to cross MLK.”

         I argued for a better bus intercept at Rainier Beach recently (along with a RapidRide I extension to there). I mentioned that it at least deserves study and a sketch plan , and that it’s also the designated terminus of RapidRide R and already has a restroom for drivers on break at the Link Station.

         Others chimed in telling me that it wasn’t needed. They implied it would be a waste of money.

   2. “But a much better thing would be a westbound left exit and eastbound southside entrance both bus only ramps at East Marginal and SR599.”

      And how would this serve the 167 corridor? It may be useful for buses from I-5 or Southcenter, but 599 is likely too far away from SR 167 to offer any routing advsntage.

      1. As Ross notes, the HOV connection from westbound I-405 puts the buses in the righthand lane on I-5 northbound, so they just stay there as SR599 breaks off to the northwest a half mile to the north of the big interchange. Yes, they’d have to move over to the center lane to take the bus-only exit, but it’s a mile before the East Marginal Way overpass, plenty of room.

         I suggested forcing the general traffic over to the right lane on the overpass or soon after. Just start an HOV lane and let the new ramp merge with it.

         It would certainly be better if the I-405 west to I-5 north connection were high enough to join with the HOV overpass, but it isn’t. This is not terrible and at least puts the buses in a lane that cars will be in their “own” lane (with the HOV’s from I-405) into which the cars from general I-405 must merge.

4. SR 167 has only a jersey barrier north of Auburn. Dropping in HOV ramps would seem to require lots of lane moving and overpass replacing because of this. It wouldn’t be very easy nor cheap. And WSDOT changed out the entire corridor’s tolling equipment these past few months so it would seem to be several years from when they would be willing to radically expanding the corridor.

   I have to wonder if it would be easier to just add a bus lane on the outer edges of the highway with the bus pulling off at several exit ramps for stops. It would seem to be easier to provide for some highway noise buffering too. Freeway stops can be loud!

5. For the Sumner connection, a pedestrian overpass from W Valley Hwy to Pacific Ave would make a lot of sense and I hope they consider it. As for Puyallup, I think you’re missing the possibility of direct access ramps to the terminus. If we allow direct ramps at the 512 overpass of Main Ave, buses would have a straight shot to the main Puyallup station on Stewart.

6. All of the WSDOT plans for SR-167 BRT feel kind of meaningless, given that no agency seems willing to fund the actual service (e.g. buses and drivers) that such improvements would facilitate. The service costs to actually fund SR-167 BRT at any kind of usable frequency would be immense, with the only agency that could plausibly pay for it being Sound Transit.

   But, to my knowledge, such routes are not part of ST3 (unlike I-405 BRT), so it’s not clear where the funding would come from. If anything, ST is moving the opposite direction – with ST 567 cut, that leaves no bus service left to use the I-167->SR 405 HOV ramps.

   1. > All of the WSDOT plans for SR-167 BRT feel kind of meaningless, given that no agency seems willing to fund the actual service (e.g. buses and drivers) that such improvements would facilitate.

      I partially agree but it was already addressed in the article “While this was a study without funding it might still become a reality. Similar to how the previous I-405 study ultimately became the Stride 1 and 2 freeway BRT projects.”

      The SR-167 BRT might be another Stride 4/5 in the future. Mostly likely running when Sounder is not running to avoid duplicated service.

      Anyways it’s more about discussing what ramps we should build so if such a service is built it is able to connect to the best destinations. Like the Stride 1 unfortunately skips out on both factoria and southcenter mall.

   2. ST’s long-range plan has 167 BRT. It hasn’t said when it might build it, and it would wait to coordinate with WSDOT’s projects in any case. It’s not in ST3, so the earliest it could come would be ST4. ST hasn’t said when it might start thinking about an ST4 package: I assume the late 2030s at the earliest. But since ST3 looks like it will be a lot more expensive and take a lot longer than expected, there may be no public/board will to think about ST4 in the 2030s or 2040s. If ST4 is to reuse the ST1/2/3 tax capacity rather than just adding another tax on top of it, it would have to wait until ST3 is finished and its bonds are substantially paid down. That would be in the 2040s at the earliest.

   3. It is too early for Sound Transit to do a more meaningful SR 167 BRT study.

      To put things to perspective, I-405 Master Plan as well as its final recommendation report was released in 2002. I am sure recession in 08′ delayed everything planned for I-405, but it is probably still a decade away for SR 167 to get its second toll lane.

      The next step is for WSDOT to come up with a plan on how to phase these projects. Obviously they won’t all be built at the same time. When that’s decided, Sound Transit can serious decide when they need to start their meaningful study if they haven’t secretly started yet.

7. A lot of folks in Pierce County work up in those warehouses in Kent Valley. Right now (literally) it takes over an hour an a half and 2 transfers to make what is a 20 minute drive. So everyone drives.

   After the 167 work done to connect to the port, this trip would finally be feasible by something other than a car.

   It’s not all about Seattle and Bellevue.

8. Glad to see that all three 3 scenarios has SR 167 frequent service (BRT or not) from Renton to Puyallup included although Scenario A (Build-all scenario) includes bunch of south King service. I don’t know what that means when WSDOT includes those because it is still up to transit partners to fund those to my understanding.
   Scenario B has lower cost than A but has more benefit than C. The report in the end kills the truck lane idea. I don’t think WSDOT is in a good financial state to propose the “Build All” scenario either. That leaves the Sceanrio B. Sceanrio B doesn’t propose BRT, but has most of the direct access mentioned above and a frequent SR 167 service. To me that really is all it needs.

   I have a feeling that none of the direct-access ramp will feature flyer stop like the one in Totem Lake because there is nothing in close proximity. It is just better if the bus pull out of freeway there and make a few local stops in Downtown Auburn and Kent.

   1. It is just better if the bus pull out of freeway there and make a few local stops in Downtown Auburn and Kent.

      Yeah, as I wrote down below that is what I would do. I don’t see much value in freeway stops there. Most of the destinations are too far of a walk from the freeway. It is reasonable to stop on the freeway if you in between bigger destinations (e. g. stopping at Mercer Island on the way from Bellevue to downtown) but that simply isn’t the dynamic here. Puyallup and Sumner are fairly small in terms of potential ridership. Auburn and Kent are similar (and Kent probably has the edge). It just doesn’t make sense to skip the main part of either one.

      1. Even for Puyallup and Sumner they might get their stops closer in their town centers.
         The proposed Sumner direct access is likely to be a pair of ramps over 167/BNSF railroad and tie to Cannery Way. The 167 transit service will probably take a very similar route as 578 between Sumner and Puyallup. Even if the service is decade away, soon as the ramps open, 578 can use it.

   2. “I don’t know what that means when WSDOT includes those because it is still up to transit partners to fund those to my understanding.”

      They’re placeholders for potential projects. WSDOT is just making sure its plans aren’t incompatible with future BRT.

9. The Kent freeway station would be great for the Acesso ShoWare Center, it would open up more direct transit options for Seattle Thunderbirds games and various concerts. There is a park-and-ride across the street from the arena, but it seems only local routes (150, 162 and 188) stop there, and it serves as overflow parking when the arena’s lot is filled.

10. I think it makes sense for WSDOT to focus on infrastructure first and the bus network second. When building things you want some idea of how it will be used but the particulars aren’t that important. For example, consider the Mountlake Terrace freeway station. It was obviously going to be used by express buses coming from the north headed to Seattle. But it really doesn’t matter what other stops it would make or how often the buses ran. The key was connecting the freeway corridor with the neighborhood.

    When it comes to infrastructure there are two options (or three if you build both) — direct access ramp or inline freeway station. They each have their advantages.

    An inline freeway station is valuable if you are trying to connect to something very close to the freeway. It also makes sense if you have a lot of buses going along the same pathway. It made sense for Mountlake Terrace because they knew there were buses coming from Snohomish County — might as well have them stop there on the way. It can also add value as a connection point for east-west buses. If buses tend to spread out on either end then it makes sense for same direction or even reverse direction transfers. For example there could be two buses on 520, one going from Kirkland to downtown and the other from Redmond to the UW. A freeway station would allow riders to go from Redmond to downtown or Kirkland to the UW. It could even allow riders to go from Redmond to Kirkland (although there might be faster options).

    Direct access ramps are better when the destinations are not within walking distance. There are also quite valuable if you want to a build a “Blue Streak” type bus. This is a bus that travels through the neighborhood and then gets on the freeway and runs express to somewhere else. This implies there is enough in the area to make this the end of the line.

    With all that in mind, I think the following add the most value: As mentioned up above, Valley Medical Center is an excellent place for an inline stop. The main destination is right there. It is also closer to Seattle and Bellevue (which means it is likely it would be “on the way” for a lot of buses).

    Kent is the next destination and the biggest destination along the corridor south of Renton. It is not close to the freeway. An inline station would make good connections but I really don’t see many buses skipping the heart of Kent. Doing so would likely hammer ridership and with it the route itself. From Auburn it might seem like a detour but the reality is that Auburn would simply be an extension of the essential piece (to Kent).

    The same is true for Auburn. It may not as big a destination as Kent but it is a lot bigger than places to the south. (I don’t count Tacoma because going to Seattle or Bellevue from Tacoma is better via I-5). The main part of Auburn is not close to the freeway, either. Again I think the focus should be on direct access lanes. For the same reason I don’t see much value in inline stops for Sumner or Puyallup. Anything they can do to provide faster access to the freeway HOV lanes would be great but is obviously challenging.

    Ultimately I could see a wide range of buses traveling the corridor. I think a midday “Sounder bus” (that skips Tacoma and Tukwila) would make sense. The 566 could run more often (and should be truncated in Bellevue). Depending on how frequent the Sounder bus is I could see another bus (e. g. the 168) going to the Kent Station and continuing to Seattle via the direct access ramps. If the Sounder bus ran every half hour then it would give riders from the main part of Kent fifteen minute midday express service to Downtown Seattle. Sound Transit would likely provide the more regional service (the Sounder bus) and Metro would extend the 168.

    But again, who knows what the future holds. It seems silly to commit to particular bus routes when one of the main advantages to buses is their flexibility. Most of the infrastructure is already there. There are pieces that can be improved but doing so would benefit a huge range of potential routes.

    1. You are ignoring that many people in Tacoma and broader Pierce County want to get to and from Kent Valley. And Tacoma is bigger than Bellevue, and closer to Kent than both Seattle and Bellevue.

       Yes, people in Kent commute to Seattle, but that’s a very narrow thing to focus on in this corridor.

       1. I didn’t ignore Tacoma. The dynamic is the same. A detour to Kent or Auburn is worth it. Imagine they run a “Sounder Bus” that goes Tacoma/Puyallup/Sumner/Auburn/Kent/Seattle. No one would take that bus from Tacoma to Seattle. They would have to be heading to Puyallup, Sumner, Auburn or Kent. Thus the “detours” to the center of town would be worth it. The same is true for a bus that goes Tacoma/Puyallup/Sumner/Auburn/Kent/Renton/Bellevue. Some riders from Tacoma might like the one-seat ride but most would just take a bus/train to Seattle and Link across the lake.

          I suppose you could argue that the detours to Puyallup, Sumner and Auburn aren’t worth it because of all those riders from Tacoma trying to get to Kent. Except their really aren’t that many. There won’t be that many past Auburn, really. This makes it tough to justify service beyond Auburn. Thus riders from Tacoma’s best chance of getting any kind of service is if ridership to Sumner and Puyallup is high enough. The only way you can do that is with a detour to the center of each town.

11. I wish there was a back door way to just get public ownership of a right of way adjacent to the nearby rail tracks to reserve — as opposed to a giant wholesale reconstruction of SR 167 to add in HOV ramps and all the cost and disruption that entails, which still is not in the best locations for pedestrian connectivity. That could be a busway converted to rail in the future, or a single track automated line with bypasses. This just feels like WSDOT is dancing around a mouth more productive solution because it can’t touch the railroad ownership issue and probably couldn’t use toll revenue for such a purpose.

    1. Yeah I agree, this is just a highway expansion project. Though perhaps the additional ETL will pay for itself?

       The obvious solution to improving transit along the corridor is to focus on Sounder. I’m curious how cost/ridership would compare between increased Sounder service and 167 express bus service.

       1. I’m curious how cost/ridership would compare between increased Sounder service and 167 express bus service.

          It depends on if you include the various infrastructure improvements as part of the calculation. If you don’t — if you just live with buses doing their best — then they are much, much cheaper. Sounder is extremely expensive. The cost per train also goes up (which is not the case with buses).

       2. Of course it is just a highway expansion project. The study itself is a Planning-Environment Linkage study, which state DOTs typical do for controversial highway capacity adding project in the planning phase.

          But if Sound Transit doesn’t need to pay for the construction of any direct access like it did for I-405 Bellevue to Lynnwood, I think it is a good deal to ride with WSDOT.

          If Sounder probably can get you all-day hourly or maybe half-hourly service, it is unlikely to get you 15-minute bi-direction service in foreseeable future.

       3. The reason that I mention the busway is simply to get ownership of a corridor somehow. What mode it’s used for can be determined later. Even if it has been first be called an HOV street it might be toll money eligible.

          Railroad negotiations are tricky. It would need to be done very carefully and likely in private. It would take clever attorneys and negotiators to pull it off. I’m only mentioning it to state the obvious that the rail corridor is probably a better location for transit service through these cities.

12. For example the existing Route 162 from Kent via I-5 to Seattle takes around 45 minutes.

    The 162 is not really an express from Kent Station. It first cuts over to I-5 on surface streets that I’m pretty sure don’t have HOV or BAT lanes. It also only run during peak.

    Unfortunately I-5 lacks toll lanes and there are missing center flyover ramps at I-5 & I-405 and I-405 & SR 167. Such a long bus route lacking toll lanes would likely be stuck in traffic on I-5.

    The lack of toll lanes on I-5 doesn’t really matter. The problem is that I-5 is HOV-2, not HOV-3. The flyover situation is messy. There is an HOV ramp from 405 to I-5. Southbound a bus stays in the HOV while traveling that direction. Northbound it isn’t quite as good. There is an HOV lane from 405 to I-5 but it puts the bus in the right lane. The bus still avoids the worst of the traffic but it isn’t ideal (since the bus has to work its way over into the left lane). Of course eventually the bus has to work its way over to the right lane to exit the freeway (as WSDOT has still built the HOV ramp connection to the SoDo Busway). You are right about the connection between 167 & 405. They built an HOV connection between the two freeways but only to Bellevue, not towards SeaTac/Seattle.

    While this is obviously less than ideal it still pretty good. It is worth pointing out that a “Sounder bus” would not operate during peak hours. Sounder would. So it wouldn’t experience the worst congestion and it would still be quite a bit faster than any alternative.

    1. “the existing Route 162 from Kent via I-5 to Seattle takes around 45 minutes.”

       “The 162 is not really an express from Kent Station. It first cuts over to I-5 on surface streets that I’m pretty sure don’t have HOV or BAT lanes”

       Most of it is on Kent-Des Moines Road, which has a high speed limit and few traffic lights. The only alternative I can think of is 167 to 405 to I-5, and then you’d get caught in 405 congestion so I don’t think it would be faster.

       1. The only alternative I can think of is 167 to 405 to I-5, and then you’d get caught in 405 congestion so I don’t think it would be faster.

          167 to 405 to I-5 has HOV/HOT lanes as I explained. So a bus would get caught in a lot less traffic.

13. Thankfully, someone had the foresight to build all these beautiful freeways that provide quick, safe, and low-carbon car trips. Where would your reliable bus transit and light rail lines be without them?

    1. You’ve…never actually been on a freeway in the USA, have you?

       The whole reason we’re spending so much on transit is that freeways are slow, clogged, expensive, polluting, and dangerous.

    2. Just to remind people, interstate highways in Washington state were built using other people’s money.
       Up until around the year 2000, Washington state was a net receiver of highway funding from the federal government.

       If these facilities were truly self-sustaining, they would be privately operated toll road.

    3. Ha! That’s a funny one. Thanks transplanner for the joke of the day.

14. Why wouldn’t it be better to add enough rail capacity to improve the Sounder to run all day in both directions? And electrify at least the south Sounder route.

    So many of these HOT projects end up being 98% used by SOVs and don’t deliver the promised speeds, get opened up to general purpose traffic whenever there is an accident, and aren’t all that efficient for real world bus operations.

    1. Why wouldn’t it be better to add enough rail capacity to improve the Sounder to run all day in both directions?

       Because it would cost a fortune. We don’t own the tracks and every additional run costs more than the previous one. At the same time, each additional train carries fewer riders. It is just really, really expensive.

       1. Expanding highways doesn’t cost a fortune?
          You can build 2-lanes of railroad in about the width of one lane of roadway. That ought to be cheaper than expanding the roadway if you don’t add all kinds of ancillary costs and projects to it.

    2. Half-hourly Sounder South would be ideal. Travel times are incredible: 10 minutes to Tukwila, 20 minutes to Kent, 30 minutes to Auburn. But BNSF owns the tracks and is more interested in shareholder profits than passengers. It charges high prices for timeslots for Sounder runs. That’s why we’re going around it with Link and express buses instead of making it like Caltrain. There have been concepts floated like the state buying the right of way and shifting freight to the UP track to free up space for passenger trains, or adding a third track with passenger-priority. But only the state can come up with that kind of money: Sound Transit can’t. And the state hasn’t been interested.

       1. Isn’t WSDOT working with Amtrak to build improvements for Cascades service?

       2. Yes, but it will only do a fraction of this. The negotiations are mainly with BNSF, not Amtrak. Amtrak is just the operator, so it just hires staff when the state buys more services, like Seattle’s TBD with Metro. The reason Amtrak is involved is the law that created Amtrak says the host railroads can charge it only expenses and it has to give Amtrak trains priority, whereas with any other operator BNSF can charge what it wants and and make them wait for freight trains.

15. This is probably not a productive exercise. The objective of transit is to extend the range of pedestrians and provide mobility, access, and opportunity. (J Walker liberty). It is very difficult to get pedestrians and buses on freeways to meet. Stride 1 and 2 will be relatively ineffective. They were chosen by political consensus between those who wanted to expand limited access highways and those who wanted to expand transit. Similar to the SR-520 sizing between those wanting a four-lane v. eight-lane configuration. (Ideal would have been six lanes east of Montlake and four lanes west of Montlake).

    When ST uses freeway envelopes for Link, the issue is similar. The City of Shoreline is spending huge sums to make the NE 145th Street interchange work half way well. One of my adages: a freeway is to pedestrians as a dam is to fish.

    Lin mentions a WSDOT notion of transit. Note the lack of a budget constraint. When WSDOT asked the transit agencies to develop a BRT network for SR-520, it had that issue: no budget constraint; it was unfunded; it had many lines and many markets.

    The Urban Partnership that applied variable tolling to SR-520 was successful. But the region has not followed up well. Note that the HOT lanes of both SR-167 and I-405 have a bottleneck at their north ends.

    It would be best for the Legislature to allow WSDOT and the Commission to study network wide variable tolling of all limited access lanes. The tolling discussion dates back to 2000 and the Blue Ribbon Commission. Variable tolling would improve flow for all modes: general purpose, transit, and freight.

    It is difficult for politicians to get behind tolling. It is scary. Inslee served three terms; he was a tolling skeptic; in 2012, he defeated Rob McKenna, who had a better understanding of tolling. But there could be consensus between the left wing environmentalists and the right wing economists.

    Labeling bus routes as BRT may be ending. I hope the agencies shift toward all-door boarding and alighting, proof of payment fare collection, and inspection.

    1. This goes back to what I wrote up above. Freeways have their role when it comes to transit. But Link shouldn’t mimic freeways — they shouldn’t put their stations so close to them. A network consisting of nothing but freeway stations would be as poor (but much cheaper to build). But routes can use the freeways in any number of ways. One if the old “Blue Streak” model. A bus serves the local area then gets on the freeway and runs express to downtown. The 41, 71, 72, 73 and 74 all followed that model and all were very successful. As noted, freeway stations can also be very helpful. Yes, it would be ideal for those in Mountlake Terrace if the bus left the freeway, served the main part of town and then reentered it. But that is unrealistic. Having a freeway station meant that the neighborhood (or at least the parking garage) was “on the way”. This meant service that was a lot more frequent. The combination is ideal. We can see that with Totem Lake even though the agencies haven’t fully taken advantage of it yet. A bus from Lynnwood can serve the freeway station and continue to Bellevue. A different bus could serve the neighborhood and then get on the freeway and run express to say, the UW. This is often where you get the most value from freeway stations — you can have overlapping buses that allow riders to make same direction transfers.

       Along this corridor there are clearly areas where freeway-based infrastructure adds value. For a freeway station, I think Valley Medical Center adds the most value. For direct access ramps, I would prioritize Kent and then Auburn. But I would not consider any one of these projects a priority for the region or even the potential riders.

       While an all-day express bus to Bellevue would be great, it isn’t where most of the riders are headed. Way more people are likely to take a bus to Seattle. All of the riders who take an express bus to Seattle have to deal with the same problem: Getting on the SoDo Busway. That connection should be a much higher priority. It is also quite reasonable to add HOV lanes from 167 to both directions of 405 (although that would serve fewer riders).

       For the East Side the highest priority should be the connection from 405 to 520. This would allow a bus from Eastgate (or Issaquah) to get on the HOV lanes and get right to Downtown Bellevue without ever leaving them.

    2. “This is probably not a productive exercise… It is very difficult to get pedestrians and buses on freeways to meet. Stride 1 and 2 will be relatively ineffective. They were chosen by political consensus between those who wanted to expand limited access highways and those who wanted to expand transit.”

       People still need to get between Renton, Bellevue, Burien, Bothell, etc, no matter how mediocre the 405 stations are. Stride will make these corridors frequent all day, which ST has been uwilling to do otherwise. I lived in Bellevue for over a decade, and needed a fast way to get to Renton, Kirkland, and Bothell at various times. A mediocre station location is better than no route at all or waiting an hour for it.

       What would be perfect? An arterial like Aurora that could have walkable housing and retail all along it, like those Chicago L station areas. But there’s no way the Eastside cities could build such a north-south arterial now, and it would cost several times more than the Stride project — money Sound Transit doesn’t have. So we either improve north-south mobility with what we can do, or leave it as is. I’d rather improve it, because I think of all the times I’ve gone from Bellevue to Renton, and so many Rentonites wanting better access to Bellevue and the central Eastside and acces to the 2 Line. That shouldn’t be just thrown away because there’s no arterial like Aurora available.

       By the way, I think we can still see remnants of the pre-405 highway. Market Street and Lake Washington Blvd in Kirkland, Bellevue Way in Bellevue, and Coal Creek Parkway south of Factoria. I idly imagined turning Coal Creek Parkway into a true walkable arterial, but there’s practically zero chance of that happening.

       The ultimate problem is Eastside land use. If it weren’t for that, there wouldn’t be single-family zones immediately south of Main Street or west of 100th, or isolated exits on 405 you can’t walk to anything to, or walk to the surrounding villages. But it’s better to improve what we can rather than leaving hundreds of thousands of people in relative car dependency, while we’re waiting for the cities to adopt major land-use reform beyond a few regional centers here and there.

       1. While ‘fancifully considering turning coal creek parkway into a walkable arterial’,

          We may as well also fantasize about a bridge over the cedar river valley to connect the Renton highlands with Fairwood.

    3. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/rice-is-nice-when-trying-to-visualize-highway-traffic/

    4. “It would be best for the Legislature to allow WSDOT and the Commission to study network wide variable tolling of all limited access lanes.”

       It is not a state legislature’s call. WSDOT can implement all-lane tolling on SR 509 and SR 520 bridge because they are state highways. They are not part of Interstate highway system and don’t receive federal funding for construction and maintenance.

       If state lets Interstate Highway to be a turnpike, it automatically gives up all the federal funding opportunities and that’s if FHWA is okay with it. Most likely it won’t for defense reason.

       Most of toll road authorities in the US formed before Federal-Aid Highway Act. Some got Interstate designation later but without much of federal control. USDOT tried porch some east coast turnpikes to give up tolling in exchange for federal funding, but most of the profitable systems didn’t budge because they were doing so well.

16. Typo: very for good.

    1. Fixed above.

Comments are closed.