Friday Roundtable: Revive I-5 in 2026

40 Replies to “Friday Roundtable: Revive I-5 in 2026”

1. Unfortunately the complete disaster that is Metro and Community transit means the idea of feeder buses into the spine remains just that: an idea. For example, I live two miles from the MLT station and if I want to take the bus, I need to take a bus to king county first, then transfer to a bus that doesn’t go to MLT but to shoreline north station instead. LMAO. What a disaster.

   1. Dude, local bus service in Snohomish County is not the responsibility of King County Metro. Metro serves Mountlake Terrace Station with the 331 and 333 because that station is “in direction” from extreme north King County in Shoreline and Lake Forest Park. Given your description, you must live on the 333 north of 244th SW.

      Either ride a little way “out of direction” on the 333 up to MLT Station like a reasonable rider would, live with the transfer to the 348 or whine to Community Transit.

      You live in extreme suburbia. Be thankful you have scheduled service at all.

      1. @ Tom….Paul’s gripe is legitimate. Do motorists care if they’re using their own county’s roads? Does a cyclist suddenly stop at the county border and turn back? Public transit needs to 1) recognize where people want/need to go – regardless of what county they live in/go to and 2) be developed from a wholistic standpoint rather by municipality. This is the reason why we have 4 different transit agencies between Everett and Tacoma despite being a single, continuous metropolitan area. The fact that people have to transfer merely because they’re crossing an imaginary line is an antiquated concept.

      2. Jordan, states have administrative sub-divisions called “counties” (usually) so that residents have choices about how much of the public purse to spend on “optional” services like transit.

         Note: I’m not dissing the importance of transit, just that it is not a Constitutional responsibility of the State of Washington.

         The people in southwest Snohomish County have chosen to establish a PTBA and have relatively generously funded its operations. But it doesn’t have unlimited resources.

         One thing that accumulating eighty years’ experience will teach you is that people as a whole have little patience for lop-sided advocacy. Most folks regard transit as a useful tool for congestion and as a valid social program. They don’t want to spend very much money on it, though.

   2. Where do you live (roughly)? In my opinion the Metro restructure for Lynnwood Link was not very good in Shoreline. But they do run buses across the county line. The 331 and 333 both serve Mountlake Terrace Station. The only CT bus that serves a station in King County is Swift Blue. I don’t see why you need to take two buses to get to Link if you are in south Snohomish County (but I don’t know where you live).

      1. I would guess Edmonds area. It’s a difficult area to serve but CT’s network is kind of all over the place there

         https://www.communitytransit.org/docs/default-source/mappdfs/systemmappdfs/edmonds.pdf

      2. I live in Lynnwood and my most used route is the 114 since I use it to get to school every morning, but it needs 20 minute frequencies and not the 102 since it has new service along 212th and we need years to diagnose ridership along that portion.

      3. jd, if he’s on either the 114 or 130 he can stay on the bus to MLT Station. Sure neither is “direct”, but they get him there.

      4. RossB: AVTC is also served by CT routes 101 , 114, and 130. The King County portion of Bothell is served by CT.

         Yes, most areas in South Snohomish County should be one bus ride to/from Link.

         Yes, the Metro Lynnwood Link structure has issues.

   3. @ Pual… I totally understand your frustration. But if you live in the MLT area, you should be able to take either CT Bus #112, #119, #130 or MT Bus #331 to MLT station. You shouldn’t have to go to Shoreline.

      1. Exactly. Though the only frequent bus MLT has is the 333 (and oh boy it performs so horribly). I would recommend having a bus from MLT to U District (layover on NE Campus Pkwy) via 15th and Roosevelt. Many people have suggested extending the 348 to U District, but my idea provides one direct corridor on the same road. Instead 185th would get an Edmonds to Shoreline South/148th bus (Richmond Beach is a bad terminus), this would also add bus service to Woodway, and provides one-seat connections that can’t be done on transit currently. Riders boarding on 185th to Northgate would use the new bus and then light rail (providing faster service against the long and slow 348). A new bus connecting Edmonds, Westgate, Shoreline, MLT, LFP, Kenmore, and Bothell (run by ST but operated by Metro) would replace the CT 909, 331, and 372. Though I know someone who disagrees with this proposal, it provides a direct route on one corridor, and doubles frequency with the ST 522 from LFP to Bothell (as well replaces the idea of extending the 331 to Bothell). I’ll number the new Edmonds to Bothell express the 521, and continue running the 522 to Roosevelt (which takes about the same time as the proposed truncation + Link, which riders will be able to use the 521 to MLT). I would also abandon the idea of service on 175th and on 145th west of light rail (as 155th would do better). I’ll explain my proposal in another reply to answer your questions, comments, and concerns.

      2. Scooby, sthere are some good thoughts in your revamp. But Link goes directly to UW and U District, MUCH ffaster than any bus, and soon will run every five minutes. A milk run from MLT to the District would just be a series of locals strung together.

         Nobody would ride the full length.

      3. Yeah, but it would be an option for those that don’t really want to transfer to light rail (as 15th was an option for Lynnwood Link). You can also run the new bus from MLT to U District only from MLT to Northgate, and retain the 6-7. I also was inspired by Ross B.

      4. The only reason for a local route between Mountlake Terrace and UW is for stops north of the U-District, or to consolidate the routes on 15th.

         Consolidating the routes on 15th is problematic because most of the destinations with significant demand are too far from it: Roosevelt, Greenlake, Northgate, the Crest Cinema area. Routes that turn can connect people to those. A route solely on 15th goes through the middle of nowhere with few destinations, so it’s not that useful. And especially not for going a long distance like from Mountlake Terrace to 65th.

      5. Yes, but it creates a grid system, Mike. It would also make it simpler for those coming from west of 15th. They would transfer to light rail whereas those on 15th Ave would have a one-seat ride connecting the whole corridor (including the corridors that are connected to 15th). They would also have local connections that don’t involve light rail (except at Roosevelt).

   4. That’s why the stations out there come with large parking garages.

      1. There should be a policy where any new garages have a max capacity of 400 to 500 stalls. Any other cars left in the dust just take the light rail to park at a different station.

      2. @Scooby Doo

         I somewhat agree but the reality of suburban stations is that they’re very difficult to serve with bus service and garages build political support for more transit. In the longer term the answer would be to create more hubs of residents, but that’s a multi-decade long process.

         I think Mountlake Terrace station and Lynnwood station are pretty functional garages. Mountlake Terrace reuses existing infrastructure, and Lynnwood is a terminal station that serves a huge area (plus it uses the more marginal land closer to the freeway).

      3. Yes, but some garages feel like you’re in a horror movie, for example take South Bellevue’s garage, it’s eerily empty and is in a dead end location. Though I would like to see paid parking take effect (which will), and I as well would like to see people pay for parking with their ORCA card). I expect a monthly parking pass to be around maybe 100 to 200 dollars? This could make garages less-empty (making the policy for new garages 400-500 stalls max), and encourage people to use buses to light rail more. CT says that monthly car expenses are 525 dollars, but my dad spends more than that just on gas (he drives a truck and doesn’t use it very often).

      4. The problem is, for that amount of money, plus the $6/day round trip train fare, you could just buy yourself a monthly parking pass for some random garage in downtown Seattle. Especially if you are willing to shop online for a cheaper garage and/or walk a few blocks.

      5. The garages were to entice Yes votes in Snohomish County.

      6. “take South Bellevue’s garage, it’s eerily empty and is in a dead end location.”

         I rejoice that it’s not at Bellevue Downtown station. Seriously!!!! South Bellevue is the best P&R compromise in the transit network. I grew up in Bellevue so I thought that was universally recognized, But when I saw the P&Rs right at Renton TC, Burien TC, Lynnwood TC, etc, I realized we’ve got a long way to go. An extra Link station is a reasonable compromise if we must have a P&R.

         P&R drivers take only Link and express buses, not local buses. Walk-on riders need destinations transfers in easy walking distance. So put the main station and bus transfers in the center of downtown, and the P&R at the edge of downtown or further out. Drivers can reach either location equally easily, while pedestrians really need destinations within walking distance and mustn’t be forced to walk past P&Rs on their way to the destinations.

         South Bellevue P&R was scaled for pre-covid commuter ridership. The crosslake service it was primarily intended for hasn’t started yet. People can’t drive to the P&R and take Link to ballgames yet. The 550 is running less than its pre-covid frequency, and doesn’t have the speed of being in DSTT, so it’s a less desirable option right now. People at the margin are driving or not going to Seattle until crosslake Link starts, so that lowers ridership and parking numbers. All that will be resolved when the full 2 Line starts, though at a lower level than the pre-covid estimate.

         South Bellevue P&R is designed to be convertible to housing in the future if the board decides, such as if driving becomes less popular and demand for housing and transit heats up more.

      7. My biggest problem with the South Bellevue garage is that we already have huge garages in Issaquah and Eastgate, so the South Bellevue garage is effectively just poaching park and riders from garages that are already there, leaving the existing ones just empty relics.

         In theory, one can park further east and take a feeder bus to South Bellevue, but unless the South Bellevue garage is full, there’s no reason to bother, as driving is faster and gas is cheap. So, the way existing garages end up poor utilized, but too expensive/politically frought to tear down, so they just stay there as relics, indefinitely.

      8. “That’s why the stations out there come with large parking garages.”

         My main issue with ST parking garages is that their sizes are set arbitrarily. The size gets written into some reference document for a referendum or environmental document and suddenly it becomes fixed moving forward — to the last space. Thus, when cost-cutting time cones, riders lose a down escalator rather than 30 parking garage spaces.

         The result is that some garages never fill up and other fill up early in the day. And all riders in a station are affected when escalators are removed.

         On top of that, ST is too short-sighted to install space counters along with real-time signs on the freeway that say how many spaces are available. So if someone is driving south from Everett or north from Tacoma on I-5, they have no idea which of several garages has spaces available. Heck, there’s not even a fixed sign telling drivers which exits have nearby Link stations! Everyone is supposed to just guess.

      9. The South Bellevue P&R was there first, and the garage is for drivers who want to transfer directly to Link and won’t take a feeder bus. The Eastgate and Issaquah P&Rs won’t have Link until the 2040s, if the 4 Line is even built. The P&R is also for people south, west, and east of South Bellevue P&R but not as far east as Eastgate P&R. And when it was planned it was assumed it would be full, so people would have to park at Eastgate and Issaquah because South Bellevue was full. Due to unexpected circumstances, that’s not currently the case.

         We could just double down on South Bellevue P&R and eliminate the Eastgate and Issaquah P&Rs, rather than downsizing South Bellevue P&R.

      10. “South Bellevue garage is effectively just poaching park and riders from garages.”

          South Bellevue garage is big partly because Mercer Island has had a parking shortage. Those on MI don’t want those drivers from Newport or Issaquah clogging up their quaint little village streets and taking away their available spaces.

      11. “We could just double down on South Bellevue P&R and eliminate the Eastgate and Issaquah P&Rs, rather than downsizing South Bellevue P&R.”

          Possible in theory, but building a new garage and tearing down an existing garage is far more expensive than utilizing the parking capacity that’s already there. It’s also more expensive than just letting the underused parking spot there underused, rather than tearing it down.

      12. I think the ideal way to deal with underused legacy transit garages would be to sell to someone trying to develop an adjacent property. So, the transit parking becomes mostly private parking for the development, but with an easement to allow a small section of the lot to continue being available for transit users. Ideally, this development would also attract transit riders riding in the reverse direction.

          The problem is, unless a very specific parcel is available for development, it won’t work, and even then, it would have to be a huge project to be able to utilize that much parking. And, even then, the developer might still need to modify the garage structure to provide a more seamless walking path between the parking and the new building.

      13. @asdf2

          I’d like if all parking garages offered monthly parking passes and daily parking for non-riders, refundable with an ORCA transfer

          Monthly parking would hopefully let nearby residences build more housing rather than extra parking. Daily parking for a nominal fee (maybe $1-2, unless there is high demand), refundable via an ORCA transfer, would do the same for nearby commercial.

          The Bothell city hall and Kirkland library garages for example seem to be decently well utilized and provide parking for nearby commercial. Though to be fair those are much more well-integrated with an existing downtown rather than greenfield development.

      14. “We could just double down on South Bellevue P&R and eliminate the Eastgate and Issaquah P&Rs, rather than downsizing South Bellevue P&R.“

          Agreed. I think currently it is more feasible to convert part of Eastgate P&R to housing. South Bellevue has zero amenities accessible on foot. All it has is just an already congested freeway connector. A lot of people will be diverted from Eastgate to South Bellevue inevitably just because the latter station will have one-seat ride to more places.

      15. “for example take South Bellevue’s garage, it’s eerily empty and is in a dead end location.”

          South Bellevue is not that empty these days. I park there once or twice a month when I have to go somewhere else after work and the first two levels are usually filled up. Consider 2 Line hasn’t reached Seattle now, it’s more occupied than I would imagine.

      16. The location is dead end, not the station itself.

2. It would have been damn convenient if the double frequency from the 2 line simulated service could start this weekend instead of next month as planned. Oh well, I hope to avoid this clusterf*** this weekend by staying home and biking when I need to go out.

   1. Well, at least we’re going to be able to ride the line from Lynnwood to IDC in February. Though I could also suggest that when it happens, suspend the 515 and maybe also the 510. That way we could get a good amount of people to ride the 2 Line rather than getting stuck on I-5 traffic, not deleting it as ST proposes yet, but just suspending it in preparation. This is also the first instance where we have a line that has two parts. I’m really excited, and it seems like a good day for the Cross Lake Connection, this must mean we’re a step closer to an opening date.

      1. Article coming re: 2 Line simulated service tomorrow.

      2. Wait, already?

      3. Article is tomorrow; simulated service is in February. Saw a reddit comment that operators are picking slots and current schedule starts Feb 14, but unclear how reliable that is. Ryan Packer reported start is “within 30 days” so it’s unclear.

      4. The testing might have picked up later this week.
         On Monday morning on my way to work, I saw a one-car test train when 550 just entered the I-90 eastbound. I didn’t spot a second light rail train along I-90.
         Today when I was on I-90, I saw two 4-car trains while traveling on I-90 with one stopping at Judkin Park while I drove by the station and another one heading westbound when I approached Bellevue Way interchange.

3. It looks like LA Metro has just chosen a preferred alternative for Sepulveda Transit Corridor and they picked the automated heavy rail mode although the alignment is sort of mixed of previous Alternative 5&6.

   Metro Board to consider advancing C Line Extension to Torrance and Sepulveda Transit Corridor at January meeting
   

4. See I-5 reversible lanes; they are northbound only. Should ST and Metro declare an emergency and restructure or delete routes 510, 303, and 322? At the time of Lynnwood Link, I asserted that one-way peak-only routes that duplicated Link would not be cost-effective. Now, routes 303 and322 will be stuck in the general-purpose lanes. Should they be deleted or truncated at Northgate station? Or p.m. only?

   Or, have the agencies already done so? I doubt it; there is no alert on the Metro website.

Comments are closed.