On Friday, King County Councilmember and Sound Transit Boardmember Claudia Balducci shared a series of updates regarding the cross-lake connection of the Link 2 Line via BlueSky.
In a series of posts, Claudia Balducci shared she previewed the unopened section of the 2 Line with project partners from WSDOT, King County Metro, Sound Transit, and the Federal Transit Administration, saying “the ride was smooth and truly exciting.” The line is performing pre-revenue testing now, but will begin simulating full-time service between Lynnwood and Redmond in February. Answering a question long asked by transit afficionados: Sound Transit is planning to allow passengers to board 2 Line trains operating between Lynnwood and CID during simulated service.
When simulated service of the 2 Line begins in February, trains will serve stations from Lynnwood to CID every 4 minutes at peak hours. Riders of southbound 2 Line trains in Seattle will have to disembark at CID station before the train continues simulating service to the unopened stations at Judkins Park and Mercer Island.
Sound Transit’s most recent System Expansion Monthly Progress Report provides an update of work completed through November 2025. The report indicates the full 2 Line is expected to open for revenue service by May 31, but that date includes “float” time which is included in case of additional unexpected delays. Based on that report, transit advocate Jason Li is betting the revenue service date could be as early as March, but Sound Transit will not announce a formal opening date until simulated service is going smoothly.
“Tukwila International Boulevard BRT project” (page 2)
What does this mean? That Stride 1 will be able to get to the station bus bays faster than it could now? It doesn’t sound like the long-term plan for inline freeway stations.
Lovely error messages on page 23.
Chart of construction projects activity on page 26.
Pinehurst station “subtantial completion date”: June 2026. (page 66) So no chance of opening with the full 2 Line.
Page 18:
> ST is working with WSDOT to prepare the Inline Tukwila International Boulevard Station (TIBS) Design-Build contract for procurement. Board approved the funding agreement with WSDOT in October.
Apparently a design solution has been developed that connects Stride and Link at TIBS. Making it design-build makes it hard to know exactly whatās finally going to be built.
The earlier plans have at least three big issues ā a loud environment at the planned stop within the ācanyonā on SR 518 there; a hike and stairs to get to/from the Link platforms there; and a 518 bus path through an area where thereās lots of merging traffic by drivers, many of whom are visitors in rental cars or locals who donāt know the airport traffic configurations. The drawback of contracting for a design-build is that thereās no financial incentive to address these.
Is this the final design?
https://wsdot.wa.gov/business-wsdot/contracting-opportunities/sr-518-tukwila-international-boulevard-station-tibs-bus-rapid-transit-project
I don’t think general-purpose traffic will be an issue because the station will be at the center just like I-5 Mountlake Terrace fwy station.
This is a bad idea, truncate Stride S1 at Renton TC and with that money, speed up the F Line by having it run on Grady Way (with a tail to Tukwila Station). It would no longer go to Renton Landing (which is what the new Stride S1 would do, but have a stop on I-405). You would also add center running lanes throughout the F Line (which is half the cost of curbside as CT says).
@HZ — Those look like good plans. I have to assume that is what they are working on (especially since WSDOT is involved). Temporarily serving the station (via exiting the freeway) doesn’t require any work.
“This is a bad idea, truncate Stride S1 at Renton TC and with that money, speed up the F Line by having it run on Grady Way (with a tail to Tukwila Station).”
The would remove STRIDE as a viable option between downtown Bellevue and the airport. Yes, you can transfer between the 1 and 2 lines in downtown Seattle, it’s just quite slow. The bus is faster, or should be.
asdf2, what are you saying? Stride isn’t gonna stop at SeaTac/Airport, I can expect the F Line to be extended to Downtown Seattle via Ambaum (stopping at White Center, Westwood Village, and South Seattle College). The H Line would be truncated at Westwood Village. This can also make up the loss of the 560’s west segment because you make it a 2-3 seat ride without having the time affected due to skipping the airport (which has to go through the congested expressway).
@HZ, if that is the actual plan (and if it’s that detailed why “design / build”?) then it covers all the bases, including the south of the freeway access we all want.
Express buses done right!
I actually think this idea has better potential. Riders to SeaTac have to transfer anyways.
Instead I think Stride 1 should turn south to Kent/Auburn on SR 167 like the current 566, instead of continuing to Burien.
From S Renton Station, build a new direct express bus to SeaTac airport, as well as a new express to Burien directly using 405/518 only during peak hours. Line up the timings for quick transfers.
This line would have a lot more utility than the current Stride line and finally improve express bus connections from Kent/Auburn.
The 101 can be revised back to the old route which starts at the old Renton TC, then goes to the new S Renton Station, before heading to Seattle via MLK. The 102 can be more express and use 405/HOV to Seattle. Though I think MLK is still preferable due to the shorter distance, if they do the minor improvements for bus signal priority, bus lanes at the I-5 onto SR900 ramp, and skip the MLK stops for the 102 (while leaving them for the 101).
That basically creates a much more regional cohesive connection compared to what the current Stride line is offering. Not many folks want to head from Renton to TIBS honestly. Burien is the main connection but this could just be a peak service, with the F Line being the all day connector.
Actually I did realize if someone wants to head south to Federal Way or eventually Tacoma, there is value in a TIBS connection. I guess the inline station would help in that matter.
Stride isnāt gonna stop at SeaTac/Airport
No, but it will be a simple transfer. Stride 1 will mainly connect riders to Downtown Bellevue (from Burien, TIBS and Renton). The freeway station solves one of the main speed issues. Riders from Burien to Bellevue won’t have to detour to serve TIBS (or detour to serve SeaTac as is the case with the 560).
The only big issue with the Stride 1 is Renton. There is no good way to serve Renton quickly. You can either skip most of it (by serving the freeway station at 44th) or slog through town. Making matters worse, it has strong demand both directions. There are no easy solutions, but they include:
1) Splitting the difference somehow. Maybe you serve the south end of Renton while adding HOV lanes here and there.
2) Split the routes and spend a lot more on service. For example you could make the Stride 1 an express that skips Renton. Then add a Burien/TIBS/Renton express (or just live with the RapidRide F). There are a bunch of options for Renton to Bellevue including just running the 566 a lot more often.
3) Spend a bunch of money making a busway. This could be as simple as adding a few ramps along with some red paint or something elevated (as you would if you built a light rail line). The former might have to deal with a few traffic lights but not much congestion.
I don’t see Renton taking more than 5 minutes. They’re planning on a lot of improvements to speed it up. They’ll be off and on the freeway in no time. They just need bus shoulders to skip on ramp traffic, signal priority and a bus lane into the TC and it should be alright.
Renton is too big of a destination not to serve. That’s where most of the riders and transfers will come from. At that point there’s almost no value running Stride to begin with.
I just wish they made an HOV ramp or busway for Renton. I think they should repurpose the Houser Way tunnel with an HOV exit between 4 and 5. Not many cars take it anyways, but HOV only restrictions can be made if needed. That’d be a good busway for Renton. With bus lanes and signals, it should make it into S Renton fairly quickly while serving some of the local stops near downtown.
@ HZ:
Interesting! This is a new concept!
The original concept was for the stops to be on the outside rather than the inside. There was even a plan to not have a pedestrian overcrossing and force transferring riders to the TIBS sidewalk. Then, several months ago, ST floated just pulling buses off of SR 518 to serve the station.
Honestly it seems like a safer and better design for buses. I hope that itās quieter as this is similar to Mountlake Terrace median stop which Iāve heard was noisy ā and itās still in a canyon which amplifies sound.
Still it will require two level changes. Thatās not particularly āeasyā even though itās better than it was.
Not many folks want to head from Renton to TIBS honestly.
Not that many people want to take an express to Renton from Kent or Auburn either. Most of the riders are heading towards Bellevue. But it is worth comparing the 560 to the 566*. There are way more riders from the west headed to Renton or Bellevue than from the south. It also had much better all-day ridership. This is after accounting for the riders who are using this as a way to get from Westwood/Burien to SeaTac. If you assume that the riders from Westwood will just transfer (from RapidRide H to Stride) and that riders from SeaTac will do the same (using Link)** then extending the route to east is bound to get a lot more riders. Obviously it would be nice to resurrect the all-day 566 but not at the expense of Burien/TIBS.
*https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/2020-service-implementation-plan.pdf
**It is also worth noting that not everyone who uses the SeaTac stop on the 560 is actually heading to SeaTac. It is also a transfer point. For example this trip from Federal Way to Bellevue involves a transfer there: https://maps.app.goo.gl/J2byobwyBycYbsMq5. Those riders will instead transfer at TIBS.
Renton is too big of a destination not to serve.
Nobody is suggesting that. We are just pointing out that serving Renton is time consuming. There are several options, even if you don’t want to invest in new infrastructure or additional routes:
1) Just serve the freeway stop at 44th.
2) Go through Renton the way the 560 or 566 does.
The first option means you technically serve Renton but really poorly. The second means the bus spends a lot of time going through Renton. That leaves a third option:
3) Serve a new bus stop in South Renton as a compromise between the two extremes. It is still a terrible way to serve Renton but not as bad as just stopping at 44th. It is still pretty slow but not as slow as going through town.
@ SK Resident:
Check out this presentation!
https://wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/405167-EAG-June2025-Presentation.pdf
Thereās a reference to āRenton Rainier BRT Access Studyā in the presentation. I cannot find a published version anywhere online. Itās only referenced in the meeting presentation.
The study apparently identifies a median exit ramp for buses and toll-paying cars at Lind Ave. It also includes an overcrossing for Grady Way traffic.
So it seems that there is some recent thinking about easing the access problem. Whether it ultimately gets designed, funded and built is a whole other thing.
My understanding is that the stride’s stop in Renton with involve just sitting in line with all the cars and all the stoplights to go into and out of south Renton Park and Ride. That light at 167/Grady Way stays red for a long time, and the bus will have to wait for it twice. The bus will also get stuck in a line of cars trying to get onto southbound SR 167, even though the bus isn’t doing that. It will take quite a bit more than 5 minutes.
I just wish they made an HOV ramp or busway for Renton.
There has been talk about an HOV ramp at North 8th. This seems a bit too far north. You could maybe have another set to the south and then run the buses through Renton. With enough red paint it might work. Ideally you would want something around South 3rd (even with the transit center) but that would likely be too expensive.
“truncate Stride S1 at Renton TC and with that money, speed up the F Line by having it run on Grady Way”
That would increase travel time from Burien to Bellevue or Renton. That’s the opposite of Stride’s purpose. When the line was being designed, ST asked the public whether it should go to Burien or SeaTac. The majority of respondents said Burien. That’s to give the city of Burien and far northwest South King County high-capacity transit. Otherwise Burien is getting little substantial for its ST taxes long-term, and you’re leaving an entire city in South King County out. That’s politically difficult.
Another issue is redirecting the money to another agency’s RapidRide line. ST can do that, but it would have been an easier sell before the vote. And ST would contribute to another agency’s one-time capital improvements, not to ongoing operations. (See RapidRide G, First Hill streetcar, Stream 1.)
“No, but it will be a simple transfer. Stride 1 will mainly connect riders to Downtown Bellevue (from Burien, TIBS and Renton).”
Ross,
I don’t think the transfer is the only issue here. I like 560 because I can walk less to the terminal. Convenience of 560’s one-seat ride between Bellevue and SeaTac arrival level has always been under-recognized. I introduced these options to a couple techy friends who barely take transit. They all think it is easier than they had imagined.
I understand why S1 is not doing that, but I am just saying 560’s access to SeaTac has some value.
“Thereās a reference to āRenton Rainier BRT Access Studyā in the presentation. I cannot find a published version anywhere online. Itās only referenced in the meeting presentation.”
AI S.
It is basically the same thing as Rainer/Grady grade separation project listed in Renton’s TIP a few years ago. A few months ago, I mentioned in a open thread that there was a Public Meeting on Aug 4th, 2025 in Renton Community Center to show case the alternatives of this study.
I think the currently preferred alternative is to build a east-west two-lane overpass across Rainer Ave S to divert some of the through traffic out of at-grade intersection. Then they would extend the BAT lane to the intersection. The lane will be dedicated bus-only through lane featuring Q-Jump, so in theory it will form a continuous transit-only right-of-way between South Renton TC entrance to the freeway ramp, but don’t quote me for what I think the preferred alternative is.
Just email the the WSDOT email listed in that post. Since they’ve presented that in public meeting, there was no reason for them to keep it in secret.
“Then, several months ago, ST floated just pulling buses off of SR 518 to serve the station.”
I wonder whether the idea was for the interim period before the freeway station is ready. TIBS won’t be ready by the time S1 starts operating.
Center-running freeway station has been WSDOT’s design since last year. I thought the right-side pullover stop has been thrown off for a long time because of its impact to general traffic and adjacent ramps.
I heard that there were debates about whether they should build it as a contraflow island platform station so they don’t have to build two set of stairway and elevator, but either ideas suggest a center-running alignment.
@HZ, I like the contraflow idea (i.e. a double-X so buses cross over on each side of the platform); LA does it on their Silver Line BRT and it seems to work well. After all, the buses will already be going slowly to stop at the platform.
This’s a transfer we want to make easy, especially since people will often have a lot of luggage on their way to or from the airport. I feel a lot easier about one platform than two.
William C.,
I think it was even considered because of those benefits you mentioned, but it is still a controversial idea for freeway inline station.
My guess is that Harbor Fwy has wider right-of-way to build out necessary barrier separation to mitigate vision conflict and others, but SR 518 might only have room for buffer separation between inline station and general-purpose lane, which I could be a factor to kill the idea.
@HZ, the one-platform option actually doesn’t take up any more width than the two-platform option. Either way, you’d need the same width and number of lanes; the only difference is whether you have two platforms, or one platform plus some buffers between the contraflow bus lanes and regular-flow freeway lanes.
Admittedly, the two-platform option takes up width for longer because of the crossovers, which might be a problem?
(And yes, Harbor Freeway has a really wide right-of-way.)
A side note, I really hope rental car shuttle can double its capacity and extend to current TIBS bus bays. Not saying that I want that now, but it definitely has value id the airport busway is built to connect, existing terminal, proposed second terminal, and rental car center.
If a shuttle between TIBS and curbside of terminal exists, I think S1 not going to Airport is totally fine.
However, I donāt think Port of Seattle will be interested in the idea as it would be a major hit to its Uber/Lyft airport access fee revenue. For the least, build access to street network on each end and allow transit agency to use the busway.
[stereotype of downtown]
[deleted at author’s request]
Obviously these people are trolls and have a completely skewed perception of transit. They can’t be changed.
But that does not mean that Seattle should ignore the crime and disorder that takes place on transit. It should be made a clean, friendly and peaceful experience for all riders. That’s how we increase ridership and stop chasing people back to their cars.
Feel free to start a thread in an open thread article on the crime and disorder problems that exist downtown, without blowing it out of proportion like the OP did that that’s all downtown is or the only thing that matters about the full 2 Line.
Does this mean that the 2 Line in the Eastside will run later too?
Cirque du Soleil closes March 14. It would be awesome if a patron could take Link from Seattle to see it (assuming that itās a reachable, allowable walk from the station) and then get home.
Oops. A patron will still have to get to Bellevue first on a bus. At least this year.
If it’s running full simulated service, and the intention is two lines in the shared segment full time, then Eastside service would have to be extended to 12-1am. There would be no reason to run empty in the Eastside with the stations closed. However, ST hasn’t exactly said it will do that, so we’d need definitive clarification.
Maybe Balducci will say something. Having later service for the 2 Line would be nice for Eastsiders even now. There are elements of nightlife in Downtown Bellevue and Downtown Redmond in particular, in addition to some who work later hours or take evening classes.
@Al S., absolutely. I’m an Eastsider, and there’ve been times I’ve taken my car when I wouldn’t have if the 2 Line had been running later.
Agreed. I’ve had to walk from the Redmond transit center area back to my car in the marymoor garage because after 10pm there’s no running transit (train or bus) that serves the giant parking garage. Missed opportunity IMO. The later trains would help with that, but I think the 545 should be extended from bear creek to marymoor village after link stops running just to keep that connection to the P&R.
From the shakeup, it looks like the last departure out of Lynnwood was 12:31a and arrive at DT Redmond at 1:45a then OOS to East base.
The March shakeup will be more definitive and likely the in-service full schedule for opening (does not mean Crosslake is opening in March, just the fine tuning adjustments)
Where are you finding that schedule?
Yes, what does “was” and “last shakeup” mean, when a full 2 Line schedule hasn’t started yet.
As someone who loathes waiting, cutting headways in half north of CID feels like a huge deal- going from a train every 8 minutes to a train every 4 minutes at peak will be fantastic, but having 5 minute headways most of the day (instead of 10 minutes), and never having to wait more than 8 minutes for a train late at night (instead of 15 minutes) makes an even bigger difference psychologically- it mentally lowers the barrier to making spontaneous or discretionary trips.
Finally Link will have a big-boy subway like cities who take transit needs seriously do, at least somewhere if not the entire Link network, so that people can try to live, work, and shop in that segment if that’s important to them.
I agree. I would argue that this includes the core of the network (Downtown/Capitol Hill/UW) so this is really good news.
I agree. Ten minutes to five minutes is a bigger difference (in all senses of the word) then eight minutes to four minutes. The main advantage of running four minutes (versus five minutes) is increased capacity. (Of course on the rest of the 1 and 2 line it is better to run every eight minutes).
Currently none of the Lines are planned to double frequency to the south.
I wish keeping the 1 Line operating all the way to Lynnwood from Tacoma is ideal, though that may be too much for the operators…
That way the Ballard Line acts as the frequency doubler going south, and the West Seattle/Everett Line is the frequency doubler going north (with every tripled headways in downtown).
ST should really look into automaton. It will make a lot of things possible and cheaper, that are currently restricted by operational constraints.
āST should really look into automaton. It will make a lot of things possible and cheaper, that are currently restricted by operational constraints.ā
Automation is the worldwide standard for new rail lines. Consider that all of the build alternatives but one for LAās Sepulveda Corridor are automated.
https://www.metro.net/documents/2025/09/english-fact-sheet.pdf/
Sadly, ST still lives in the 20th century where automation is too āfuturisticā to be considered. At some point, ST will finally figure this out ā and write a puff press release of how they are looking ahead to the future and considering automation (disregarding how theyāre actually decades late). And ST shamefully avoided evaluating automation in the recent study of a Ballard stub.
The estimated ridership south of Federal Way is less than 1/4 that of north of SeaTac. Furthermore, the capacity of the line in Rainier Valley is limited.
Then, thereās the problem of Tacoma to Seattle express buses being faster than Link for those trips.
The concept I thought would be good would be to make Tacoma Dome link and Tacoma Link compatible, and operate Tacoma Dome Link as an extension of Tacoma Link to Tukwila International Blvd. This:
ā¢ doubles the frequency from Federal Way to TIBS, whuch are both reasonably busy transfer points.
ā¢ gives downtown Tacoma the direct connection to SeaTac some of its civic boosters were hoping to have.
ā¢ overall provides a lot better transfers. Someone arriving in downtown Tacoma now has a single seat ride to everything at Federal Way TC and TIBS, rather than having to take Tacoma Link 10 blocks to transfer again at Tacoma Dome.
If someone really wants the slow route from Tacoma to Seattle rather than the faster express bus, they have an easy transfer at 6 Link stations.
Obviously Fife to Rainier Beach passengers donāt get a one seat ride, but they donāt have that now.
Converting Tacoma Link to use 8 inch wider and somewhat longer Central Link cars wouldnāt be painless, but itās not impossible.
This would also give Central Link an additional maintenance and storage facility at its far south end, which could be useful for logistics.
“Currently none of the Lines are planned to double frequency to the south.”
The Tacoma Dome-DSTT2-Ballard line will be every 6 minutes. That’s almost double.
“ST shamefully avoided evaluating automation in the recent study of a Ballard stub.”
Even though boardmembers in the 2010s said they’d look at automation for Ballard and other future lines. Just like they said they’d look at reconfiguring CID1 station to center platform. But they didn’t do either.
Glenn, your comment doesn’t even make sense.
Having the trains operate from Tacoma to Everett is not for riders making that whole trip.
It’s for enabling trips that cross SODO without forcing a transfer in Seattle.
SeaTac to Capitol HIll / UW for example. Lynnwood to Beacon Hill. These are ruined trips if the line gets split. Sure, new trips are opened up by West Seattle and Ballard but I’d rather see Sound Transit do things right and do lightweight extremely high frequency automated trains instead. That will help move around people much better than disrupting regional rail connections for people making the trip south.
10 minutes to 5 minutes also makes a big difference when you’re trying to transfer to or from a bus that runs every 30 minutes. Gone will be the days when you wait 8 minutes for a train, only to have it arrive at the station right as the connecting bus is leaving. With better frequency on Link, you can cut these connections closer without jeopardizing reliability or needing to spend time consulting Link schedules.
Yeah. There are a number of reasons why frequency is so important. Transfers, appointments at specific times, shift work — you can’t necessarily time these to match the transit schedule.
Personally, I’ve never tried to match the schedule of Link. Maybe some have. It usually takes a while to get down to the station and I just take my chances. But maybe if I was working (and depended on it) I would time it.
I always time transit. There’s zero reason to wait at a stop when you can check OneBusAway and get a clear picture of train arrivals.
It’s even more useful for buses. You can check if the bus’s block is running or not. If an operator has started their block from the terminal, the bus lights green instead of remaining gray. You can be certain to avoid any ghost buses which is especially useful on low frequency routes.
And you can also see how late the driver is on previous trips on the same block. I try to avoid the ones that are consistently late and go for the ones that are early/on time. It really improves the experience as you avoid the incompetent operators who don’t care to be on time and drive slower than a snail.
I’d rather stay at my location (if possible) a bit longer at work or grab something to eat than waste 10-15 mins extra waiting for a late bus or riding with a slow operator.
Will ST have a celebration and a special train dedication for this? They could stage the speeches in front of Union Station and walk down to the platform. It may be a bit tricky to do that with the train operations though. .
I wish they had the 2 Line at least make it down to Stadium before turning east. The frequency to Stadium as well as a one seat ride to Stadium from the east side is well worth it. SODO would be better for bus transfers but that’s probably pushing it and wastes time.
For events at Lumen Field, C/ID is closer and a qualitatively better walk. For ones at T-Mobile Park, Stadium is a bit closer, but definitely a less pleasant walk. Maybe it would have been possible to construct a new two-level stadium station on the north side of Royal Brougham, but I think anyone who is comfortable walking from Stadium should be comfortable walking from C/ID as well. It’ll be interesting to see if Sound Transit advertises that as such.
Yeah, I agree. I think the big advantage of curving around to the south is what was mentioned — better bus transfers. But I think the best solution to that is to make the north end of the SoDo Busway better. The same is true for Link. Ideally Link would be completely grade separated between Beacon Hill and downtown while the buses would experience something similar between the freeway and downtown. This would require a series of overpasses (and similar work) but it seems like it would be worth it. It is clear that even ST won’t stop running express buses from Tacoma and Federal Way to Seattle even as Link goes further south. It would be good to make the buses from there (and Renton, Kent and hopefully in the future West Seattle) a lot faster. It would be bizarre to commit to spending billions of dollars building a line from Seattle to Tacoma and then tell people that if they want to get from Seattle to Tacoma they can take a bus that is no faster than one running twenty years ago.
There is definitely a certain irony in that Stadium Station is the inferior option to reach one stadium and isn’t that great at reaching the other either.
Ross, I posted a solution to the north end of the busway about a month ago. I don’t remember the article in which it was placed, but as an admin you probably have some querying tools.
Basically it’s using the old HOV ramps from Seattle Boulevard and mostly dedicate Fifth Avenue as a busway as far as Washington Street. You might want to find it.
It would require some an up-over-and-down hill north of Brougham Way to get over to the east side of the trackway, but I’m pretty certain it could be engineered successfully.
Sorry, “down-over-and-up”. It would be an underpass beneath the 1 Line tracks.
I posted a solution to the north end of the busway about a month ago
Yeah, I remember that. I didn’t want to get into the details too much. It is just like connecting the Spokane Street Viaduct with the SoDo Busway. It looks pretty easy; the cost wouldn’t be trivial but it wouldn’t be a fortune either. There are bound to be a range of options. For example they could add the westbound ramp (SoDo to Spokane Street) first. That means a bus coming from West Seattle has to use the Fourth Avenue Ramp. That is less than ideal but not the end of the world. The same thing goes for speeding up the SoDo Busway. Smaller steps could be made before building something ideal.
You also need overpasses for Holgate and Lander.
Ids is close enough that it doesnāt matter. Plus, the loads for gameday are better balanced between two stations.
Stadium Station has been toward the bottom of boardings on the 1 Line.
Forcing eastside commuters to endure another 2-3 minutes each way every day undoes a big chunk of the time savings of having built the new line.
Thankfully, it did not do this detour, so this is a philosophical debate about what if it had happened.
Hmmm, so all of a sudden 2-3 mins matter *only* if it’s more convenient for East side commuters? The 4 minute frequency is valuable for anyone who needs to commute south as well.
Everyone here was opposed to me suggesting that the 1 Line to SeaTac is bad because it’s 10+ mins slower than it could be if it didn’t waste time around Rainier Valley at grade… But it’s fine for the East Side and Lynnwood to run at full speed for longer segments with fewer stops and grade separated/elevated rail.
Anyways, I guess Intl District is fine but we need buses in the SODO busway to have better transfers to that station. A four min train frequency really helps people coming in from the South who needs to transfer to Link to head to any destinations further north like Capitol Hill, UW, Shoreline, or Lynnwood.
Are you required to tap to transfer between 1-2 Lines? That’d be burdensome since some stations have center platforms and you’d have to go up and get a ticket or tap.
I’d say a single tap/tickets that gives you 2 hours on any Link train without fare enforcement seems logical.
But I just wish the transfer at the downtown stations were earlier. The lack of a center running platform will be annoying depending on how transfer timings line up..
Adding a permanent center platform in either IDS or Pioneer Square will require creative thinking that has not occurred in the past, for the emergency exits and vertical conveyances.
But really, it could be as simple as a single stairwell or two to the mezzanine or top of the station, marked as for emergency egress only, and boards that could be deployed from either side to get to elevators.
If that is not enough, then all the tunnel stations may already be in violation of the fire codes ST invokes against third platforms.
Given that ST removed the platform-level ORCA readers when the buses got kicked out, it seems their intention is that a single tap is all you need.
I donāt get the sense that the Board ever paid that much attention to detail.
I don’t think they even thought this far.
The lack of platform readers makes tapping again unreasonable, and it’s not done in other systems. However, ST hasn’t said explicitly what it will do.
The platform readers were installed temporarily because Link didn’t participate in the ride-free area, so somebody transferring from a bus would have to tap for a train, and it wouldn’t make sense to force them to go up to the mezzanine to do so… the same situation as Link-to-Link transfers.
The first Orca tap seems good for two hours no later the line or direction. I am pretty sure that I can even go somewhere on Link and return within that window and still have paid only once for a valid fare. I tapped at Columbia City Station on FW opening day, and kept tapping as I rode in both directions to see each station ā and didnāt get charged a new Orca fare until my 2 hours ran out.
Regardless, there is no need to worry about this during the simulation period. 2 Line trains will only stop at the same stations as 1 Line trains do from CID to Lynnwood. And the Orca system will have no way of knowing which train line a rider is riding.
If Link ever returns to a zoned system, I could see the tap issue being part of that. It could be an issue if fare gates are installed too (if someone needs to tap to exit). But thatās a whole other topic that isnāt affected by the simulation period.
I think you only have to tap within the 2h timeframe if you switch operators so that each operator gets their share. For example if you transfer from a Metro bus to Link you need to tap. A friend of mine was reminded by a transit ambassador that they did not have a valid ticket as they boarded a bus and then transferred to Link without tapping.
I would not be surprised if fare ambassadors end up giving failure-to-tap warnings to riders traveling toward the station at which they most recently tapped. Where you tapped gets tracked.
ST wants the credit for two rides.
I would not be surprised if fare ambassadors end up giving failure-to-tap warnings to riders traveling toward the station at which they most recently tapped.
So they would give you a warning even though it clearly states that transfers are free (within that two-hour warning)? That seems silly.
Brent doesnāt know what heās talking about. Youāre fine for two hours regardless of where you tap so ling as itās for the light rail.
Since D M is sure he knows what he is talking about I suppose he could politely point to the policy backing up his statement, to reassure those of us who have encountered fare checkers who got it wrong.
I sometimes have to turn around on Link because I got on the wrong train, missed my stop, or changed my mind en route where to go. I don’t try to retap then, and if an inspector complains I’d say I missed my stop or such. You can’t retap at the initial station anyway; the reader will just say “You’ve already tapped” and ignore it.
Brent, I don’t think Orca fare distribution is linked to the number of taps on the same operator. I believe the fare is split 50/50 between two operators even if you use 2 Metro buses and 1 Link train.
I think it is based on relative number of taps between the agencies and the nominal fare of each one. Otherwise ST would gain nothing by insisting people tap every time.
I used to be a fare ambassador, so I do know what I’m talking about. For the purposes of inspection, you get two hours since your last tap. Direction is meaningless. If you are inspected and it has been more than two hours it is a violation. Less than two hours you are fine.
It would make them the only transit system I’ve ever heard of to require that. In-network transfers are the norm on every transit system I’ve ever been on with more than one line.
Are you required to tap to transfer between 1-2 Lines?
No. The same is true if you make a round trip within the allotted time. Or get off the train, use the bathroom and then get back on the train. It is basically an all-access 2 hour pass.
Are you sure the ambassadors have been instructed not to issue warnings when they encounter someone traveling back toward the station where they most recently tapped?
From the transfer section of this (https://www.soundtransit.org/ride-with-us/how-to-pay/fares) website:
An ORCA card is the only payment method for transferring between trains, buses, and streetcars. If you transfer within 2 hours, your original fare will be credited toward the next leg of your journey.
Seems pretty clear to me. You can take the train back and forth all you want within that two hour window.
I’m pretty sure that tapping a second time basically does nothing. In other words you can’t pay twice (within that two-hour window) even if you want to. That is the problem a rider ran into in Lynnwood. He rode the train a while, rode it back and tried to tap a second time (because he was approaching the two hour limit). But since he was within the two-hour limit it ignored him. Then he got questioned by the fare police and had to explain it all.
It is likely this was never a problem when you tapped off (which is why folks didn’t mention it). It is likely they tapped off even for short trips and then paid again going the other direction. If they forgot something and reversed directions they just assumed (correctly) that they didn’t need to pay twice. It also makes sense that tapping a second time does nothing given the history of the system. There are a lot of people (or were a lot) that tap as they got off from force of habit. I’m not sure what they are doing about the situation but it wouldn’t surprise me if they make it clear at some point that tapping twice will charge you a second fare (while also extending the time you can ride the trains). I’m not sure how else they could handle it unless they had a button on the reader that allowed you to pay a second time.
“Are you sure the ambassadors have been instructed not to issue warnings when they encounter someone traveling back toward the station where they most recently tapped?”
We don’t know what the ambassadors have been instructed or ST’s attitude to train-to-train transfers or turning around, because ST hasn’t said. I go by what makes sense to me.
“An ORCA card is the only payment method for transferring between trains, buses, and streetcars. If you transfer within 2 hours, your original fare will be credited toward the next leg of your journey.”
“Seems pretty clear to me. You can take the train back and forth all you want within that two hour window.”
That has nothing to do with whether you must tap again to transfer train-to-train. It only says that if you do tap, you won’t be charged again within the 2-hour window. We already knew that.
One scenario I see coming is that a chunk of riders transferring between the two lines do so at Capitol Hill, to take advantage of the cross-platform transfers.
Would ST:
(a) Install ORCA readers in the middle of the platform;
(b) Install fare gates down the middle of the platform, and around the vertical conveyances;
(c) Decide a center platform in IDS or Pioneer Square is needed, and make it happen.
(d) Make it clear and formal policy that a transfer between the two lines does not require a second tap, so long as it has not been more than two hours since the most recent tap?
I think at some point they will emphasize option D. I would expect that as soon as East Link opens that will happen (since that is the first time that people will be transferring on a regular basis).
I don’t think most people would make the transfer from the north, and rather just wait for the 2 Line itself.
But… People coming from South of International District would need to transfer there if they want to go to the East side… Though Stride will be a better option from Tukwila south.
Brent is talking about reversing directions. For example Mercer Island to Beacon Hill. If you are in a hurry you transfer at CID. If you in a wheelchair you might decide to just transfer at Capitol Hill, since that means avoiding the elevators.
A related question: Will this change the times of the first and last trains in the DSTT? We may not know until schedules are published.
Honestly I think it is quite challenging during peak hour to empty all the passengers from 2 Line train at CID between 1 Line train.
Perhaps it is a better idea to only do that for Lynnwood-bound test train or not doing that at all and focus on the testing. We will see how it goes.
I think it will only be a problem initially. At first people will wonder why they are expected to get off the train (since they are headed to Rainier Valley, SeaTac, etc.). But eventually people get the idea. The folks that are heading south will just wait for their train. Overall we are talking about four minute headways. That is a lot of time. There is no reason for the trains to the north to be delayed very long. It is all grade-separated and there aren’t that many stations. Yes, people could take way too long to get on and off the train (even with the excessively long dwell times) but that is basically what the testing is for. If that causes the other trains to be too slow then we might as well deal with it now.
I can’t imagine it will be. The Elizabeth Line in London runs 16-24 tph (every 3m45s to 2.5 minutes) through the core and manages to empty out and turn back most (6-12 tph) of the Shenfield trains at Paddington without issue. Sound Transit needing to empty out at most one train every 8 minutes (7.5 tph) on a core that runs at most every 4 minutes (15 tph) should be not a problem. It will be a very small learning curve for passengers, but ST would really have to mess things up to not be able to empty out 2 Line trains at CID
Can’t ST suspend the 515 when simulated service on the 2 Line begins? They’re planning to delete it in Fall 2026, but simply keeping it until fall would be a waste of money and we won’t get any good ridership. Suspending it for now could save a few dollars for now (but we would wait for simulated service on the 2 Line to begin). I’m actually more excited for simulated service than the opening itself.
No, there are specific policies that govern when service adjustments can be made and there are specific laws that have to be followed by agencies when they do them, so they can’t just do it willy-nilly.
Well, that’s just great :(
ST looks like it wants to do all the changes at once in September. In any case, in order to delete a route, it would take a couple months with a proposal, outreach, public hearing, board vote, and six weeks for logistics. It’s too late to do it for March, and ST doesn’t know the opening day yet, and even if it could do it in May, it would probably rather focus on opening the 2 Line and getting through the World Cup. It’s not that much money for one peak-only route with a few runs; it’s a small part of the ST Express budget.
This is what happens when they “accelerate” a light rail project, scrap their old ideas for a previous light rail project, and don’t plan anything in advance. Now with the 2 Line, I expect Sunday service on the 535 to be low, they should have done this in 2022 but because of the driver shortage they didn’t. Even I don’t plan on taking the 535 on Sundays once this happens as I’ll just take the 2 Line.
…I expect Sunday service on the 535 to be low…
It will be exactly the same as it is now. That is the plan — don’t change anything.
I get what you are saying. It is a big waste. It was meant to deal with (temporary) crowding issue and now that isn’t an issue. But ST has wasted money on similar routes for a really long time. They still run the 586! The bus is extremely expensive per rider. It has been ten years since UW Link opened and they are still running it! I’m sure the riders love it. Who doesn’t want an express right to your destination. Well the same is true of the 535. I’m sure some riders love it. But at least it won’t last a decade like the 586. A few more months isn’t the end of the world.
Oh, and don’t forget the 566. It still runs from Downtown Bellevue to Redmond (even though Link makes that trip).
Well, at least they’re getting rid of the 586 in September, but they should also be getting rid of the low-ridership peak routes. I’ve done a video with Jaylan on the 532 (and it has good ridership), but that money can go to frequent service on the 535 and people would transfer at Lynnwood to continue to Everett, though you’d skip the deviation to Alderwood because it adds time, people would use the Orange Line, 103, 117, or 166. So what I’m saying is that the 532 should go bye-bye, and also the 512 to make room for this service (instead add a South Everett stop to the 201/202).
Ross, when the 535 isn’t running (I mean Sundays). I just take the 1 Line and transfer in the U District to the 271. I also did this when I missed the 535. Though I can see why Metro wants to split the 271 into two, because they expect riders to transfer to the 2 Line (which is a dumb idea because it will take longer). Though I expect the additional time to be made up with the transfer time.
It is a shame the 586 could not be eliminated with the opening of Federal Way Station. Revive I-5 will turn the 586 into a ghost bus.
Doesnāt the 586 use the express lanes though? It might wind up being one of the few I-5 buses that still moves.
Doesnāt the 586 use the express lanes though?
No, because it is essentially running reverse peak from downtown to the UW (northbound in the morning, southbound in the evening). That being said, it may not hurt the bus very much because they tend to focus the work on weekends (when the bus isn’t running).
I can see why Metro wants to split the 271 into two, because they expect riders to transfer to the 2 Line
Yes, for some trips. The 271 gets most of its riders from a few locations: Bellevue College, Eastgate, Downtown Bellevue and the UW. Bellevue College/Eastgate remains a strong pair but Bellevue College/Eastgate to UW does not. Those riders can now take a bus to Mercer Island and then take Link to the UW. That is competitive with the direct bus if not faster.
So you really don’t gain much by extending it south of Downtown Bellevue. By making the Downtown Bellevue/UW connection more isolated you can give it a lot more frequency. That is the only big problem with the new route — it doesn’t run often enough. UW to Downtown Bellevue is a core route connecting the biggest destinations and transit hubs in the region (outside of Downtown Seattle). The bus connecting them should run very frequently.
Bellevue College / Lake Hills to UW is significantly slower though. Bellevue College can probably take the 212 though… Though they’d have to walk to the outskirts of campus.
But anyone living between the college and BTC are out of luck, and just have to put up with the transfer. I do understand splitting the route since the 271 can run pretty late at times, but I think the mindset of the operator matters more. Some drivers are timely, while others are not and take their time in driving and waiting at each stop. And anyways, the Rapid Line K upgrades will greatly improve the drive so that connecting the 220/270 won’t be a huge deal since they would operate at the same frequency anyways. So I really don’t think a split is necessary.
Oh the 240 also works for Bellevue College as an all day option to S Bellevue Station.
Two northbound lanes of I-5 from I-90 to 45th will be closed 24/7 from this weekend until the weekend in June when the work-zone barriers are removed. The traffic impact will be real every day even if no work is going on.
The 226 is pretty fast between Eastgate P&R and South Bellevue station, and there seems to be another Eastgate route alternating with it. That may actually be better than the 271 or its successor to get to Seattle. It may also be competitive for getting to the U-District, since you won’t have the Bellevue Downtown or East Main segments.
āNo, because it is essentially running reverse peak from downtown to the UW (northbound in the morning, southbound in the evening).ā
They run it *that* way?
When I looked at the map and saw the loop it makes through the U Didtrict, I figured they were doing that to operate the express lane section of the loop going with the express lanes.
@Glenn — Yeah, it is basically an express for those who live in (greater) Tacoma and commute to the UW. It actually made some sense before the pandemic. Back then, the express buses from Tacoma to Downtown Seattle were full during peak. Might as well run a few expresses to a place where a lot of riders are going. But now that isn’t the case and the frequency of the buses have nothing to do with crowding. They run every ten minutes. This means the frequency is based on reducing wait time, not crowding. They used to run buses a minute after each other but those days are gone. If they put the savings into running the 590 a bit more often (every 7.5 minutes) then it would save money while also mean 590 riders wouldn’t have to wait so long for a bus.
Meanwhile, Link actually serves the UW now which means the few riders that would be inconvenienced have a simple and fast transfer to get to the their destination.
In general, adding new service and deleting service is supposed to be decided by the annual plan brought to the Board and and in-between plans that werenāt available during budget season.
In practice, the CEO sometimes has to delay service improvements and even reduce or shut down routes, as happened in 2020.
“I can see why Metro wants to split the 271 into two, because they expect riders to transfer to the 2 Line”
Technically they split 271 into three.
It is very likely that all the 220 trips will just through-running with 270, so except for head-sign nothing change between Eastgate and U-District. They probably think it is a better way to distinguish two segments with different service pattern certain time of the day.
Hopefully. The Bellevue Square stop is still a big loss though.
I think Bellevue could mitigate the loss of that stop with additional bus stops nearby. From the UW, the bus will head down Bellevue Way and then turn on 8th. If you are heading towards Bellevue TC then it is about a five minute (additional) walk to the other bus stop (https://maps.app.goo.gl/eQtfh99NZASrgiEQ6). If they moves the stop closer to Bellevue Way that would reduce the gap. There isn’t that much to the west of the mall so it wouldn’t be that bad. The big problem is going the other direction. Riders will have to walk up to NE 10th (https://maps.app.goo.gl/36XgnEGXFkbC6H1P8). They should move the stop to the south, closer to 8th.
It is really a shame that East Link only has one stop in Downtown Bellevue. I guess you can consider the East Main and Wilburton as part of downtown but that seems like a stretch. From a network standpoint Wilburton is good but East Main is not. Imagine if the train went up Bellevue Way (instead of 112th) form South Bellevue. At some point it would go under ground and then turn onto Sixth (like it does now) and come out of the ground in the same spot. The station would complement the other one at the transit center. Then the 271 could just keep going straight on Bellevue Way. It would serve the mall as well as the big buildings in the area. It would be faster and complement the other buses in the area. The transit center would still be useful (especially for buses accessing the area via the freeway) but you wouldn’t have all the local buses making all those turns just to get to the one station in Downtown Bellevue.
Ross, that was one of the East Link EIS alternatives (B1-C1T), and was unofficially dropped early on due to cost and construction impacts. It would have given Bellevue Way the MLK treatment, with center-running at-grade trains on Bellevue Way descending into a cut-and-cover tunnel just south of Main with an underground station under Bellevue Way between Main and 2nd.
It clearly would’ve been the “best” option from a ridership and rider-access standpoint (it also had a station directly under Bellevue TC). Sadly it didn’t come to pass.
The 220 is a holding pattern until RapidRide K absorbs that segment.
My prediction for the full 2 Line opening is either March 21 or 28. As it takes about 6 weeks to complete simulated service (only on the I-90 segment though). Per blumdrew’s reply on the policies of service changes, ST makes service changes usually in the spring (like CT), so this is when the 515 can be suspended (and fully deleted in the fall). I’m also wondering if frequencies and service hours will increase on the 2 Line once simulated service begins.
“ST makes service changes usually in the spring (like CT), so this is when the 515 can be suspended”
It can’t just make them suddenly with little warning. It would have to have decided last year or at the latest right now.And since ST doesn’t know whether the 2 Line will open in time for the March service change, it can’t commit to deleting the 515 then.
“Iām also wondering if frequencies and service hours will increase on the 2 Line once simulated service begins.”
Balducci said above there will be 4-minute combined peak service, so 8 minutes on the 2 Line, the same as the 1 Line. I’m sure they’re planning 10 minutes off-peak on the 2 Line to match the 1 Line, because that’s the operational target, and simulating full-time service means simulating full-time service. That suggests the 2 Line will run later evenings too, again to match the 1 Line.
Thanks for the reply. I can’t imagine how weird it would be for the 2 Line to continue running every 10 minutes at peak with the 1 Line running every 8 minutes. That would be a catastrophe in the transit tunnel.
I will still be surprised if ST allows passengers onto the simulation trains southbound on day 1 of full schedule testing. Having the dwell time in Chinatown to get everyone off the trains be too long might ruin the simulation.
That said, trains on the eastside portion will need to be emptied out at South Bellevue just as quickly.
If all we get in the early portion of full testing is getting to ride simulation trains northbound, that is the best part.
By the time the train reaches the International District Station, most passengers will have already gotten off, so it’s not as bad as it seems. I’ve seen this first hand riding Link from UW to SeaTac a few times during morning rush hour. On the way to downtown, the train is packed, around Pioneer Square/International District, I have no trouble getting a seat.
It doesn’t take that long for people to deboard the trains..even if it does it would only cause a little bit of train bunching.
Link experiences this on a regular basis anyways because of late or slow operators, or malfunctioning trains. I don’t think this is as big of an issue as you are making it to be.
I donāt see this as an issue. First, some southbound riders will react to understanding that a train wonāt go further than the CID and wonāt board. They will think āI can wait for the next train to SeaTac train here and get a seat ā or ride a few stations and risk having to stand.ā Not every rider will behave that way, but experienced riders will learn that the earlier you board a train the better your chances of getting a seat or of having more standing room. And itās nicer to stand at a subway platform than get more exposed to the elements at the ID/ C Station.
Second, train announcements will be repeatedly made so those on-board will be prepared to get off. So theyāll be preparing themselves before itās time to leave the train.
Third, there is already a time when doors stay open at the platform. At most, ST will add a modest amount of time to let everyone leave the train.
With 16 sets of double doors in a four car train a train can vacate fairly quickly under these conditions.
ST will need staff who will need to check cars to make sure that theyāre empty. Thatās likely the biggest possible delay when they encounter a belligerent person who wonāt leave the train ā but I think that will happen no more than once every hour or two or three. The problem will quickly clear.
There is also an operational adjustment that could be done to help: If the trains are spaced with 2 Line trains operating on the heels of 1 Line (say just 2-3 minutes later), it wonāt be that crowded because not as many riders will have accumulated on the platform.
So letās look at what happens if they canāt get a rider off before a 2 Line train heads east. It sits for two more minutes there. Because the lines split, once the train is cleared it can quickly get out of the way and it will just be two minutes late to the end of the line when the time recovery can happen. The next 1 Line train may get paused a minute or maybe not ā but thatās all.
Once the 2 Line starts running in Seattle and we have 4-6 minute headways, will Sound Transit double frequency on the replacement shuttle bus service for their monthly maintenance and daily/weekly meltdowns? Having a 10-15 minute bus replace a 8-12 minute train is bad enough, but having that same service “replace” a 4-6 minute train is just ridiculous. Of course, Metro probably doesn’t have the drivers or buses for it, but maybe that should be a hint that Sound Transit should have taken maintenance and redundancy more seriously from the beginning.
Metro should have dedicated express replacement routes along the most popular segments already, even when Link is still running. That’d reduce the burden on Shuttle routes when they’re needed.
Iāve often advocated for ST to develop a contingency plan in hand to understand and manage each possible track and platform closure at different times of day. That would include assigning enough buses. Iād think that ST staff have had enough closures by now to learn from mistakes ā but maybe not.
Yes it needs to be more structured with posted schedule and etc., like the Route 90 snow shuttle.
The main new fare question relevant to passengers transferring between the 1 and 2 Lines is whether ST *wants* them to tap their ORCA cards at IDS.
Until we see how many passengers that turns out to be, I donāt know whether that is good for the sake of getting riders used to always tapping before boarding, or so someoneās two-hour window that started on another service does not expire while on the train, or bad for creating a queue at the readers. More readers could be added, but it might not be enough to clear the path for everyone else trying to get down to the platform.
Perhaps a bit off-topic, but
a) how did ST decide to have line 2 run in conjunction with the north segment of line 1 line rather than south segment – the volume of weekday Microsoft commuters living north of Judkins vs those heading to the airport or baseball stadium?
b) how will the east-south xfers work – up and around at the ID station? a center xfer platform would be handy, although it would probably need to have stairs + elevator, maybe even an escalator
a) The high density, ridership, range of destinations, and two-dimensional bus grid (favorable topography) in north Seattle and Capitol Hill. It needs two lines as shown by the disproportional existing ridership since U-Link opened.
Lynnwood and Shoreline are promising areas for ridership growth because of their proximity to north Seattle (15-minute ride) and downtown (30-minute ride), lower-income demographics in Snohomish County (few rich people, stores, or tech jobs there compared to the Eastside), greater willingness to use transit (again compared to the Eastside), and truncating so many express bus routes (both ST and CT). The decision was made in the mid 2000s; we’re seeing the first phase of people voting with their feet now, and we’ll see later phases over the next several years.
The 2 Line can’t go East-South because that would bypass downtown, where the biggest chunk of on/offs and transfers to everywhere are. The south end is geographically at a disadvantage because (A) south Seattle is divided into narrow north-south valleys and ridges with cliffs and water barriers on between, (B) suburban cities are further away (KDM is further than Lynnwood, Federal Way is just short of Everett, and Tacoma Dome is further still), and the limited range of destinations or east-west options in south King County or southeast Seattle. 30 minutes from Westlake gets you to Lynnwood, Bellevue Downtown, or Rainier Beach — one of these is not like the others.
b) ST’s Eastside-airport plan is that you would go up to the surface and back down to the other platform. There’s no up escalators so you’d have to take the elevator or stairs. All the DSTT elevators are slow (somebody said they’re hydraulic), although ST is gradually replacing them and I think the new ones at CID (installed a couple months ago) may have a more respectable speed.
We’ve been trying since the early 2010s to convince ST to convert CID to center-platform to support opposite-direction transfers and especially the popular Eastside-airport trip pattern. Some boardmembers in the late 2010s said ST would consider that as part of its ST3 work, but then didn’t pursue it.
30 mins from Westlake would get you to Tukwila/Airport if it took the faster path through Georgetown… In a similar speed and direct path that it takes to Lynnwood.
And it is very much like the others. The distance is the same, the potential for development is the same. Don’t have to blame South King County because ST made a poor decision to run rail at grade in a run down portion of South Seattle that barely gets riders…since those riders choose to take the bus or drive instead.