This morning, Sound Transit announced the East Link Extension segment between South Bellevue station and International District/Chinatown station will open on March 28, 2026. When it opens, the 2 Line will be extended from South Bellevue station to Lynnwood City Center station, via Seattle. This extension will open two more Link stations: Mercer Island and Judkins Park.
Since the live wire test in September 2025, Sound Transit has run test trains and conducted operator training across the I-90 bridge. In preparation for the extension opening, Sound Transit will begin simulated service for the full 2 Line in February. During this final stage of testing, 2 Line trains will run the full length of the line. Passengers will be allowed on the trains between Downtown Redmond and South Bellevue, and between International District/Chinatown and Lynnwood City Center. Passengers will not be permitted on the trains between International District/Chinatown and South Bellevue.
Simulated service on the 2 Line will finally deliver 4 minute Link frequencies between International District/Chinatown and Lynnwood City Center. This is the busiest section on the 1 Line and trains are often completely full during the afternoon rush hour. The improved frequency will double capacity on the segment, ensuring a shorter wait and a more comfortable ride.
Passed by voters in 2008, the Sound Transit 2 package promised Link light rail extensions north to Lynnwood (from UW), south to Star Lake (from Sea-Tac), and east to Redmond Technology. The East Link Extension opening in March is the final piece. After significant construction defects on the I-90 bridge were discovered in 2022, King County Councilmember and then-chair of the System Expansion committee Claudia Balducci urged the agency to open a starter line between South Bellevue and Redmond Technology stations. Thanks to advocacy from Balducci, and many others, Sound Transit opened in 2 Line in April 2024. In May 2025, the 2 Line was extended north to Downtown Redmond.
Completion of the full East Link Extension will result in an overhaul of Puget Sound’s transit network, though not right away. Sound Transit is in the process of restructuring its ST Express network and the updated routes will start in Fall 2026. King County Metro has already implemented parts of its East Link Connections plan. The remaining changes will take effect after the full 2 Line opening.
For those keeping track, this marks the completion of ST2’s Link extension projects. Pinehurst station was approved under ST3 and is also the last active construction project in Sound Transit’s portfolio. All other [remaining] ST3 projects are either still in planning or design as the Board grapples with figuring out how to pay for them.
It may be some time before ST formally breaks ground on another major project.
Note also that one ST3 project is already completed and open: the Downtown Redmond extension on the East Link Starter Line. I’m very glad for that!
Yes! I see my comment implied otherwise.
Opening Redmond was only possible because the planning, environmental, and preliminary design work was completed as part of ST2. The DEIS was published in December 2008 and the Record of Decision was issued by FTA in November, 2011. Similar story for the Federal Way extension, at least the southern terminus station.
William also forgot Federal Way Link which opened on December 6th 2025. Goodbye ST2, I hope this means ST4 is coming as ST2 is complete as of March 28th 2026. I think ST4 will be ST3’s projects that were unfinished (e.g: Ballard Link is the best example because they’re thinking about interlining or a stub-end). Though maybe ST4 might not happen soon because of the financial crisis ST3 is undergoing.
Well, FWLE was mostly an ST2 project which was delayed to ST3 but ST3 also extended the design to reach Federal Way Downtown/City Center/Village.
Federal Way is complicated, so it can be hard to grasp that part of it is ST3-funded.
ST2 was originally going to go to Star Lake in 2023, because the ST3 budget wasn’t scaled large enough for Federal Way. Then in the 2008 crash, South King’s sales tax revenue plummeted, so that made the full south Link buildout non-viable. ST truncated it to Angle Lake. Later the economic recovery raised enough revenue to re-extend Link to Kent-Des Moines in 2023.
That’s where it was in the run-up to ST3. So ST3 added the rest of Federal Way to the project, and postponed the first part so that it would all open together in 2024. It finally did open in 2025.
What do you mean by ST4? If you mean a new set of projects after ST3 construction is finished and its bonds paid down, they can’t start construction until the 2040s at least. That’s twenty years away, and there’s no need to vote on them so soon.
If you mean raising additional money to backfill ST3 or start more projects before ST3 is finished, that would require adding more taxes on top of the existing ones. First, that would require the legislature’s permission, and that may be hard to get. Second, some people feel the existing taxes are already high, and would be disinclined to vote for higher ones for dubious Link projects. So there you are.
ST3 funds were needed to reach Federal Way. Star Lake was referenced in the piece.
I expect riders on the Lynnwood-Bellevue STRide line will see it as a major project.
Maybe it is time to transfer the remaining North King Subarea projects to SDOT for planning. Other than the three stations between Westlake and “South Lake Union” which are arguably of some regional significance, the remaining North King “WSBLE” project is purely inner city, not regional in any way.
I would think that the other sub-areas would jump at the opportunity to get out of contributing to DSTT2, which would likely fill any small gaps remaining in Snoholish and Pierce budgets. East King could build Kirkland-Issaquah as a bored tunnel all thev way and still afford it.
Obviously, Seattle would need the tax authorities that North King now holds, maybe with Shoreline and Lake Forest Park excused. Seattle could the Build the Snake a segment at a time until complete, without Dave Somers’ big paddle in the water.
“the remaining North King “WSBLE” project is purely inner city, not regional in any way.”
They’re regional because they connect PSRC regional centers: SLU, Ballard.
West Seattle has no regional centers, so that’s an abnormality. But King County put its thumb on the scale in 2016 and said West Seattle Link must be included before Ballard Link, so it got in that way.
“I would think that the other sub-areas would jump at the opportunity to get out of contributing to DSTT2”
You’d think that but they’re going in the opposite direction. It’s Seattle that’s having doubts about DSTT2, while the other subareas are saying don’t make any changes.
SLU is of interest to other sub-areas because of the employment and entertainment venues the first three stations of BLE would serve. Regardless off any silly label pasted on “Downtown” Ballard, nobody other than Seattle residents going for a meal and a beer care about it one whit. It not a “regional” attraction in any serious transit evaluation.
Because there is a choke-point at the Ship Canal and several miles to density it makes sense to build a transit trunk facility from just north of the choke-point to and through that density. But it improves “regional mobility” only slightly. It’s great for those who live there, but few others.
The same is true of West Seattle, and it doesn’t have the otherwise unserved density that is SLU / Uptown along the way to help justify its costs. It also has two barriers to cross but already has an existing, somewhat underused facility crossing them.
If we criticize WSLE, many of the same criticisms apply to BLE, but it does have two miles of important territory to serve and can eventually be extended to UW and into First Hill / North Rainier knitting together much of the potentially “urban” parts of the city.. There are no such “saving graces” for WSLE.
“Regardless off any silly label pasted on “Downtown” Ballard, nobody other than Seattle residents going for a meal and a beer care about it one whit.”
Saying false generalizations doesn’t make them true. Ballard has the Locks, Nordic Museum, historic bell tower, Bergen Place. Live-music shows that attract people from all around because that’s the only place your favorite band is playing at. The most bars per square mile in Seattle.
Ballard’s regional center status is based on zoned job capacity, so that’s in addition to all those. It also has a year-round farmers’ market.
I’ve never heard “downtown” Ballard.
“SLU is of interest too other sub-areas because of the employment and entertainment venues”
SLU has entertainment? Where? There’s the age-old El Corazón/Off-Ramp/Graceland or whatever it’s called now under the Denny viaduct next to I-5, that could be considered barely in SLU, but it long predates the development.
Regardless off any silly label pasted on “Downtown” Ballard, nobody other than Seattle residents going for a meal and a beer care about it one whit. It not a “regional” attraction in any serious transit evaluation.
Yeah, just like Capitol Hill. Except despite that, Capitol Hill is one of the highest ridership stations in the system. Like Capitol Hill, Ballard is a vibrant, urban neighborhood. It is a cultural center that attracts people from all over Seattle. It also has a major hospital presence (just like Capitol Hill has a community college). It has a diverse set of attractions. It is the type of station that every successful mass transit system has because it checks all the boxes. Density, Proximity, Diversity of Uses, Walkability (https://humantransit.org/basics/the-transit-ridership-recipe).
Does Capitol Hill attract riders from Lynnwood? Probably some. But in general, who cares? Same goes for South Lake Union.
“Does Capitol Hill attract riders from Lynnwood? Probably some. ”
My friend in north Lynnwood comes to Capitol Hill once or twice a week for shopping, to visit people, errands, etc. Even when equivalent stores are closer, they aren’t necessarily within walking distance of a Link station or have a frequent bus route to them. Others come to the live-music shows, nightclubs, or they work there or on First Hill, etc.
What are SLU’s “entertainment venues”?
Ohhhh, gosh, how about Seattle Center, the Opera, the Symphony, Climate Pledge Arena, The Space Needle, the Museum of Popular Culture.
Tell me you’re not interested in the Arts by not saying you don’t much care for the Arts.
And Ross, Ballard is certainly fun and the potential walk-up ridership is growing along 56th. But it has no employment centers like First Hill’s Health Care cluster. Grant, that’s not exactly Capitol Hill, but Cap Hill is where a lot of people get off and walk or take the bus or streetcar.
Look, I think BLE has a solid future, especially if it can be built with a western crossing so that it can head toward UW and ditto at Westlake so it can be extended the other direction into First Hill. But as a stand-alone stub with no extensions, it’s not that different from WSLE, except that it serves SLU and Uptown.
“Ohhhh, gosh, how about Seattle Center, the Opera, the Symphony, Climate Pledge Arena, The Space Needle, the Museum of Popular Culture.”
That’s not SLU, it’s Uptown. :) I think of SLU as east of Aurora.
OK, Mike, you are correct. I should have said “SLU and Uptown” in the original statement.
But [Ballard] has no employment centers like First Hill’s Health Care cluster.
So what? Neither does Capitol Hill. Yet Capitol Hill gets about 10,000 riders a day while Westlake gets about 12,000. So Westlake — which serves as the transit gateway for all of South Lake Union and has it’s own huge employment center — gets a mere 2,000 additional riders than Capitol Hill. Big deal.
You also can’t ignore the station locations themselves and how they fit into the network. This gets complicated but in short, it isn’t very good. Thus it is quite possible that the South Lake Union not only gets fewer riders than Capitol Hill, but fewer than Ballard (if they put the Ballard Station in a decent location).
One interesting fact to consider is that people without cars choose between similar shops or restaurants differently from how people with cars do. People with cars are focused on minimizing drive time and ease of parking. People without will first pick something close enough to walk to and, if that’s not possible, focus on the the quantity of the transit. This often means picking a place further away if it’s next to a Link station over a place that’s nominally closer, but requires a slow, infrequent bus to get to. And, of course, if the place by the Link station has traffic or parking issues that would make traveling there by car difficult, you do not care the slightest.
This is why maximizing the number of homes and businesses near Link stations is so important to drive ridership.
I’d argue more ST3 is under construction, namely the Stride BRT, as 405 is a big construction site now…the section between exit 26 to SR522, Kirkland BRT station near exit 18, and the delayed 405 widening between Bellevue and Renton section.
Yeah, although in my mind, the 85th street interchange rebuild is more of a freeway project than a transit project. Kind of like how RapidRide J is more of a street rebuild project resulting in nice bike lanes and single-lane traffic than a transit project.
Although, the Stride bus base is under construction right now and it’ll be the region’s first all-electric bus base so that’ll be an improvement.
Is Metro’s new bus base in Renton all-electric?
Haven’t they already broken ground on Stride? Freeway construction has begun for that and the bus base in canyon park. That’s part of ST3
Yes, yo Leo I know your YouTube channel.
This is exciting to me. I might even go into the office again a few times a week now that I have a one train solution.
Also it changes the dynamic coming north after M’s/Seahawks games. The trick was always to go to Stadium because the trains would always be full by the International District stop. Now you can walk to either station.
I bet the park-n-ride garages on the Eastside will be a bit more popular for sporting events.
19 minutes from Downtown Bellevue to Intl District is amazing! That’s the same as Roosevelt which has started to inspire me to go to more M’s games.
Would be better if it was 15 minutes or under though.
Considering some parking lots charge $100 for Seahawks games, you bet.
How long does it take it take to drive (in game-day traffic) from Bellevue to [wherever people park near] the Stadiums? A reliable 15 minutes seems really reasonable.
“How long does it take it take to drive (in game-day traffic) from Bellevue to [wherever people park near] the Stadiums?”
The 550 gets caught in congestion on south Bellevue Way, between Mercer Island and Seattle, and on the Seattle part of I-90. That part takes 10 minutes on a good day, or 20+ on a bad day.
I take the 550 from 5th & Union/to Convention Place to South Bellevue. That takes 20 minutes without traffic; 30 minutes with afternoon congestion. I also take it westbound from South Bellevue to Jackson Street to stop at Uwajimaya on the way home, but I haven’t timed that exactly. Still, I estimate it’s probably 10-12 minutes on a good day, 20 minutes on a bad day, or 20+ minutes with especially bad ballgame traffic.
P.S. The 550 is standing room only westbound on some ballgame days, with only a few standing spaces left. On ordinary afternoons the seats often fill up, including Saturday and Sunday. So there’s robust ridership demand.
I’m sure it will.
The Link ridership data from December 14 and 18 games for the Seahawks show higher use at some stations but not others.
Sporting events are a good way to introduce light rail transit to kids and to people who haven’t ridden them before. (It’s not unusual for me to meet adults who are raised in places where rail transit or sometimes any transit does not operate.)
When I witness the eyes of an observant child get excited while taking a train ride , I’m delighted and amused! Because children don’t ride trains regularly (except to a handful of Seattle schools), it makes an impression.
It’s not just events at Lumen Field and T-Mobile Park, but Husky Stadium and perhaps Climate Pledge Arena too. And there is even a pro cricket team (Orcas) playing at Marymoor Park.
In the 2010s and early 2020s I occasionally route the 168 to Maple Valley to monitor ridership and land use in eastern Kent and beyond. One Saturday morning I was coming back westbound, and a father and son got on at a recent tract of close-together houses east of Lake Meridian. The boy was getting an exciting day to Seattle where his father worked.
I’ve seen similar things on Link opening days; e.g., the 2 Line stub and Federal Way. Parents with several children, taking them on an exciting ride on the new light rail.
For a stadium event, just driving the last few hundred feet to enter the parking garage can easily take upwards of 15 minutes. When considering parking time, the train wins easily, so long as it has sufficient capacity that you don’t need to wait for multiple trains.
In 2023, some friends were in town to see the King Gizzard shows in Carnation. We went to a Mariners game and since they were staying in Redmond, they drove to a garage while I took light rail.
I was back to Roosevelt before they got out of their lot.
While for the playoffs, it sometimes took a couple of trains to get on board, it still was better to do that than to deal with traffic and try to find parking. I do wonder if the trick will be to go to ID for the first few weeks of the M’s before people catch on.
I would imagine the 550 was pretty fast when it went in the tunnel. Then it got a lot slower as it was kicked out and there was a lot of construction. There never was a true express from Downtown Bellevue to Downtown Seattle despite HOV ramps from 405 to I-90 that direction. I’m sure that would have been faster than a train.
But this was never about just Downtown Bellevue to Downtown Seattle. It is about all the other places as well. We’ve seen good ridership just on the East Side. There should be plenty of riders going from other East Side stations to Seattle. It is the mix of these trips that justify the project.
“The 550 gets caught in congestion on south Bellevue Way, between Mercer Island and Seattle, and on the Seattle part of I-90. That part takes 10 minutes on a good day, or 20+ on a bad day.”
I have to give shout out to 550 drivers these days. They know so well how to navigate through I-90 traffic on any good or bad day. They always know when to jump in HOV lane and when to jump out to maximize travel time even though between Seattle and Mercer Island, neither end has HOV only ramp anymore. And those New Flyer 60-footers sure has a lot of power to peak 65 mph as much as they can.
In the morning, eastbound 550 probably can still beat 2 Line between CID and South Bellevue. What makes 2 Line faster probably are the first and last miles from Seattle to Bellevue. I only wish ST LRVs could run top speed of 65 mph given the stop spacing and horizontal geometry is really not the issue here.
“I have to give shout out to 550 drivers these days. They know so well how to navigate through I-90 traffic on any good or bad day.”
I don’t see that. And I don’t know how they could navigate through I-90 traffic any faster than they do. Ideally they’d use the HOV lanes, but for some reason they often don’t westbound between Mercer Island and Seattle, so that’s part of the reason for their slowdown. And even the HOV lanes get bogged down when there’s lots of congestion.
East Link will be great.
But, you have summarized how ST chose to sacrifice I-90 bus service to construct East Link. The South Bellevue P&R was closed to construct the station. The center roadway of the bridge was closed and new HOV lanes painted on the outside (R8A); ST was careful not to implement R8A when bus service could have used a two-way busway in the center. The D2 roadway was sacrificed for Link; with a higher capital cost, some or all it it could have been retained for bus service while a new guideway was constructed. The county sold CPS to the WSCC and ended bus service in the DSTT prematurely; but for the sale, bus service could have continued until Link headway was short, now expected in the spring 2026. There was a time when ST staff asserted that preliminary East Link work south of IDS would end bus operations; but it only closed the layover spaces. The interim East Link construction period ended up being much longer and more painful than expected. The bus running times were longer and less attractive to riders; ST actually cut service as their fleet was stretched with the longer running times.
What great news!! :) I had my doubts that this day would ever come, but how wonderful for Seattle that this project gets completed!!
It sounds like the next opening will be Pinehurst Station – another very good project, in my book – and then… we will see if there are ever any more. But, I can’t get over it – what a triumph!! Bellevue and Seattle connected by a train at last! I will be visiting Seattle in July and will make sure to ride the new train all the way across the lake! :)
I didn’t get a chance to comment on the correct article but – it sounds like the 8 is receiving dedicated bus lanes too – another amazing transit win!! Not sure if the new mayor will break the Gordian knot on housing, bluntly, but giving the 8 its lanes? Hooray for socialism, LOL! (More like authoritarianism, because she did it via mayoral order, but heck I’ll take it.) Seeing these basic wins rack up for Seattle is such a good feeling.
And now… back to watching the slow, inevitable implosion of ST3 through occasional visits to this blog. Who says transit is boring?! We’ve got years left of this drama!! (And I look forward to new RapidRide lines opening too, so it’s not all grim.)
“Bellevue and Seattle connected by a train at last!”
It’s been a vision since Forward Thrust planning in 1968. That’s sixty years.
I moved to Bellevue in 1972 as a child of six. My parents drove everywhere so I first heard about Forward Thrust years later. I started riding Metro in 1979 in junior high. I took it across Bellevue to school, and to downtown Seattle, the U-District, and Broadway, to use the downtown library, visit the used-record shops and bookstores, hang out on the Ave, and visit a friend on Queen Anne. Later I used it to go to college at UW, and when I moved to Seattle, to go back to Bellevue to visit my family, and later to help an elderly relative. All that was on buses, which were as bad as they are now (infrequent, unreliable) — and much worse in the 80s and 90s. But I didn’t think anything better could get enough public support.
I don’t remember when I learned about ST2 or Forward Thrust. A lot of the information came from the Seattle Transit Blog, which I joined around 2006 soon after it started. Before that there was no group of transit fans sharing information, so I didn’t know about agency planning or hearings and things.
Specifically the 8 will get a transit lane segment in the next few months. That will help one part in one direction. That’s a start but it’s not the whole thing. Hopefully the whole thing will follow.
Mayor Wilson ordered a study. The end details are unknown. She means well.
It is the same day ST is rolling out the downtown-airport night owl service, with useful frequency! ST kind of gave away the date a couple weeks ago
I would also consider night owl service the whole length of the 1 and 2 Lines to be an important new service for many shift workers, UW students, and the occasional red-eye flyer. That could extend to STRide night owl runs, and maybe making some all-day ST Express routes 24/7.
That’s more likely related to Metro’s Spring service change, which is that day. Since the 2 Line operators will be working full-time during simulated service, there’s no real relationship to the bus service changes.
Man, I wish that the 550 and 554 could be suspended once this happened and increase frequencies on the 556, and truncate it north at Bellevue :( I also noticed they accidentally leaked the opening a few days ago before getting rid of the date.
STB staff have been discussing the 554/556 issue. Michael is asking Metro. It looks like ST is dead-set against any ST Express changes before fall. If the rest of the Metro restructure goes through before the 554/556, there will be no bus service in the Glman Blvd retail area in central Issaquah. The 208 currently serves it but will be deleted. The 556 is planned to serve it but likely won’t start until fall.
ST could simply add the stops to the 554 in the meantime. It already travels on local streets there, although different streets. Still, since it’s nonstop there, moving it wouldn’t abandon any existing bus stops.
Otherwise, Metro could do something clever like having the 215 replace the 208 between the Highlands and North Band, and turning the 208 into a short 15-minute route between Issaquah TC and Issaquah Highlands P&R. That would preserve bus connectivity, although with different transfer impacts.
At minimum Metro should add Mercer Island to all the expresses like 212/218/554. The rest takes care of itself until the changes happen.
Metro may be making a few, independent changes soon.
What a waste of resources to run the 550 for even one day after Link opens.
I agree. I think it should at least be suspended.
The problem is that the 550 does more than what East Link will do. Check out the schedule and expand the map. It makes several stops on Bellevue Way. Not only will Link not make those stops, but the 550 is the only all-day bus for those stops. Thus if you suspended the 550 without any other changes you would leave a substantial set of riders with nothing. Any change to a route like the 550 should happen as part of a bigger network restructure.
That being said, I see no reason why Metro and ST can’t implement the plan that they’ve been working on for years. They have made similar quick changes in the past. The routes changed one week after opening U-Link. This was a huge restructure and forever changed the nature of the buses in Seattle. I could be wrong but I think Metro, Sound Transit and Community Transit all changed their bus routes on the same day Northgate Link opened! Yet it will take months (apparently) for ST (and perhaps Metro) to make the changes that were settled on years ago (and delayed because Link was delayed). It just seems really sloppy.
“I see no reason why Metro and ST can’t implement the plan that they’ve been working on for years.”
Because ST decided not to. It decided to make ST Express changes all at once in fall 2026 instead of when the Link extensions opened. So Metro has to keep some changes on hold until then.
There may be disagreement between parts of ST: senior leadership, Board, and planners. The end result is delay and caution. At least they are spending more on bus service. The bus-Link network will have significant duplication for several months in all the corridors. Even small changes are not attempted; should not Route 545 serve the downtown Redmond station directly, Redmond Way v. Cleveland Street; should not Route 542 be extended to the station? Federal Way station is another obvious one.
Is there a local bus that runs along Bellevue Way? If not, make one, and replace the 550. Everything after South Bellevue Station is now redundant.
The 554 will switch to have that Bellevue Way routing, taking over from the 550. 550 will go away entirely.
Route 249 also operates.
This is good news. I’ve been telling everyone I know that it will open in April, so this is a little earlier than I expected.
So during the simulated service, does the Eastside line between Bellevue and Redmond get more frequency? The current situation, with 10-minute unscheduled headways (so you have to budget 10 extra minutes to connect to a much less frequent bus), is somewhat maddening.
Idk if it’s gonna run 8 minutes during peak once simulated service begins even on the east segment. But at least it was pushed forward 2 months :)
Only 8 minutes? Bummer. I was hoping for 5.
It was never going to be 5 minutes on the 2 Line. The existing peak service on the 1 Line is 8 minutes. The 2 Line will replicate that. In the mid 2010s there was 6-minute peak service on the 1 Line for a few years to bridge the gap between the end of the Ride Free Area and the full U-Link fleet delivery. Earlier ST plans had 6-minute peaks on both the 1 and 2 Lines, for a combined 3 minutes. But sometime in the later 2010s it abandoned that and stuck with 8-minute peaks.
ST3 may increase it to 6 minutes. The future 1 Line (Ballard-Tacoma Dome) is supposed to run every 6 minutes. Somebody said the future 2 and 3 Lines would also run every 6 minutes, but I haven’t seen that in any ST literature. So ST may be moving toward that in ST3, but I haven’t seen positive confirmation.
ST3 promised all lines at 6-minute peak headways.
Nathan, this isn’t U Link, there are no extra trains for frequencies to be a tenth of an hour.
The Starter Line is scheduled. I’ll actually find the every-8-minute service a bit worse in some ways, since 10-minute headways are nicely clockface.
The shorter the wait, the less it matters whether the headways are clockface. ST can’t keep the headways consistent anyway. 10-minute nominal frequency means the next train may come 12 minutes after the last one, or 6 minutes, or 3 minutes, or 20 minutes, etc. I see them an exact 10 minutes about a third to half the time.
Presumably full simulated service will also boost service on the Eastside, but ST has not formally announced those details, yet. I expect ST is waiting until the DSTT signal upgrades are complete and they can reliably run 4-minute service in Seattle before confirming the schedule.
Yeah, I assume the schedule on the East Side will match the *current* schedule for the line to the west. In other words 8 minutes peak, 10 minutes midday, etc. That way they match without any changes to the schedule. You could just run the trains all-day long every ten minutes but that would be a degradation for South End riders (who are used to trains running every 8 minutes during peak hours).
The hours of late night service to the East Side remain a mystery at this point. Not just in the short term but the long term as well. There is great flexibility when it comes to when the trains start and end.
The simulated service is also supposed to run to midnight. The press release doesn’t appear to say the date when simulation will begin but that’s significant — both for tripmaking between current 2 Line stations and for 1 Line tripmaking north of Downtown Seattle.
Yes! I have mistakenly waited for a train at Redmond Tech Station after it stopped running more than once…
Here’s my proposal idea for opening day, as it’s a bit unusual from other light rail expansions, here’s my proposal:
7:30 am to 9:00 am – Speeches at Judkins Park East Portal
9:00 am to 1:00 pm- Ribbon cutting + 2 Line starts running on I-90 + market
I made the speeches early as I doubt anyone would want to endure the speeches while waiting for the 2 Line to start service on I-90 for 1.5 hours. As well because no one really wants to hear speeches, they want 2 Line service on I-90 and not the latter. I see they have a tradition of having opening markets 4 hours, and I started and ended them early because it’s only two stations and people really just want 2 Line service and not opening activities. I would expect (like most light rail expansions) to not start service on the other side (South Bellevue) until light rail service on the other side (where the ribbon is being cut) begins. I would also like to see a march on I-90. Since Judkins Park is in Seattle and Mercer Island is in the middle of I-90. I expect speeches at JP, now let’s get to the locations of the markets…
JUDKINS PARK STATION:
Have the market be on Jimi Hendrix Park which is just across from the station/speeches, and run fewer booths on the sidewalks of 23rd and possibly Rainier. There is plenty of space on Jimi Hendrix Park for performances, music, booths, and have food trucks parked on the street. I didn’t do Judkins Park as it’s blocked off by a wall from I-90 and requires a longer walk, whereas Jimi Hendrix Park is also on the I-90 trail. Someone suggested using the museum parking lot, but I just think it’s too far from the station and not a lot of room to justify the area.
MERCER ISLAND STATION:
I would have the main market on the Mercer Island P&R Garage (as many suggest) and run fewer booths on the adjacent sidewalks to the station. Having it in the garage also allows for food trucks without having to park them on the street.
Other than that, I’m glad they didn’t have 2 Line service north of IDC start on March 28 as it would be a complex issue whether to have markets on the opened stations on the 1 Line or not. It would also be weird as that new 2 Line segment would have no attention (and be kind of stupid to run them empty when people need them and it’s already done). So I’m glad they’re starting 2 Line simulated service in February as well having it operate north of IDC to double the frequency. Good work, ST.
Hallelujah. The Big One. (I mean, they’re all big; but this is huge.)
Congrats to all the hard working ST folks who toiled tirelessly and with great passion to deliver this planning & engineering marvel over the past two decades. Take a victory lap.
I am looking forward to the views on the 2 Line while crossing the floating bridge.
Same. I don’t think any transit system has had the audacity to put light rail on a pontoon bridge. It will also be the light rail that operates on (one of) the longest pontoon bridges. It was smart to put it on the express lanes rather than building another bridge. Though it’s kind of sad they didn’t put pre cast concrete plinths rather than cast in place concrete plinths.
The bridge was built in the 80s with the intention that the center express lanes could be converted to rail in the future. So that was part of East Link planning and budgeting, the same way the downtown tunnel was intended to be convertable to future rail. Both of those allowed the Link budget to be much lower than it would have been, and played a part in making it possible. So I don’t see any scenario where ST would build a new bridge, unless it determined the existing bridge was just incapable of Link.
One thing to watch for when simulated service starts: when ridership on the 1 & 2 Lines surpasses ridership on just the 1 Line.
And if it exceeds it in the first month before Crosslake service starts, that would show that it’s latent demand in Seattle that has been there all along. Because going to the Eastside will still be unchanged (transferring to the 550).
Considering how crowded the trains are during rush hour, today, I think there will be a lot latent demand. And, in addition to capacity, the extra frequency will help a lot with wait times when transferring to or from less-frequent buses.
Ridership on the ST bus routes across the lake peaked in 2016/2017. My guess is this was due to construction and getting kicked out of the tunnel. Ridership on the Metro Eastgate/Issaquah express buses peaked before the pandemic. A lot of those routes were cancelled and they have nowhere near the ridership they used to have. My guess is ridership will be somewhere in between those two extremes. Not as high as 2017 but not as low as it is now. Here are the routes and when they peaked:
550 — 10,800 (2016)
545 — 9,727 (2015)
554 — 4,100 (2017)
111 — 900 (2019)
114 — 500 (2019)
212 — 2,800 (2019)
214 — 1,200 (2018)
216 — 1,000 (2019)
217 — 200 (2019)
218 — 1,400 (2019)
219 — 900 (2019)
These are based on annual reports. I haven’t tried to average the routes for last year but the ST routes are about half of their peak (maybe a bit higher). The total numbers for the Metro routes are much worse. (I thought I had counted them up but I don’t have that in my notes.)
It will probably also take a portion of 271’s ridership.
UW students will probably still take 271, but those who has to transfer other routes to take 271 to Bellevue will probably be diverted to 2 Line.
Considering 271 won’t be trimmed right away, it will be interesting to see how its ridership compares to the same month of previous year before it is deleted.
Nice work.
“UW students will probably still take 271”
If Link takes 24 minutes Bellevue-Westlake and 6 more to UW (30 minutes total), that’s competitive with the 271’s 30 to 45 minutes. Plus Link is more frequent.
Somebody will say, “The 271 takes less than 30-45 minutes!” Not when I ride it westbound occasionally as an alternative to the 550.
Also, if you’re going to (or working at) the mall, still more convenient to take the 271, which stops right at the Nordstrom entrance. For now, anyway. When they move it to Bellevue Way and it’s a longer walk, worse pedestrian crossing experience, and the intersection is not near an actual entrance to the mall, expect that chunk of ridership to collapse (some will switch to Link and use the 6th Ave. walkway). They really should consider having the 271 stop on Bellevue Way at the Macys entrance and make the turn at 4th Ave., instead of turning at 8th Ave., and dealing with the freeway traffic there.
The 271 only takes 15-20 mins from the UW to Bellevue TC. During the worst peak maybe 20-30. What time do you take it to get 30-45 minutes? 45 minutes is actually ridiculous and not even possible. Look at the scheduled times.
Its only 45 minutes from UW to Eastgate P&R most of the time.
“The 271 only takes 15-20 mins from the UW to Bellevue TC. During the worst peak maybe 20-30. What time do you take it to get 30-45 minutes? 45 minutes is actually ridiculous and not even possible. Look at the scheduled times.”
I go the other way, westbound in the late afternoon or early evening, mostly weekends but sometimes weekdays. I thought it was 20 minutes from Bellevue TC to UW station, but after several times feeling it was longer I timed it with my stopwatch. As a result I got less enthusiastic about taking the 271 instead of the 550 because it wasn’t really faster after all, and for me I had to transfer again at UW station to get to Capitol Hill. This was in the 2010s and 2020s, but especially in 2022 when I went to Bellevue a lot. I transferred from the B or 226 to the 550 or 271. It continued until the 2 Line Starter Line started and I switched to transferring at Redmond Tech instead of Bellevue TC.
I think the 271 has improved westbound significantly after they opened the new Montlake Lid.
I think it is possible that it only took 20 minutes to get from Bellevue to UW in the afternoon. At least that was the case before the first I-5 ship canal lane reduction took place last summer. There was still delay at Montlake Lid, but 20-25 minutes was enough to get from Bellevue to NE Pacific at Montlake Blvd on a regular weekday.
That ended after I-5 lane reduction started. My theory was they retimed signal to give N/S more priority to make up for I-5’s reduced capacity. Things were never the same even after the lanes reopened, but they might have fixed it last December.
Do we have estimates of trip timing somewhere? i.e. how long should it take to travel from say, Symphony to Bellevue TC?
I haven’t seen a recent time estimate based on testing. The 550 takes 30-45 minutes from 5th & Union depending on traffic. Link may take 22-30 minutes from Westlake by my estimate but we’ll have to see. ST has the testing performance but I haven’t it published.
Westlake to Bellevue TC was estimated as 24 minutes in 2017, shown here:
https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/project-documents/east-link-central-bellevue-open-house-display-boards-06062017.pdf
In your example, I think the original expectation is 23 minutes or maybe even 22.
But ST has not yet published schedules based on actual sampled travel times. I am particularly curious how the bridge responds at different train speeds or when two trains cross there. Anecdotal reports are that test trains have been witnessed as operating at full speed.
As ST updates the schedules these next few weeks, we should know what they’re expecting.
Both new stations will require using a pretty large number of stairs if escalators or elevators are out of service. There were devices not working on Federal Way Link opening day last month, which is embarrassing if not shameful for ST to have let happen.
I’m hoping that ST is extra vigilant in making sure all the devices are operable before the opening date, unlike what happened on the FW Link opening a few weeks ago.
Keep in mind that the devices for these new stations were actually installed a few years ago (unlike FWLE devices) and have been mostly idle since then. If ST hasn’t already battle-tested them for several months, they need to be doing that starting now.
I shouldn’t have to post this comment, but in light of FWLE opening day experiences I think it needs to be posted.
One of the Federal Way elevators was also as slow as molasses, slower than even the DSTT elevators. I waved through the window at the people waiting at the bottom. I assumed it was just in some mode that needed adjustment. When my roommate and I went down later this month, it was fixed.
They’re probably hydraulic elevators rather than cable elevators. I’m not an elevator tech but I would guess that the flow pressure can be adjusted.
I do remember some post a few weeks ago from a relative of an elevator tech assigned to the station that said that they had been having problems right before opening day.
I was noticing that this morning’s presser was not only away from a light rail station, it was not even next to the tracks.
It made it appear as though ST was announcing a new piece of art to merely visually admire rather than a transit system to use on a daily basis. I’d call that a PR mistake. Am I the only one?
Yes because showing off the centerpiece of the connection from a good vantage point is so much *worse* for PR.
Get over yourself Al.
Al, why would the announcement be anywhere near the tracks? That would make no sense at all.
The obvious point was to make use of an excellent overlook to show off the most complicated and beleaguered part of the cross-lake connection which is finally opening in two months.
Yes you are the only one lol
I realize that are those among the public who think of Link as more of a toy train to admire within a panoramic view that they can occasionally ride to a special event. But I don’t expect many people will suddenly flock to this overlook just because Link is now running on the bridge.
To me, this opening is something to enhance one’s travel modal options and not merely something visual. After a few weeks, regular riders will care more about the operation much more than its looks.
They could have had it elsewhere. I would have considered setting it on the Judkins Park boarding platform. They could have had the backdrop of trains on either side with the Seattle downtown skyline in the distance.
In the bigger picture, it’s not really important. My comment is merely an observation. What’s important is that the service is going open! And let’s hope that service disruptions and vertical device failures are very rare. I’d much rather have a system that’s reliable than one part a panaramic view that’s closed frequently.
ST is opening a transit service; ST isn’t unveiling Mt Rushmore.
Finally, there’s a difference between dissent and gaslighting.
> To me, this opening is something to enhance one’s travel modal options and not merely something visual.
Yes, but the announcement is 100% visual. Now, if they have the opening ceremony speeches at the overlook, that’d be completely inappropriate.
> They could have had the backdrop of trains on either side with the Seattle downtown skyline in the distance.
The trains are actively running testing, though, and the stations aren’t open to the public. How would they have held a public press event at a closed station? At the very least they would have had to pause testing to park trains. Would you prefer they skipped half a day of testing just for the announcement?
Wait, wasn’t the announcement literally 60 ft above the tracks? With over a mile of tracks in view of the cameras? Are you serious or trolling?
I guess this also means getting ready for a random mix of 3-car trains? If so, ST needs to start labeling each arrival on the real time displays “3-car” or “4-car” .
Why? ST should have enough trains for full 4-car service. That was part of the project.
I agree with Mike, if they were that desperate about not running 4 car trains, they can simply open doors on two cars and on the other two simply not open the doors. But I’ve seen that ridership has improved on the 2 Line ever since Downtown Redmond opened, as that’s also the destination I go to if I’m on the 2 Line. So what I’m saying is that it looks like Eastside riders will get four cars, 8 minute peak frequencies, later runs, and eventually a connection to the 1 Line and more. But I’m wondering if during simulated service will even run the 2 Line later with passengers or without. I’ll go out on a limb they won’t allow passengers at night.
Do they? 3-car trains were on the 1-Line when the 2-Line began operations. It went back to 4-cars later in the year. Currently, the 2-Line is a 2-car operation. With both lines planning to run every 10(?) minutes, I don’t believe there’s not enough cars to run 100% 4-car train service.
If this is not the case, then it would be interesting to know why the 1-Line was reduced to a 3-car mix for half of 2024.
From what I’ve read, ridership in the 2 Starter line isn’t high enough for it to have more than 2 car trains.
Also from what I’ve read, operation over the lake gives them enough combined storage to operate four car trains throughout.
I read a very recent ST slides saying that in order to run every train 4-car, they won’t have enough LRVs to run 2 Line north of Northgate.
So they developed two alternatives.
1. Running every trip with 4-car capacity but 2 Line trains will return at Northgate.
2. Running some of the 2 Line train with 3-car capacity and all 2 Line trains will go to Lynnwood.
They ended up choosing the Alternative 2.
https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/st3-light-rail-service-presentation-april-2024.pdf
Thanks HZ, very interesting. I hadn’t seen that deck previously.
It looks like the 10 additional cars won’t be brought online until at least early 2028, so the 2 Line will likely be launching with a lot of 3 car trains.
so the 2 Line will likely be launching with a lot of 3 car trains
Yeah, looks like it. How annoying. This might lead to some crowding over the lake, even when they run three-car trains. Riders are less likely to stand towards the back if they think there might not be a train-car there.
It would be nice if the stations had labels on the ground marking the end of a three-car train. Then riders who prefer the last train could stand close to that point and wait until the train arrives. Better yet, include that on the reader board (and announcement).
I remember back in 2022, 1 Line also runs mix of 3 and 4 car. I wonder if that was a pandemic thing or it had been like that until Lynnwood extension opened.
The presentation includes a reference to accommodate “additional runtimes”.
That’s bureaucratic language that seems to say that someone or some group in the past miscalculated end-to-end run times and it was never caught until 2024. Keep in mind that 1 Line had not opened beyond Northgate to Angle Lake and 2 Line was not opened at all until 2024. So a good percentage of the travel time estimates (seemingly about half) were not based on field testing before then.
“ This might lead to some crowding over the lake, even when they run three-car trains.”
I’m rather doubtful that overcrowding will be a systemic issue across the lake. Even one three car train has the carrying capacity of several (5 to 7) articulated buses. It’s easier and safer to stand on a train than on a freeway bus too. And the planned 8 trains an hour (every 7.5 minutes) is a much higher frequency than any crosslake route has today.
I’m expecting that there are instances where overcrowding would occur. Sporting event crowds are probably when it’s most likely. I don’t think the evening peak will be a problem over the lake. If it is, it may be only one or two trains at the outset, so schedulers can hopefully find cars to make them run with four cars.
The important thing to me is to have good operations people who are given reaktime data to monitor crowding and spacing on every train, and given the authority to reallocate train cars to best address overcrowding without having to make it some sort of Board action. Seasoned rail systems operations staff around the world should be able to make next-day train length adjustments as long as they have authority to do so.
Although each line is committed to service at 8 trains an hour at peak (6 at other times), I would rather the solution be more like 7 or 7.5 trains for each hour (lowering average frequency by only 30 or 60 seconds) for each line but keep all the train sets at four cars. Here’s why: When a disruption occurs, trains can get quite overcrowded as service resumes. Having a slightly lower number of scheduled trains per hour but with all four cars seems like a faster way to clear that backup of riders. When tracks carry trains again after a disruption of service, there’s a spillback of upstream trains that need to be driven through — so they’ll be arriving more frequently than the schedule shows anyway. That’s when the capacity of an extra car will be really needed during a day (without some major special event)!
“That’s bureaucratic language that seems to say that someone or some group in the past miscalculated end-to-end run times and it was never caught until 2024.”
I remember seeing a Seattle Time piece about MLK grade separation saying that 1 Line is running slower along MLK street-running section these days, which led to their discovery that the forecasted fleet size from 2016 will no longer be enough.
ST found that actual operating time is slower than its estimates in several phases, and also the trains get sidelined for maintenance more than expected. All that has required more trains than expected to keep the target 8 to 10 minute frequency. That and fleet delivery timing is why ST sometimes has 3-car trains temporarily.
@ HZ:
Thanks for that info. If this is true, ST should have caught the problem well before 2024.
It’s just one more example of how ST seems to have a structural lack of primary focus of the agency: the day-to-day service that they are intending to operate. I don’t know if letting Metro operating the system ends up creating some of this missing attentiveness or not.
When ST keeps hiring untested senior management based on reasons other than their relevant experience elsewhere, basic mistakes like this can go unaddressed. It may have even been that lower staff or a consultant noted the problem and told them well before 2024, but they didn’t have the concern from management strong enough to address it. We just don’t know.
Anyway, I see this as a structural accountability problem — and unless ST takes the organizational/ structural gap seriously, it won’t be the only time this happens.
AI,
I think you made this too big of deal.
ST catching it and approved additional procurement 2 years ahead of 2 Line Cross-lake opening date is not that bad. The additional 10 LRVs will be delivered by the end of 2027.
It is not even clear how big of impact it will be. When they say they couldn’t operate every train 4-car, that could be just a few off-peak hours of the day, weekend only, or every once in a while when way too many Series 1 LRVs are in the shop.
When they said they need this number of LRVs to run certain service, they include the spare LRVs that parked in the OMF. They probably only found out they needed more LRVs because nowadays Series 1 requires more maintenance that it was. Fleet is gradually aging every day and it makes no sense to double check the calculation every day.
10 out of 152 LRVs is not that off. Very trivial things can lead to fleet size difference of this level.
It is not even clear whether they are short of LRVs to even run the service or those additional LRVs are just to make sure they have enough LRVs as contingency.
“ This might lead to some crowding over the lake, even when they run three-car trains.”
I’m rather doubtful that overcrowding will be a systemic issue across the lake.
First off, I meant to write “even when they run four-car trains”. Anyway, I’m not talking about the kind of crowding that occurs in other, bigger cities. I just mean the type of crowding that people complain about all the time in our system. The type that led to them running the 535. It might not even be that bad. But it will be more crowded that it should be. The occasional 3-car train and lack of open gangways is not a good combination. It is not the end of the world, it is just an annoyance that they could have caught a long time ago.
TriMet has a surplus of LRVs right now, and will have a bigger surplus when they cut back service on the Green Line in August. Maybe someone up there should see what it takes to convert the static converters from “750 volts” to “1,500 volts” * and lease some of our surplus for a couple years?
* (These are nominal voltages of the overhead lines, and the actual voltage varies. Eg: TriMet operates many of its substations to be close to 1,000 volts in its overhead, even though it’s supposed to be a 750 volt system. As the equipment is designed for a wide range of voltages, this somewhat higher voltage doesn’t matter in TriMet’s case.)
Systems like BART announce how many cars are in each arriving train. It helps make sure that someone doesn’t wait at a spot where there’s no train. So yes I agree that if ST varies train lengths they should tell waiting riders.
On the other hand, 1 Line will lose 40-50 percent of its current boardings north of Downtown to 2 Line once it starts running — even during simulation. So every train should probably be a 4 car train on both lines.
There was some hubbub about mistakenly counting the number of needed train cars a few years ago. ST ordered more atcgge time, but I believe they have not all arrived yet.
Rather than run an occasional 3 car train, I would suggest that ST slightly reduce train frequency. For example, each line will have about a 180 minute round trip time. So that’s 18 trains (76 train cars) for each line or 152 total needing to be in service at the base 10 minute service. The peak intention would be every 7.5 minutes and will need 24 trains or 192 train cars total. If ST only can offer 184 train cars total or 23 trains operating simultaneously in total, the frequency would drop by just about 20 seconds. I may have those round trip times off a tad but the example is close enough to illustrate the point that it seems less jarring to a rider to wait 20 seconds more than try to squeeze into a crowded end car because the train is too short.
BART operates 4-car trains in platform that can house up to 10 cars. If ST is running 1 or 2-car train regularly, this is probably needed. If the difference is just 3 or 4 car, that wouldn’t be necessary.
BART doesn’t seem to care to center their shorter train at station. The stopping position is almost arbitrary and don’t line up with the door mark. I don’t know how they could run a highly automated system this way to be honest.
@HZ In my experience (since 1976) BART generally DOES center their trains on their 10-car platforms. The odd-number-of-car trains stop slightly off-center. Upstairs on Market Street subway, MUNI Metro usually stops at the front of the platform, regardless of whether it’s a 1, 2, or 3-car train (MUNI used to run as many as 4 LRVs but control system or power can’t handle that many cars). An exception is at MUNI’s Castro or Church stations, where the stairs and elevators are centered; they even have a second convex mirror at the short-trains stop location, for the operator to check when closing the doors.
“ AI,
I think you made this too big of deal.”
Maybe I am. Still I don’t think it makes sense for a transit operator carrying 150K riders on a weekday and spending tens of billions on construction to then contract out so much to other transit operators or private sector consultants. It creates a culture that leaves the main internal functions as oversight and media/ public outreach. It works get for getting a referendum passed or getting people inspired with hope of developing an expanded transit system or even finally getting extensions completed.
However ST is now reaching the end of that initiation era with the cross lake opening. Their future is now going to be mainly judged will be as a day-to-day transit operator for existing riders — not a builder and not a visionary planner. It’s structurally time for ST to revisit its mission and accountability. And it’s time that more management come from a high-demand operations background rather than a planning or political background.
I’m glad they are finally running the train before I retire (made it by 9 months). I just did some rough calcs and I’ve paid as much in car tabs as I will in fares. That’s actually not too bad considering that $3 flat fare is a bargain. No more driving to work once (if?) the train opens. I’ll work some more detailed numbers but as much as I’ve complained I think, even with just 9 months of use, my cost/benefit ratio will work out positive; who’d of thunk it.
The only remaining issue is the homeless camp under the bridge at the station. I hope Seattle’s new major will prioritize people trying to use transit over illegal camping.
Which station has a homeless camp under a bridge?
Probably Judkins Park.
Yep, Judkins Park. Big time encampment on Rainier. The whole park has been an issue in the past but under the I-90 bridge has been unpassable.
The homeless encampments under I-90 that I saw a few years ago seem long gone. ST still has an 8-10 foot chain link fence still standing in front of station entrances in both sides of the street too. Maybe the encampments moved just beyond the sidewalk but I’m not seeing them these days.
I could see them returning when the chain link fences get removed and there is much wider sidewalk space. Considering that foot traffic will increase upon station opening, it will be more of a magnet for panhandling too.
King County Metro updated its GTFS file reflecting Fall 2025 service change 7 weeks ahead of effective date, so if they have something planned for Mar 28, we will probably find out in two weeks.
Metro will be updating a few more routes (8, 223, 224, 225, 240, 250) in March and the remaining East Link Connections changes will be in the Fall. We will have a dedicated service change post closer to March 28.
Interesting. Thanks for the head up.
Will Route 240 still resemble a fishing knot?
Jack,
I guess the upcoming change to 240 is about its schedule.
Its current route is the same as the East Link Connections’ final recommendation (unfortunately). The only thing that hasn’t realized is its proposed 15-minute weekday headway between 6am-7pm.
re Route 240: the ordinance version shifted the pathway to 112th Avenue SE; the ELC version was on 108th Avenue SE behind Bellevue High. Both versions include the knotty aspect of serving Factoria, Eastgate, and South Bellevue. In the p.m., the Route 556 eastbound pathway faces congestion; that seems to the pathway of Route 240 between South Bellevue and the 142nd Place SE ramp. https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/metro/routes-and-service/schedules-and-maps/240#route-map
I expect there has been significant growth in I-405 traffic and the ramps connecting the freeways with on another. South of South Bellevue there is only I-90 and no arterial option. There are East Link stations with less traffic congestion.
A lot of the problem with the 240 is Metro’s insistence that it serve the Eastgate bus bays, rather than the Eastgate Freeway Station. If the bus could simply serve the freeway station and take SE 36th St. to Factoria, it would be a lot quicker. Still a little bit of a detour, compared with not serving Eastgate at all, but not nearly as bad. It wouldn’t even leave anybody without service, as the bus stops along Eastgate Way would still be served by the 226.
But, the problem is, we have an agency that is incapable of thinking outside the box. The “box” here, being the silly rule that only freeway express buses to Issaquah are allowed to serve Eastgate Freeway Station in lieu of the Eastgate bus bays, simply because that’s what the service pattern is today.
@asdf2
I don’t think moving Eastgate stops to HOV ramp will help much.
The biggest bottleneck is the I-90 WB off-ramp to Bellevue Way. There is no alternate route for that if 240 must make a stop at South Bellevue. I can make the argument that maybe it doesn’t have to stop at South Bellevue.
Doesn’t the 240 have a stop on 142nd place? The bus stop is closer to SE 36th, but I don’t really see any value in moving the stop 200′ north, particularly given the tight curb space. Stopping the bus on the bridge itself might be a safety hazard because the sidewalk cannot be wider on the bridge itself, whereas the current stop is able to extend the sidewalk to make room for the bus shelter.
There is an argument to skip the bus loop (perhaps stop on 140th Ave SE instead?) to save time, but I wouldn’t move that stop to 142nd Place as there is already a stop on 142nd Place.
What happening to route 224 ?
Per an email from Michael Smith, “Route 224 serving Downtown Redmond Station will revise its pathway to better serve the growing employment at Redmond Ridge Corporate Center.”
I don’t see route 224 in Metro’s online schedule. Is it currently suspended? Looking at Metro’s system map, it’s the Duvall-Redmond Ridge-Redmond route. So it sounds like a small reroute within Redmond Ridge.
Regarding the other changes, route 8 will expand the 23rd Ave routing south to Massachusetts street to serve Judkins Park station. Route 223 midday frequency will increase to 20 minutes. Route 225 will switch to Overlake Village station (instead of Redmond Tech) and increase daytime frequency to 30 minutes. Route 240 will increase peak/midday frequency to 15 minutes. Route 250, “all trips will serve Avondale Road and Bear Creek Park and Ride”.
“I don’t see route 224 in Metro’s online schedule. Is it currently suspended?”
https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/metro/routes-and-service/schedules-and-maps/224#route-map
asdf2: There is too little connection between the Eastgate local bays and the freeway station; the difference is four levels of the garage and 800 feet; that is the wide seam. Metro only has Route 240 make the connection. With Route 240 is tying itself in a knot trying to do too much. Route 212 is being deleted. My suggestion was that a Route 212 connection should have been provided between Eastgate and Mercer Island; that is the faster pathway for both Issaquah and Eastgate riders oriented to Seattle. The ramps between South Bellevue and I-90 are congested in the peak. With ELC not providing some connections; perhaps the ST network could provide a route between the local bays and Mercer Island station via the Eastgate freeway station and another between the Issaquah TC and Mercer Island via the Eastgate freeway station. The ELC Route 554 would be slow. ST is leaving the current network in place until fall 2026.
I’m curious if responsibility for the “significant construction defects” has been determined. Who pays. As a Design-Build contract, the Contractor should be held responsible for design errors and eat the costs for repairs and pay delay damages to ST. But we also know a Contractor will not just roll over and will make a claim for time and money. In comparison, the Contractor on the AWV tunnel project was found responsible and not only had to eat the costs for repairs and time but also had to pay WSDOT for the delay.
It’s not a a DB contact. The big claims have not been resolved. Probably won’t for years as ST is now moving to court and ending mediation.
Kiewitt-Hoffman (KH; the general contractor responsible for the Seattle to South Bellevue segment of East Link) filed a $184M claim against ST last September alleging unnecessary rework demands, and ST filed a claim against KH in December alleging defective work.
At least ST was able to pay the bills in the meantime to get the project done such that the lawsuits didn’t kick off until the work was substantially finished.
As Umm said, this will likely drag out for years.
It’s still a shame that Link runs at 55 mph. At least that’s more than fast enough to tempt rush hour riders into taking it while they’re stuck in traffic
But imagine it operates at 65-75 mph during the longest segments on I-90 and I-5. People wouldn’t bat an eye to ride it while it’s zipping past them.
Of course I get the design restricts speed and the LRV has a limit… But freeway speed limits are 60 mph and Link would definitely feel a bit slow like it already does when watching cars cruise past it right nearby. At least it makes for a great view on the lake.
I’m also worried the S Bellevue Way exit will get even worse onto I-405 S with new Link park and riders added to the mix… Stride can’t come sooner.
It sounds weird but it’s transit. Why can’t transit be as fast as possible? That’s a benefit over driving.
I-405 light rail would be amazing. It could run at 30 mph and people would watch it zoom by. Ridership would flourish from park and riders alone, if they know how to use the bus and more companies offer shuttles from transit centers and Link stations.
Unfortunately they went for Stride which may end up getting stuck in some traffic too. At least the express lanes should keep it moving decently.
The problem is that a 405 train wouldn’t get that many riders. To the north the bus will do pretty much what a train would do. If you follow 405 then you skip areas like Downtown Kirkland or UW Bothell. You expect riders to make another transfer (or a long walk). Thus the bus is doing what a train is doing, and just as quickly. The exception is Downtown Bellevue. That is the first place where the bus leaves 405 (and encounters a local traffic light). Thus a train that continued would enable faster travel from say, Totem Lake to Renton. Even then it wouldn’t be that much faster than if Stride 1 and 2 were connected.
To the south the only significant issue is Renton. A train could, theoretically, run elevated through town, serving the heart of Renton before going back to the freeway envelope (to serve stations like NE 44th). But you could do the same thing for billions less by building a busway through Renton. That’s because every other destination is just as well served by a bus traveling in the HOT lanes. Of course another alternative is to just run more buses. Run buses from Burien to Bellevue that skip Renton. Run buses from Burien to the middle of Renton. Run buses from the middle of Renton to Bellevue. Run them all-day, every ten minutes. Sure, that is expensive but you have to have that sort of demand before you consider running a train (or at least you should).
Otherwise a train just doesn’t make sense. That is one of the major things people don’t get. The fundamental advantage of rail is capacity. Buses in a bus tunnel (or any grade-separated busway) are just as fast as train. They can have just as good (if not better) headways. But they can’t carry nearly as many riders. You could run buses instead of trains in the New York Subway but it would take an army of bus drivers. It just wouldn’t work.
But that isn’t the case with 405. There simply isn’t that much demand, no matter how good the transit becomes. Consider Lynnwood to Bellevue. That trip pair itself will likely be a significant part of the ridership for Stride 2. If the Stride buses are so crowded during peak that they are running every three minutes then it would make sense to have a Lynnwood-Bellevue express overlay. Metro had similar buses back before Link took a lot of the peak ridership (and COVID changed travel patterns). But does anyone expect buses every three minutes? No, of course not.
The ERC always was two narrow for two light rail tracks between Bellevue and Renton. It’s too bad that the 405 Master Plan didn’t include provisions to provide a level underneath the road bed that could become tracks in the future. Having a high-frequency rail connection seems unattainable for at least a few decades now.
Regardless, suburban congestion is not automatically resolvable by merely building rail transit. The overall low density and dispersed nature of suburban tripmaking are systemic factors that make attracting enough rail riders quite challenging. Add to that the existence of abundant free parking (even if it’s just for employees).
Why a train to Redmond or Federal Way then? Could use a bus instead. 520 is open and wide.
405 is the most congested corridor and deserves high capacity rail.
Federal Way is (or at least was) actually a reasonably busy transit hub. The A between Federal Way and TIBS is fairly slow and is quite busy with local traffic. Link will at least provide some faster service between these transit hubs.
Other than Bellevue TC, there’s very little within walking distance of I-405. UW Bothell, Tukwila Family Fun Center, and Lake Washington High School are about the best you could do.
Putting light rail there gets you something like a freeway parallel MAX line: a connection between various bus routes that doesn’t really have that many destinations of its own.
Except, unlike the Portland area, Puget Sound freeways have HOV lanes. If we wanted express buses, we’d have to build dedicated lanes for them, but that expense isn’t something that needs to be done there.
The times that I’ve wound up on buses diverted to I-405 due to congestion on I-5, the HOV lanes were moving vastly better than the ones on I-5 or genersl I-405 traffic.
Stride South really needs to go through the heart of Renton, including Renton Landing, and have at least bus lanes, even if a full busway is a stretch. This is a signature ST3 project. It needs to actually serve the cities it claims to serve, not just be an ST express route serving a single park and ride lot in the city! And it’s not like Kirkland where the diversion to serve downtown is out of the way. It’s more of an “on the way so why not serve it” situation.
Stride South really needs to go through the heart of Renton, including Renton Landing, and have at least bus lanes, even if a full busway is a stretch.
Agreed.
It would save some time but it probably wouldn’t make that much difference. Link is a hybrid system. When it operates like a normal metro (which it should do more often) the top speed is largely irrelevant. When it operates as commuter rail (which it does too often) then it does make a difference. Consider the section between TIBS and Rainier Beach. That is over five miles! That is a huge distance for a metro. A train going 70 mph instead of 55 mph for 5 miles saves over a minute (70 seconds if my math is right). This is great, but it is hard to see how that makes a difference in anyone’s decision making. Then you have the fact that the train has to slow down to make the turns along the way. It isn’t going top speed the entire five miles anyway. Saving 70 seconds (which is optimistic) would be great but you could also just have shorter dwell times. This would impact the typical rider (e. g. U-District to CID) way more than increasing the top speed. Likewise, increasing frequency is a bigger deal for more riders.
Where a higher top speed could make a big difference is regional and even commuter rail. A faster train to Portland and Vancouver would make a huge difference. The same thing is true from the Tacoma Dome to Seattle (Sounder). Troy Serad has written about this. Worth noting is his comment about travel time. It would take a bit over a half hour to get from the Tacoma Dome to Downtown Seattle, and that is with all of the stops. That would be a dramatic improvement.
It’s more about optics than anything. A train moving faster than the cars next to it just feels faster, even if it’s only a matter of a minute or two in savings.
Also… Every minute counts for transit riders who already have to put up with absurd frequencies, wait times, and stop times..55 mph just seems too low of a cap for a modern train.
I think we definitely could use a semi HSR that has more stops but still operates as fast as possible.
Portland
Vancouver, WA
Longview
Centralia
Olympia
Lakewood
Tacoma
Federal Way
SeaTac
Seattle Downtown connecting to Link
U District
Lynnwood
Everett
Maryland
Burlington
Bellingham
Vancouver, BC connecting to Sky Train
Maybe comes with a parallel HSR (4 total tracks with interleaving at the shared stations)
– Portland
– Olympia
– Tacoma
– SeaTac
– Seattle
– Everett
– (infill station in Skagit/Whatcom county?)
– Vancouver BC
But again, where the system operates like a metro (and where it has the highest ridership by far), the top speed doesn’t matter because the station spacing is very close. If the station spacing were farther, the system would be less useful and it would have lower ridership. In any case, the optics of the top speed in the successful segments doesn’t matter because it’s always minutes faster than driving by virtue of being in a very urban environment with difficult topography.
Yeah, what June said. I get the optics. It makes sense that drivers would see a train go overhead really fast and think “I should have taken that thing”. But there is no evidence it makes any difference at all. In fact it is the opposite (https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/files/economics-of-urban-light-rail-CH.pdf). Trains that cling close to the freeway generally underperform. Meanwhile, trains that are essentially invisible in an urban environment (by being underground) get a lot more riders.
55 mph just seems too low of a cap for a modern train.
The problem is that it is operating like a hybrid commuter/metro. If it operated like a regular metro it wouldn’t matter. It would get more riders and the top speed would be irrelevant. In contrast it would be great if Sounder was faster.
70 seconds might not seem like much, but on some of their frequent service routes TriMet repositioned stops based on saving 30 seconds. It turns out, 30 seconds multiplied by dozens of buses a day for a year has a fairly significant impact on the annual budget.
(Of course then someone had the bright idea of installing a 5 mph S curve in the middle of the Orange Line…)
So it costs about $665 per hour to operate a Link car.
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/transit_agency_profile_doc/2024/00040.pdf
We don’t know how much of that cost is fixed infrastructure or actual train operation. Can we guesstimate that it’s probably $1,000+ per hour to operate a Link train then?
I count about 100 trip per day over this section, one way. So, let’s say 200 trips per day.
$1,000 per hour x 0.00027777 seconds per hour x 70 seconds savings x 200 trips per day x 365 days = somewhere around $1.4 million per year.
When you take the Blue line in from O’Hare, the freeway is definitely faster … until you get closer to the city, traffic grinds to a halt, and the L easily overtakes any car trying to drive into the Loop.
Link will never be competitive with a car when the freeways are moving well. The point of HCT is to give people an alterative that is reliable, convenient, and affordable, and during times of congestion is consistently faster. Even in a city with world class transit, like NYC or Hong Kong, I have chosen to take a taxi because it was faster point-to-point and I was willing to pay a premium due to my travel needs at the time.
I’m really perplexed by the multiple comment threads in this article that assume the baseline experience for Greater Seattle’s freeways is an absence of congestion. Providing an alternative to congestion – both from a speed and reliability standpoint – is the raison d’être of ST for most suburban voters.
I don’t think taxi is faster for most trip inside NYC. Maybe it can be faster from Manhattan to JFK, but for most New Yorker’s daily commute, public transportation is actually cheaper. That’s made possible by subways that don’t even go as fast as 55 mph.
*public transportation is actually faster
Link will never be competitive with a car when the freeways are moving well.
Parts of it are. For example a trip from the UW to Capitol is faster via Link than by car, even at noon. Of course there are trips that are exceptions. It is not a perfect proxy for the type of system you want to build but it is close. It is one of the many reasons why a Ballard to UW subway makes so much sense. Riding the train would be faster than driving, at noon. This makes up for things like wait time and transfers. If the train is fast and frequent then getting from say, Loyal Heights to the UW is competitive via transit as well, even though it would require taking a bus and transferring. As a result, you are bound to get a lot more riders — both from urban and suburban areas.
There are other issues but they tend to favor that basic idea. This gets to density. To quote Jarrett Walker:
Parking is more difficult or expensive, and because more things are in walking distance, people are more likely to walk or cycle short distances. People without cars (because they can’t drive, or can’t afford one, or simply don’t want one) also logically choose to locate in higher-density areas where transit, walking, and cycling are easier, and this further reinforces the ridership from these higher density areas.
For want of better terms* I will call the two areas “city” and “suburbs”. From a broad standpoint you have these patterns:
1) Within the city, you have high demand everywhere to everywhere.
2) Within the suburbs, you have demand from a particular suburb into the city.
3) Driving tends to be slow in the city as it typically doesn’t involve a freeway.
4) Driving from a suburb into the city tends to be via a freeway (and thus has the potential of being very fast).
All of this leads to a standard approach taken all over the world. Build your metro with lots of stops in the city. Connect to the suburbs as best you can, but don’t prioritize it. It is far more important to get the city part of the metro right. Worse case scenario you can run buses into the city and riders have to backtrack a bit. By all means, if you can run commuter rail, do that as well. That is pretty much it, yet like so many American cities, we’ve focused on the wrong thing.
Sound Transit has done an excellent job in accommodating suburban travel. The northern and southern end points are outstanding from a bus feeder standpoint. In both cases you can easily serve those areas via the HOV lanes of the freeway. You can also keep going (express) to Seattle if you want to. What they haven’t done is prioritize urban coverage. There are not enough stops in the city. At the same time, they are needlessly expanding in the suburbs. If you could insert a First Hill station into the system you would see an increase in ridership from all over Seattle. You would also see more riders from the suburbs. But if you add a station at say, Ash Way, it barely changes anything. Even within Snohomish County there just isn’t that much interest (Ash Way to Mountlake Terrace is just not a very popular trip). Unfortunately, what Sound Transit has done is fairly common in the United States. It is one of the many reasons we are the laughingstock of the transit world. It has happened in the Bay Area, Dallas and Denver (to name just a few).
Ironically, by going deeper into the suburbs but shortchanging the city you make life worse for the suburbs. If you live in Lynnwood but work in Fremont, extending the train through Lynnwood doesn’t help. That isn’t the slow part. The slow part is getting from the UW (the nearest subway station) to Fremont. If there have a lot of “Fremonts” (and we do) then riders from Lynnwood just end up driving.
*The terms here are very broad. It is just easier to write “city” than “urban core”. Downtown Bellevue would not be considered a “suburb” in this definition — Lynnwood would.
I just checked google maps, late morning Seattle time: Oddfellows Cafe to Henry Art Gallery is 16 minutes by car and 26 minutes by bus via the 49 (I think that includes 8 minutes of walking). HZ, why do you think Manhattan is saturated with yellow cars – are there simply that many bigoted rich people who would not deign to take the subway? Or perhaps the taxi industry is huge in NYC because it provides are compelling service. When I lived in CT, if I was traveling solo I would take the train, but if I was traveling in group we always drove or took Uber/Cab – the $50 or whatever extra to take a vehicle was prohibitive for a solo trip, but split 4~6 ways it was a very reasonable cost for the convenience, even when just bouncing around within the city.
Ross, I generally agree with you long post here. ST 1 & 2 correctly chose to “slow” down Link in the Rainier Valley and Bel-Red to prioritize local trips over riders passing through; the long travel time through the RV is a feature not a bug. With FW & Lynnwood, ST chose the faster freeway alignment, missing out on the A & E corridors but hopefully better buttressing the suburban bus grid.
Your Ash Way example is noteworthy – is providing that additional connection to Swift Green really worth “nothing”? Snohomish leaders disagree with you.
@AJ: I am even more perplexed at people who assume that the times of day with light freeway congestion will be the same 10-20 years from now as it is now. There is no prospect of expanding the highways to significantly reduce congestion, even for a temporary, pre-induced demand period. The construction delays would be longer than the period of traffic relief! One could hope that driverless cars would reduce congestion, but that is turning into another “nuclear fusion” situation, always just a decade of two away.
“One could hope that driverless cars would reduce congestion, but that is turning into another “nuclear fusion” situation”
And an “unintended consequences” situation if driverless cars end up increasing congestion. There’s a risk that people will take their car on more trips, or that they’ll have it circle the block rather than paying for parking, or drive home and come back when they’re ready to return.
“I just checked google maps, late morning Seattle time: Oddfellows Cafe to Henry Art Gallery is 16 minutes by car and 26 minutes by bus via the 49 (I think that includes 8 minutes of walking).”
Yes if you take uber/lyft/taxi. If you drive, you will spend minutes finding parking and walking from your parking spot to the destination. Uber/Lyft is not exactly cheap in Puget Sound, so I really don’t see that as a comparable mode to public transportation..
Your Ash Way example is noteworthy – is providing that additional connection to Swift Green really worth “nothing”?
It is worth very little. That is the point. Of course you add value the more you add stations. You might as well go all the way to Mount Vernon to connect to the local buses there. But you just won’t get that many riders. Swift Green gets about 3,000 riders. A high portion of those riders take trips south of 132nd (https://seattletransitblog.com/2025/05/05/swift-ridership-with-lynnwood-link/). If you overlap the Orange Line you might as well take it Lynnwood. If you are south of there it really doesn’t make sense to go all the way up to Ash Way and then back south. Of course you get some riders at Ash Way (as well as the mall) but not enough to justify the cost.
You are much better off building the ramps to Ash Way. That way the 512 can serve it and then quickly continue to Lynnwood. Until then they bus should skip Ash Way. That is actually faster than if the train was extended to Ash Way and the bus ended there.
ST should also just pay CT to run more buses. Either take over over some of the routes or just pay them money (and let them decide where to run the buses). Either way works. But that is a much better way to spend the money than an extension. Lynnwood Station is an outstanding terminus. You get very little by going further north.
That’s what we’ve been saying for years. The vehicles can go 65 mph, and there are vehicles available that can go 85 mph. But ST set the Link specs at 55 mph: this affects maximum track curves and inclines.
A 55 mph limit contradicts a 70-mile Spine goal to Tacoma Mall and Everett College. The freeways were limited to 55 mph during the Carter (?) administration, but they’d already reverted to 65 mph when Link was planned. The way to maximize ridership is to go faster than cars, but somehow the officials in Snohomish and Pierce Counties and the Eastside forgot about that, or were thinking only about peak congestion and not other times of the day.
Not validated information from Wikipedia, but I’ve heard this before. Interestingly, they set the speed limit for commercial and transit vehicles to be 55 mph which was higher than that for private vehicles.
“As an emergency response to the 1973 oil crisis, on November 26, 1973, President Richard Nixon proposed a national 50 mph (80 km/h) speed limit for passenger vehicles and a 55 mph (89 km/h) speed limit for trucks and buses.”
I was in elementary school when the 55 mph limit was imposed. It must have been after the 1973 oil shocks under Carter, and Reagan repealed it in the 80s.
When I first moved to Seattle in 1972, most freeways were “70 mph; trucks/night 50 mph”. The Mercer Island Bridge was 40 mph, doubtless because of the unprotected reversible lanes and the bulge The Evergreen Bridge was 50.
When the 55 mph limit was repealed, Pugetopolis freeways went up to 65-mph. Beyond Lakewood and Everett they went up to 70. I’ve seen 75 in rural Idaho. The Mercer Island and Evergreen bridge rebuilds allowed them to go up too.
The reason the government gave for the 55 mph limit was to save fuel. It said faster speeds used disproportionately more gas. I asked my friend whose family has a car-repair shop why people don’t talk about this now. He said changes in car technology eliminated that gas-guzzling-at-high-speed problem. Since I don’t drive and know nothing about cars, I don’t know what that change was or whether it’s true.
Mike,
Theoretically it is still the case. Technology can only optimize engine efficiency and mitigate the issue but it cannot reverse the course physics. Theoretically, air resistance increases as you drive faster, thus more energy will be used to fight that force if that makes sense.
However, there are too many factors in real-world driving such as stopping and car-following, so in the end you cannot really tell any difference between driving at 45mph and 55mph in a practical driving environment.
Yeah, it is still an issue. You can get better mileage by driving 55 mph instead of 65. But the government has simply dealt with the problem in other ways (e. g. CAFE standards). The 55 mph limits were very unpopular.
The relationship of a car’s energy consumption to speed comes primarily from two factors:
1) Cars burn a significant amount of fuel every minute in overhead, just to keep the engine running, regardless of speed. So, driving faster makes the car more efficient, as each minute of running the engine gives you more distance.
2) The faster you go, the more energy is needed to overcome air resistance. Since air resistance is proportional, not to the speed itself, but to the square of the speed, the faster you go, the more each incremental mph increases your energy consumption.
This is why gas cars tend to reach peak efficiency around 45 mph, although the efficiency drop-off at higher speeds doesn’t really become noticeable until around 65 mph.
In the case of EVs, the calculations change, as the effect of 1) becomes a lot less important, except in cold weather, where the vehicle must run energy-hungry heaters to keep the driver warm. So, even though the car’s EPA range is roughly based on 55 mph driving, it is actually possible to far exceed this (at least in warm weather), simply by driving slow.
I’m curious what the energy-optimal speed of a Link train actually is. It probably depends on temperature, but my guess is that it’s higher than in an EV. The HVAC energy consumption is probably quite large, due to the large passenger cabin and lots of drafty doors that open and close at every station stop, while the energy to move the train is significantly lower than a caravan of cars with the equivalent amount of passenger space, due to the aerodynamic shape of a train, plus steel wheels on rails having less rolling resistance than rubber tires on roads.
But, in any case, the actual difference in energy costs from running a train at once speed vs. another speed is probably negligible in the grand scheme of running a train system.
It’s similar to road EVs: the energy required increases with speed, as there’s no engine idling to waste energy at low speeds.
However, air resistance plus rolling resistance isn’t that much. Each of the Siemens LRVs has slightly less than 700 horsepower. That’s what? 2 SUVs equivalent? Even that is plenty of power to spare. The Pioneer Zypher only had 660 horsepower and moved its 3 car train at 112 mph, and averaged (including station stops) 78 mph between Chicago and Denver.
Yeah it is such a shame that 550 runs faster on I-90 than light rail.
ST could RFP specialized LRV that runs this fast, but perhaps no one would submit a proposal. It is notably difficult for US transit agencies to procure specialized transit vehicles, either buses or trains.
Siemens is very much only interested in selling the same S70/S700 model to every light rail operator in the US. They developed an ultra short version of this model because the SD-100/160 LRVs they sold to several agencies in the late 90s to early 2000s were 10-ft shorter than standard S70/S700 and they didn’t want to lose that market share. Having 10+ agencies buying their LRVs is like the only reason that can keep their LRV assembly line running all the time. Other foreign manufacturer never had enough orders to keep running.
“I’m also worried the S Bellevue Way exit will get even worse onto I-405 S with new Link park and riders added to the mix”
I was on a westbound 226 two weeks ago Saturday. There was a big line of cars on the exit ramp from westbound I-90 to northbound Bellevue Way, and another line merging into it that must have come from 405. We sat in it for 5-10 minutes. I was surprised it was there and not on I-90 going to Seattle.
I went up and asked the driver what it was. He guessed it was people going to downtown Bellevue bars to watch the football game. I was incredulous. That many people go to downtown Bellevue bars to watch football? I’d think they’d watch it at home or at house parties if they don’t go to the game.
But it was also during I-5 closures. I could see 405 and I-90 backing up because of that. But why would Bellevue Way northbound to downtown Bellevue back up then? So it was puzzling. But I’ve only seen it once.
It has been an issue for a while, luckily for me and fellow 550 riders, it doesn’t hurt eastbound I-90 off-ramp (from Seattle) as westbound (from Issaquah), but I can only imagine how it will be a problem after 2 Line opens as all the South Bellevue routes will come from there.
I think the issue was the signal at South Bellevue TC rather than broader congestion along Bellevue Way because once 550 went past South Bellevue P&R, there was not much congestion.
Bellevue is very good at signal tech and almost all the signals in Downtown area are adaptive. I don’t know if South Bellevue P&R access signals were operated as adaptative. If not, maybe they need to be adaptive, too.
Higher speed vehicles might need some enhanced cabin sealing design, but that’s usually a problem for something that runs at least 100 mph.
Caltrain has a little bit of this issue but not terrible because it only gets worse when there were a lot of tunnels and elevation change on the line.
Running 65 mph or 75 mph in an open air section with zero horizontal/vertical curve probably feels the same as 55 mph.
Issaquah is not a transit desert like Renton. They have the 554 and 556 (though I’ll admit the 556 sucks, but it’s comparable to the average routes Renton residents deal with). After the 2 Line, the possibilities are endless.
What does Renton one of the largest populations in the state get? A regular express bus that gets stuck in traffic. It’s better than nothing though and I’m hopeful the new toll lanes will keep things moving.
Even if not 405 rail, Renton could easily see a decent rail corridor connecting to Rainier Valley and up to Montlake.
Also about the Issaquah traffic comments. I drive I-90 every day. Yes, the opposite direction but ironically the traffic my direction is actually worse than what Issaquah folks get. I can see the other side of the freeway lol. It’s not congested whatsoever. Meanwhile the ramps from I-90 to Renton are always clogged and the line backs up to Eastgate.
Oh and should I mention Route 218. And after the East Link updates, Issaquah Highlands P&R gets like 3 total freeway express buses??? While in South King, they’re deleting the 162 and several of our routes. Not even truncating to Link. DELETING.
The 102 still exists and I’m glad it’s still there. It was almost on the chopping block. It’s the only thing keeping a Seattle to SE Renton commute under 2 hours.
Even if not 405 rail, Renton could easily see a decent rail corridor connecting to Rainier Valley and up to Montlake.
I don’t think that is realistic, even if it would be nice. I think the best approach is work with what they have. Connect the HOV lanes of I-5 to the SoDo Busway. That is a project that has sat for years but could be done without too much expense. That would not only help the buses from Renton but the buses from Tacoma, Federal Way and Kent.
“ I’m also worried the S Bellevue Way exit will get even worse onto I-405 S with new Link park and riders added to the mix… Stride can’t come sooner.”
I don’t see added parking traffic at South Bellevue creating more backups. If anything, the way that signals work at the station would likely affect things more.
Entering traffic would be highest in the weekday morning rush. So that’s when the impact would likely be more noticeable. But even then, there’s a very long right turn pocket to drive into the station parking garage before the first signal.
Another squeezing of two freeway ramps into one lane happens where the 405 ramps to Bellevue Way merge with exiting 90 westbound/ Factoria Way traffic. I could see that as another bottleneck at times.
Finally, the garage is already used today by drivers parking to get into Seattle via a bus. While there will be more people doing that when Link opens, it’s not starting from zero.
People will also use it to Redmond. The connections to the 2 Line are poor by bus from the south until Stride comes out.
The only decent route planned is the revised 111 and maybe 240. Most other S/SE King riders who want to use the 2 Line will have to drive and park if they value their time.
The backups to get onto I-405 South from both directions of I-90 are ridiculous. Every single evening. Everyone wants to go that way. Stride will certainly help as long as the express lanes stay relatively free of HOV cheaters.
The ramps northbound are never crowded. Shows where the demand is. Commuter Rail will most certainly be valuable from Bellevue to Renton (and why not SeaTac? It’d be quite popular for East siders to take to the airport), despite what others on here say about it. Stride just doesn’t cut it as a reliable high capacity service, and it misses the airport.
Also the freeway to Issaquah is almost never crowded. There’s almost no reason to build light rail to Issaquah. Even during peak evening hours, the lanes to I-90 aren’t that crowded. A bus would do.
A segment from Totem Lake to Eastgate would honestly be better.
“ Also the freeway to Issaquah is almost never crowded. There’s almost no reason to build light rail to Issaquah. Even during peak evening hours, the lanes to I-90 aren’t that crowded.”
I agree. The core problem with ST3 is that it was assembled by politics and not objective analysis.
I’m sure others may chime in and say it was a PSRC Growth Center — but so is Renton.
Others will say that Renton wasn’t aggressive or imaginative enough when ST3 was being assembled. That is of course doublespeak for pure politics. And it’s conveniently overlooked that Renton has a high proportion of foreign born residents who aren’t invested in local politics so they don’t know how to push for things that could favor them.
Some will say that the East-Central Study before ST3 recommended buses on 405. But the only 405 rail alternative in that study was a single track rail line with only 20 minute frequency, which effectively sandbagged the option.
Finally ST3 projects were not only the ones pushed hardest by certain elected officials, but they avoided proposing anything that could be considered controversial by those along the route. Light rail on 90 doesn’t offend the adjacent neighborhoods. Even the locations of the 4 Line station sites are only somewhat close to key activity centers in the corridor (from Factoria Mall to Bellevue College to Issaquah’s activity centers) because there would be cost increases and possible opposition if it dared to leave the 90 corridor.
To question ST3 is thus to question the very way that politics in the region has worked for the past 15-20 years now. And that’s really hard for many progressives and self-proclaimed transit advocates in the region to see or acknowledge.
Let’s see what gaslighting responses that brings! Lol
“Others will say that Renton wasn’t aggressive or imaginative enough when ST3 was being assembled. That is of course doublespeak for pure politics. And it’s conveniently overlooked that Renton has a high proportion of foreign born residents”
It’s the Renton government that wasn’t aggressive or imaginative enough. A city should address the transportation needs of its residents. Renton kept complaining it should get more transit resources, but it was late in making a long-range plan and identifying what it wanted; it just sat there and waited Sound Transit and Metro to make the plans and pay for it, and if they didn’t, Renton didn’t do anything to help itself.
Renton had highways but transit and walkability languished. Half-hourly or hourly buses to the Highlands and southeast Renton. And then when you get there it’s all 1970s low density and a long walk between things. Most of the bus routes terminate in downtown Renton so residents have to wait for a transfer to go to anywhere further. Renton could have addressed these a decade or two ago, and said specifically what kinds of bus routes it wanted.
There’s almost no reason to build light rail to Issaquah. …
A segment from Totem Lake to Eastgate would honestly be better.
The thing about all the areas you mentioned is that they are close to the freeway. Totem Lake, Eastgate, Downtown Bellevue — they are not only close to the freeway but they have special freeway ramps connecting them to the HOV lanes of the freeway. Even neighborhoods in Issaquah aren’t typically that far from the freeway. They are also at the end of the line. Or they vary quite a bit in elevation. This means that you gain very little with a train and if you tried to connect the various neighborhoods it would cost a fortune. But even the scaled down plans that call for just one station in Issaquah will cost billions. That is because you duplicating the infrastructure that already exists. You would be much better off connecting the HOV lanes of I-90 and 405. That way a rider could go from various parts of Issaquah to Eastgate and then continue (express) to Downtown Bellevue. This would be just as fast as a train and cost billions less. If you are starting in the Highlands it would be much better.
In contrast, consider one of the most popular segments in our system: U-Link. Ridership doubled when they added just those two stations (Capitol Hill and the UW). Getting from the UW or the south end of downtown to Capitol Hill was dramatically faster. Never mind traffic. Link is faster between those stations then driving — at noon. As Link has gone north this trend continued. U-District to Capitol Hill, Northgate to UW — these are dramatically faster trips. A completely separate, grade-separated passageway is justified.
They are also extremely popular. UW to downtown was already very popular well before the work began. Buses ran between those two areas frequently. There were a couple routes that included Capitol Hill (the 43 and 49) but they were very slow. But you also had the 70 (which went on the surface streets) and the 71, 72 and 73 (that ran express when the express lanes were in their favor). That is a lot of buses connecting the UW with downtown. Tens of thousands of riders went between those two destinations while plenty more went to Capitol Hill. This made the choice of rail an obvious one. You needed the extra capacity. Issaquah Link has nothing like that.
Some areas are just very well suited for rail while others are very well suited for buses. Other than what they just built (and are about to run over the lake) the various places on the East Side are much better connected by bus. They already have the infrastructure (or 90% of it) and don’t need the extra capacity of rail.
The point of rail is that cities can develop and urbanize over the rail.
Eastgate could most definitely developed around the rail corridor
A 405 rail has extremely good potential for development in Renton, Tukwila, Kirkland, Bothell, etc. It doesn’t have to follow the freeway exactly like the bus, but it can still be fast and serve new urban centers
Example: light rail can deviate through Renton more easily than Stride. It can also do the same for the other cities using elevated rail, and it can operate just as fast as an express bus if we use faster LRVs on the lower density segments on 405.
It’s an underrated concept among transit enthusiasts and urbanists, but for what our areas have become with lots of low density areas… The best thing we can do is build the following:
Light rail that is also commuter rail. And that’s exactly what Sound Transit is doing (almost)
Long distance *high speed* commuter connections between cities along low density segments (near freeways) — objective is to take people farther along corridors that would otherwise be a highly congested freeway drive
Short distance high density light rail areas within cities, that still prioritize efficiency by having grade separated / elevated rail options. — objective is to minimize traffic within dense urban corridors and move a high capacity of people around efficiently
Allows people to take trips between cities, and also within cities… All in one ride. The 1 Line and 2 Line achieve that wonderfully. All I’m pointing out is the lack of speed in some of the segments.. that could be faster if they cared to make it faster.
The point of rail is that cities can develop and urbanize over the rail.
What? At best that is a side benefit. Besides, they can urbanize around bus routes. Or they can urbanize because the city wants them to urbanize there. Oh, and we are talking about areas close to the freeway — by their very nature these are bad places for TOD. They’ve even done studies and found that it is a poor choice for light rail. To quote a couple paragraphs from the report:
Light rail works best in a very particular set of circumstances. In areas where driving is difficult but travel demand is large and consistent, it can facilitate relatively short trips of a few miles or less. In these cases, the ability to run larger light rail vehicles with less bunching and fewer drivers can offset the increased expenses in capital maintenance. Over longer distances, the low speed of light rail vehicles cannot compete with freeways; with lighter traffic loads, the problem of bus bunching becomes less severe.
Ouch. That sounds precisely like the problem with Issaquah Link. Miles and miles between stations; the light rail vehicles can’t compete with freeways. But wait, there is more…
Two species of overexpansion in U.S. cities deserve special mention. First is an overemphasis on serving transit-oriented developments. Many cities have seen new developments on “New Urbanist” principles: apartments with mid-rise units and a mix of commercial and residential development aimed at satisfying most residents’ daily needs without having to drive. Many of these developments are also transit-oriented, to allow for travel outside the development, such as to downtown jobs. Because of strict zoning laws in developed areas of cities, these developments often must be built miles from established downtowns. As such, transit-oriented developments frequently disappoint. New, isolated developments are rarely large enough to be self-contained or offer the amenities of true city centers. Residents who want to travel to specialty stores or jobs not readily accessible by the existing transit network—and in typical low-density U.S. cities, this is almost all of them—will need to own cars. Once they own cars, there’s no reason not to use them for all trips, especially if zoning policies guarantee copious parking.
It is like the Sound Transit leaders read the report and then decided to make every mistake on there when they came up with the Issaquah Link plan.
Light rail that is also commuter rail.
That has its value, but only if you can build the commuter rail cheaply. That is the S-Bahn model. It works well because the S-Bahn has lots of stations within the city (as much as a typical metro) but it also connects to small, highly centralized cities outside it. Why not? It doesn’t cost much to connect the metro with the old rail lines. Of course the vast majority of ridership is within the urban core (it always is) but it is nice for those living or visiting those other towns to get right into the big city. Some of these trains really are fast (100 mph) others are not (60 mph). Typically it doesn’t matter that much. But again, the key is to leverage old, existing railways (to keep costs down) while connecting to strongly-centered cities. This works. Even in Puget Sound (where cities like Auburn and Kent are very low density) I could see this working (especially if we owned the tracks). Sounder could transform into a metro at CID, with stations at First Hill, etc.
But what does not work — and what is a colossal waste of money is to spend a fortune building a commuter line from scratch and then combine it with a half-ass metro. That is what ST is doing. It is basically the BART model. The problem is that you never get that much ridership from the suburbs. Even with really fast trains you don’t get that many riders. It costs a fortune and many riders would be better off with an express bus (especially since a bus can better serve those sprawling suburbs and cities). The worst part is, the focus shifts. Instead of trying to get normal stop spacing and coverage within the urban core (like a normal metro) you shortchange those areas. There are literally miles between stations in Oakland. Oakland! You can just chalk this up to an honest mistake but I have to assume that the fixation on distance is largely responsible for this problem. The same is true within Seattle. There was so much focus on getting to Everett that skipping First Hill was considered OK. I get it — soil problems. But they at least come up with a substitute? No. They ended up with only one station between the UW and Downtown (despite being in the heart of the city). What a colossal screw-up. I really don’t think that would have happened if it wasn’t for the absurd “spine” idea.
Meanwhile, the suburban areas and satellite cities are often much better off with express buses and commuter rail. That is because (unlike within the city) there just isn’t that much interest in going between these suburban locations. A section like Northgate to downtown gets really high ridership because thousands of people use every combination (Northgate to Roosevelt, Northgate to U-District, … Roosevelt to U-District, Roosevelt to Capitol Hill, etc.). But there are only a handful of riders going between TIBS and Angle Lake or Mountlake Terrace and South Shoreline. There is no network effect *within* the suburbs. Lacking that, you are much better off having an express that skips all that.
There are trade-offs either way. A commuter from Northgate was better off with the old 41. The bus saved a couple minutes in travel time (and a transfer). But now they have faster trips to places like the UW and Capitol Hill. That is a very good deal. But with Tacoma that isn’t the case. They will have faster trips to places like Star Lake and TIBS. That is not a good trade. They would be better off with a combination of buses (and commuter rail) even if Link had a faster top speed. More to the point it is just a huge waste of money. I’m sure Tacoma Dome Link will get some riders. But it is a huge waste of money given the needs of the area.
Example: light rail can deviate through Renton more easily than Stride.
That is absurd. A busway would be much cheaper. The basic route is Burien to Bellevue, right? The bus can connect to TIBS without costing a fortune. It can get right to the main Bellevue Transit Center without any additional money. So all you need to do is build a busway for Renton. It can be elevated, underground — you name it. It can leave the freeway before SR-176 and then rejoin the freeway past the Landing (Sunset Boulevard). That is less than three miles of new grade-separated busway connecting to 405 (and what is essentially a busway). Yes, that would be really expensive but it would be all that you need.
In contrast, if you ran a train it would require similar grade-separated rail the entire way. From Burien to Bellevue! That is over 20 miles of brand new, very expensive railway. That would cost a fortune even if you didn’t serve Renton at all.
That is why 405 light rail doesn’t make sense. There is already a freeway there (called 405). It is much better to leverage it (with additional infrastructure and/or extra service).
@Al S.
“Some will say that the East-Central Study before ST3 recommended buses on 405. But the only 405 rail alternative in that study was a single track rail line with only 20 minute frequency, which effectively sandbagged the option.
Okay Yooz Guys, I know I’m basically ignored as an old foamer by the best of them, but until I die, I will always make sure that history is not getting changed via the “Telephone Game”, as it pertains to the I-405 Corridor.
I can’t present any links, since WSDOT no longer makes the original FEIS for the I-405 Corridor Program Master Plan (completed at the end of 2001) available online. However, the libraries have the documents in their Reference section (for in-library use only) (Seattle Public Library shows it, but I didn’t see the same on the King County Library website).
Sound Transit was not allowed to include the ERC in any analysis, specifically the Cost/Benefit analysis. I don’t know how to emphasize this any more,
There was no comparative analysis performed with the ERC vs. the other transit options.
Sound Transit and the PSRC did a joint study later for Snohomish – Tukwila Commuter rail, which, at that time was a moot point. As they say: “The Fix Was Already In”.
Sound Transit’s only choice was between BRT (around $1.4 billion) and Light Rail (at $4billion (in the year 2000)) within the freeway ROW.
If you are interested in how the politics were playing out, I did find an article in a website called Light Rail Now “. I don’t even know if the website gets updated any more, but the link reprinted articles from various newspapers. Scroll down to the Daily Journal of Commerce article (October 16, 2003).
or search for “Jesse Tanner”.
Renton is getting what it asked for, given this quote:
“I think it’s a lousy idea,” Tanner said. “We let people know we
don’t want that damned railroad line used as a rapid transit line.”
Transit on the Eastside is only based on politics.
“the freeway to Issaquah is almost never crowded.” Lolz, what? Having lived in Issaquah, I can confirm it’s stop & go during commute hours between 405 and Issaquah. The HOV lane flows pretty well, which is why SE Bellevue & Issaquah should be served by a Stride line with some infill stations, not rail.
RE: Renton, there doesn’t even need to a busway. Run express bus service on 405 that never leaves the freeway, build a high quality transfer to the F at the Lind Ave overpass and at the Southport interchange, and then invest in good frequency and some spot improvement for the F. Aside from the Exit 5 interchange rebuild (which is of the scale of the interchange rebuild at 44th and 85th streets), this is all very low capital cost, probably 2 orders of magnitude (10s of billions vs hundreds of millions) than any of the ST3 Link projects.
AJ, don’t be dishonest. Any traffic on I-90 is just overflow from 405. I-90 itself hardly has traffic going towards Issaquah itself. Buses can easily pass that traffic.
Now take a look at 405 going to Renton. Always congested like a parking lot. That’s what real congestion is. NO other freeway or road hits those levels.
Renton has a perfect bus way opportunity.
There is also a tunnel: Houser Way. Add an HOV exit that connects to Houser Way, and give buses/carpools priority. Then it continues through the Exit 4 path using bus lanes / TSP / queue jumps, and onto SR 900 and S Grady Way and its at South Renton Transit Center in no time.
Way better transfer potential with this.
I drive to Issaquah every day. Maybe in the past they had a traffic issue, but now there is not.
It’s full speed 60-70 mph without any issue in both directions, every morning and evening. The only bottleneck is the Eastgate area with the ramp onto 405 South, which often results in the 405 North ramp getting blocked sometimes due to “cheaters” who try to cut into the 405 South line.
The fix to I-90/I-405 interchange is simple:
1. Add an HOV flyover ramp from both W and E I-90 onto 405 South. This needs the most traffic relief. There are no buses using this route, but there may be in the future.
2. DON’T add an HOV flyover ramp to 405 North, as that part is almost never congested (except on Peak Mornings). Instead, add a “queue jump / shoulder lane” entrance to 405 from SE Eastgate Way that buses can use to enter 405 North directly after leaving Eastgate P&R. It wouldn’t take too much extra time for the buses to merge onto the HOV lane. At best, an HOV ramp would save 1-2 minutes on an average day. Going South is a totally different story- it can save 10-15+ minutes possibly.
Seriously, try the drive from Issaquah to Renton, or Bellevue to Renton. It’s an actual disaster. It only makes sense to deliver high capacity transit to this corridor. Stride is a good start, but its not enough.
Sure, 405 is more congested than 90, but South King sounds like you are traveling reverse commute, which yes will certainly be less congested. Are you saying there is no congestion in the peak direction?
South King Resident,
I actually think STRIDE is the better thing Renton could have right now than a decades in the making light rail project.
Some people in Issaquah could only dream to have something like that rather than waiting for 4 Line light rail that won’t realize until after 204X.
Sad to hear that even Metro won’t complete all its Link changes for opening day.
They were testing 4-car trains on Friday when I was there looking for the Peregrine Falcons that will nest under the Lacey V. Murrow bridge again this year. The kids loved the train-less Light Rail tracks area in 2025, so it’s not going to be a pretty sight this year.