Sound Transit’s 2026 Service Plan (Phase 4)

99 Replies to “Sound Transit’s 2026 Service Plan (Phase 4)”

1. I guess good thing they are increasing frequency on 535. But it’s still awkward to be upgrading a 30-minute line to frequent BRT.

   https://www.soundtransit.org/ride-with-us/system-performance-tracker/ridership is showing barely 2K weekly riders

   What looks good on a map != what works well for riders…

   1. ST and Metro have done this all along: they identify a need for frequency now, but then they make people wait for years until Link or Stride or RapidRide come, even if they get delayed by several more years. That has happened with practically all the all-day ST Express routes: 522, 545 weekends, 550 Sundays, 554, 560, 574, 594. It’s happening now with the 250 weekends (RapidRide K), 245 (weekends future 156th RapidRide), and 271 weekends (future 8th-UDistrict RapidRide). And all of these evenings.

      1. yes. Also span. Eastside riders asked for longer spans for routes 545, 550, and 554. When Sunday service on Route 554 was reduced in the recession, it as not restored. ST is waiting for the bling and splash to add freqency.

         I am pretty sure ST had enough buses for 10/10 headway on Route 522. They plan on providing 15/15. Metro plans 10/10 on Route 72; will that wait as well? Operator shortage?

         ELC routes 220 and 270 are planned for 15/15 headway. Route 271 got 10/15 headway in 2010 and it was improved a bit more in the peak in 2011.

         I am skeptical about the RR scheme to split the B Line at Crossroads where there is no layover or turnaround loop. If they want to split it, use the Link stations with layover: Redmond B, Redmond to RTS; Bellevue B, RTS to South Bellevue via BTC via Route 550 pathway.

      2. @Jack Whisner, the advantage of breaking at Crossroads is that you interrupt fewer through-riders. If someone wants to get from Downtown Bellevue to Redmond Tech, they’ll take Link, so you don’t need a one-seat bus ride. If someone wants to get from Crossroads to Redmond… ideally, there’ll be a one-seat bus to get them there.

         I’m totally with you on extending the Crossroads-Bellevue Rapid Ride to Bellevue Square, though. Maybe it then turns south on Bellevue Way; maybe north to 520 and the U-District.

      3. I don’t understand how splitting at Crossroads could be a problem. It should be easy to layover at Crossroads. There is a big parking lot. It is never full; you could easily fit a few buses somewhere around there. There are public restrooms.

      4. Laying over at Crossroads breaks the most useful segment of the route. Most riders are taking the route between Bellevue and 156th-10th, -15th, and -24th; breaking that connection seems very questionable to me. It would make more sense to run the RR 270-B to Redmond Tech, and rethink the 245-B entirely.

         https://seattletransitblog.com/2025/03/21/ridership-patterns-for-rapidride-b-line/

      5. “Eastside riders asked for longer spans for routes 545, 550, and 554.”

         I haven’t forgotten that ST tried to add 550 Sunday frequency in 2022, along with 594 daytime frequency and 535 Sunday service, but the driver shortage swallowed it. I’m just frustrated that this is part of a larger problem in both ST and Metro that leaves riders without good service for half a decade or sometimes even multiple decades until Link/Stride/RapidRide finally comes. This issue should get higher administrative priority, and more visible effort to close the gaps sooner with regular routes.

         And you wonder why people are so insistent on getting Link or RapidRide. It’s because it’s the only way to guarantee full-time frequency. Sometimes Metro does it on other routes like the 40, but it’s not guaranteed, and can go away in a recession, and other routes like the 5 and 8 continue without it.

      6. “Metro plans 10/10 on Route 72”

         The 72 will get 10-minute service when the 48. 65, and 67 still don’t have it restored yet?

         What other routes will get 10-minute service in the next couple years?

      7. Mike, the 535 is getting Sunday service this fall and the 550 will get deleted this fall too because we’ll at least have frequent light rail between the Eastside and Seattle. Idk about daytime service on the 594 but I don’t see it happening, and I also agree with what you said about 10 minute service. I don’t know if the 65 and 6-7 are worthy of it but it’s something statistical with light rail.

      8. Metro plans 10/10 on Route 72

         That was the plan. This is surprising given the expected frequency of buses that are arguably more important, like the future 77. The 77 will be the fastest (and second fastest) way for someone to get from Lake City to Link. Yet they plan on running it every half hour on weekends. It makes way more sense to just run them both every fifteen minutes.

      9. Cramer: bus layovers are non-trivial. A transit van can lay on a shopping mall parking lot. But heavier transit coaches need concrete pads. A layover requires a turnaround loop, layover, and comfort station.

      10. I could see splitting the B Line if the goal is to do a restructure. For example I could see two B-Lines. One goes from Downtown Bellevue to Crossroads. It is short, so might as well combine it with the 270. The other goes from Redmond to Crossroads. But it doesn’t stop there; it takes over the southern part of the 245. Meanwhile, the 245 is truncated at Redmond Tech Station. You avoid some overlap while establishing a Redmond/Bellevue College route. I’m not saying that is worth the churn but it sounds pretty reasonable.

          In terms of ridership the stop at 156th & 10th is key. That is where the bus makes the big turn. About 1,600 people board an eastbound bus before that stop. About half of them get off at that stop or before. In other words about half the riders ride through that stop. So the impact would be significant even though I can see the value.

      11. The Eastside restructure is basically set, as is the opening date for 2 Line’s cross-lake section along with frequent service that goes to midnight. It’s the biggest transit systems change in years for the Eastside and maybe ever.

          It’s fun to think about making changes. However we are almost at opening day! I think the best strategy is to let the new network operate for a few months before suggesting any changes more than minor tweaks like moving bus stop positions or street striping and signing or crosswalks.

          The new 2 Line trunk will result in major transit use changes. Some routes or route segments will lose riders to Link. Some routes or route segments will gain new riders as they add an additional role as a feeder bus. The new 2 Line will also shrink the perceived distance between Seattle and the Eastside (especially north of Downtown Seattle) , so I’m expecting that ST will see more cross-lake transit trips generally.

      12. If the 72 is 10 minutes, it will certainly make people try to take the 72 rather than the 65 if they’re close enough to both. I’d’ve thought it would be the other way around, because in 2015-2019 it was the 65 and 67 that were 10 minutes, not the 372. Maybe Metro has stopped being bullish on 35th growth and now thinks 25th is more promising. I wonder why though. They both have lackluster density and not much in the way of retail destinations between 50th and 125th.

   2. *2K weekday riders

   3. Admittedly, the 535 spends a long time on the streets of Bothell. On weekday afternoons, the 535 takes 33 minutes from Bellevue TC to Canyon Park, versus 19 minutes for the 532 which doesn’t go through Bothell. Eliminating that detour is going to make it much more attractive for through-riders.

      (At the cost, of course, of making it less attractive for Bothell riders. There is that tradeoff.)

      1. I would assume a large portion of the ridership goes to or from UW Bothell. That deviation is necessary until the replacement transit center opens.

2. ST is underselling the alternatives to ST Express 515. Current 515 passengers who want to avoid the train can still catch STExpress 510 to Mountlake Terrace Freeway Station.

   1. Then why not take 4 minute light rail compared to traffic vulnerable express buses? I feel like those riders just have the fear of change and don’t want to take new heights.

      1. There is usually an effort to save duplicative bus service, going back to route 194. Keeping route 74 when 71-73 were rerouted to and truncated at UW Station smoothed that restructure. Eliminating route 41 faced little resistance, but the pandemic might have played a role.

         A chunk of the CT commuters wanted to keep their 400-series routes. ST Express 515 was rolled out to handle potential overcrowding until the 2 Line opens to Lynnwood, and then provide express service to Seattle Stadium during the World Cup. But it may need to serve the hotels the Orange Line passes by in order to help.

      2. Oh yeah, the Swift Orange Line running extra for the World Cup would be great. It’s also the route that I live the closest to.

      3. “Keeping route 74 when 71-73 were rerouted to and truncated at UW Station smoothed that restructure.”

         That was only the 74 peak express. The 74 local was rerouted to N 40th Street, Fremont, and somewhere beyond. That made the different routing between the express and local so radical that the local was renumbered to 30. That was the ancestor of the later 30 and 32 on 40th. which now go to U Village and Children’s on the eastern end.

      4. What’s Seattle Stadium?

   2. I have a feeling the “Revive I-5” work has reduced ridership on the 515 dramatically. It might work if you are headed to the north end of downtown and manage to take a really early bus but otherwise it is faster to take Link even if you have to transfer.

      Having the 510 stop at Mountlake Terrace is as much about allowing riders from Everett to transfer as it is gives riders from Everett another connection to Link (along with the express to downtown). So if you are going from Everett to the UW and miss the 512 you can catch the 510.

      1. “Having the 510 stop at Mountlake Terrace is as much about allowing riders from Everett to transfer as it is gives riders from Everett another connection to Link”.

         I don’t see it that way, you have to cross a long bridge that goes over noisy I-5 and it lands you in a garage, where you THEN have to descend back to the transit center. For me that’s the equivalent of worse than a corn maze. I once did this technique to transfer to light rail and boy was I the only one doing it. Crossing that bridge in the gray and misty morning just gives me the creeps that I’m gonna be kidnapped, and worse when I had to go through a park and ride garage which feels like it’s from a horror movie. I would rather just continue to Downtown Seattle, and this doesn’t really work for going to the UW.

      2. I don’t see it that way, you have to cross a long bridge that goes over noisy I-5 and it lands you in a garage, where you THEN have to descend back to the transit center.

         Yeah, sure. But again, imagine you get to the Everett Station as the 512 is pulling away. You have to wait fifteen minutes for the next bus. But along comes the 510, a couple minutes later. Now you have a choice. Wait another ten minutes for the 512 or take the 510. People hate waiting. It makes sense to take a bus that makes a connection to Link even if it isn’t as nice as the one at Lynnwood (which isn’t that great). The other alternative would be to take the bus all the way downtown and then take Link back but that doesn’t seem like a good alternative (and very few people would do that).

         In contrast if you are headed to downtown from Mountlake Terrace, why use the bus stop? You have to make the same sort of walk to the bus stop (over the freeway) and then sit at a noisy bus stop (instead of just passing through it). You would be taking your chances with a less frequent bus over a more frequent train.

         To be clear, I don’t think that many riders of the 510 use the Mountlake Terrace stop in any way, shape or form. In the long run they may get rid of it. But it seems like it adds more value for riders from Everett to Link locations (like the UW) than anything else.

      3. The 510 added the Mountlake Terrace stop sometime after 2018 or 2020 specifically for transfers, although I don’t remember which transfers.

      4. The 510 stop at Mountlake Terrace was added because of Downtown Seattle transfers when Northgate Link opened. Now because of that we have to go through Mountlake Terrace :(

         Also when Northgate Link opened, the 372 could have been sent to Northgate along Northgate Way (like the current 61), and the new 72 could have replaced the Ravenna Blvd segment (like how the 372 operates on weekends).

      5. “Now because of that we have to go through Mountlake Terrace”

         I’d think it would take less than a minute to stop at the freeway station. The 512 gets through it very quickly.

      6. Yeah, the stop at Mountlake Terrace is so quick to make you might as well make it. It would be nice to see data for it. If it only gets a couple riders a day then it probably isn’t worth it.

      7. I’ve both ridden through the Mountlake Terrace freeway station and gotten on/off there. The travel-time loss is almost zero like Evergreen Point or Yarrow Point stations. A far bigger issue for people waiting there is the freeway noise.

   3. I currently do the transfer at Mountlake Terrace as I work in South Lake Union. Yeah it’s not a great transfer but with the Revive I-5, once I get on Link, it passes that same bus by the time we pass Northgate. Then I get off in U District and transfer to the 70. Seems like a lot, but honestly, from Everett, it winds up being a little over an hour to South Lake Union with the 510-Link-70.

3. Is Metro actually going to backfill service along Lake City Way?

   1. I think they are. But, the backfill bus will turn west at 125th and not go all the way to 145th.

      1. I hate the proposed 77.

      2. Metro route 75 ought to be ample service on 125th and ought to reach Pinehurst Station.

      3. That’s what Ross brought up.

      4. “Metro route 75 ought to be ample service on 125th and ought to reach Pinehurst Station.”

         “That’s what Ross brought up.”

         That was an earlier Metro plan. The 75 would be rerouted west on 130th to Pinehurst Station and Aurora and Greenwood Ave. I think it was in Metro Connects in 2016. But during the Lynnwood Link restructure it decided not to do that.

      5. Wow, that didn’t end up happening. I just hate what we have now.

   2. Sort of. Here is the new map. So the 72 replaces the 372 and goes to 148th station instead of Kenmore. The 77 will go from the UW to 125th via Lake City Way and then turn and go along 125th/130th until it gets to Bitter Lake.

      It is flawed for several reasons. The 72 is fine but it should be the bus that makes the connection between 148th Station and Shoreline College (it should also use 155th for that instead of 145th). The 333 should end at Shoreline College and run less often (it is otherwise a coverage bus). The 77 should end in Lake City (at 130th & Lake City Way). The 75 should go to Bitter Lake and we should backfill service on 5th with a bus that does a live-loop next to Pinehurst Station (like so). More here.

      1. Note: While the Metro restructure is flawed the big mistake is running the 522 to 148th Station. That creates a cascade of bad alternatives for Metro. Note that they end up with three frequent buses along the 145th corridor (the 65, 72 and 522). That is overkill. It would have been much better if the 522 just kept doing what it is doing now but was extended to the U-District. Ridership would be much higher (making it easier to justify the higher frequency that is supposed to come with Stride). But the big advantage comes from the connections to other routes (while maintaining the connection to Link). The turn on 145th is just really bad routing from a network standpoint.

         Yeah, I know, this is “what the riders wanted” but I think a lot of riders will dislike the new network. At some point planners have to do the right thing because the average person doesn’t understand network topography very well (sometimes I wonder if the planners do).

      2. Ross, I agree with most of your thoughts. I only have issues with the 72 going to Shoreline South, the existence of the 77, and the 333.

      3. I also agree with the flaw being the 522. It could have run past Lake City to Roosevelt or U District. I’ve seen the ridership north of 145th and south of 145th and if it’s a battle, south of 145th takes the cake. I did hear someone endorse the 522 going to Shoreline South because they didn’t want to get stuck in traffic, but it really takes around the same time. In my opinion simply not changing the 522 would have been the safest option.

      4. “Note: While the Metro restructure is flawed the big mistake is running the 522 to 148th Station. That creates a cascade of bad alternatives for Metro.”

         I agree.

         It looks like it isn’t not going to save riders travel time if they’re headed to UW or points south except the times Lake City Way is overly slow. Even then 145th also be slow.

         The best thing for the route’s riders is that it puts them on Link earlier headed southbound, so they have a greater chance at a seat. But when the Link frequency doubles in the next few days or weeks, that problem will fade.

         But Metro got this move forced upon them by the ST3 crayon-drawing, subarea-deal-making exercise. They’re just accepting the inevitability of Stride 3. They probably don’t want to change the basic network over and over and over again in the span of just a few years. Constant route changing is hard on riders.

   3. As, ST reports, the LL ordinance has routes 77 (15/15) and 72 (10/10) on Lake City Way NE. Route 77 is to be through routed with Route 75 in the U District; its western terminal is near Tri Cort on North 143rd Street; it is the ONLY route serving the Pinehurst Link station. Route 72 seems to be oriented to meet Route 522 and Stride3 on NE 145th Street. There is a stop pair at 30th Avenue NE.
      https://aqua.kingcounty.gov/Council/Clerk/OldOrdsMotions/Ordinance%2019751.pdf

      I am only the Messager here.

      1. Yeah, so for those of you keeping track at home: The 145th corridor will have three buses connecting it to the Link station: Stride 3, the 65 and 72. During peak that means sixteen buses an hour*. Midday that means ten buses an hour. In contrast, the 125th corridor will have only four buses an hour connecting to Link during peak (and midday). Yet the 125th corridor includes the heart of Lake City. It is just so messed up.

         Oh, and while we are at it, the north-south “greater Lake City” corridor will have ten buses an hour (six buses from the 72, four from the 65). That sounds really nice except they won’t run on the same street. Thus riders trying to get from the north end of Lake City to the south end won’t benefit from all those buses. It is just so messed up.

         *Stride 3 is supposed to run “every 10 to 15 minutes”. It isn’t clear when it transitions to every fifteen minutes but I assume that happens midday. The 65 is supposed to run every 15 minutes peak and midday. The 72 is supposed to run every 10 minutes peak and midday.

4. Here are some changes I would make to ST’s proposal that doesn’t affect other systems:

   510:
   Delete the route. This would encourage Sounder N use (which has poor ridership, and I would like for some of the passengers to transfer to the N for better travel).

   512:
   No changes for now, rather than moving the schedule.

   513:
   Delete the route, as I would rather see people use the Swift Green Line and 201/202 rather than using the 513.

   515:
   Delete the route.

   522:
   As planned, but I would move the route on 98th/185th rather than running on Woodinville Dr and Kaysner Way, matching Stride S3 and increasing boardings by running it in Downtown Bothell.

   532:
   Move service hours into the 535.

   535:
   Run 15 minutes on weekdays, and 30 minutes on weekends. As well remove the loop through Downtown Bellevue and Alderwood Mall. Even Sound Transit included my suggestion in their documents :) so I know they heard, this allows faster travel times and preparing for Stride.

   542:
   Run it every 15 minutes, and extend to Bear Creek P&R. This would allow the deletion of the 545.

   545:
   Delete it as Metro wanted.

   550:
   Delete it.

   554/556:
   As proposed by ST.

   560:
   Truncate west at Burien TC and increase weekdays to 15 minutes and weekends to 30 minutes. Add a Tukwila Intl Blvd stop and eliminate the SeaTac one.

   566:
   Delete the route.

   574:
   Delete the route.

   576:
   Runs between Downtown Seattle and Puyallup via Tukwila, Renton, Kent, Auburn, and Sumner. Acts like a Sounder capacity adder (similar to what Ross had in mind of a route that runs when Sounder does not). Every 20 minutes all-day, every day. This prepares for the future capacity extension.

   577/578:
   Delete them both.

   580:
   Delete it.

   586:
   Delete it.

   590:
   Move service hours into the 595.

   592:
   I would truncate it east at Lakewood Station, functioning similar to the old 599 when the Sounder didn’t run to Lakewood. The 592 would be timed with the Sounder, preparing for the extension and encouraging riders to transfer to Sounder rather than to get stuck on I-5.

   594:
   I would add a Federal Way Downtown stop to the bus, and remove the DuPont trips. This would allow the deletion of the 574, and 577/578. The 594 would continue to run outside of peak and reverse peak every 15 minutes. It would also get overnight service with stops at Kent Des Moines and Star Lake (nights only).

   595:
   I would truncate the route north at Federal Way Downtown (as during peak with traffic it takes about the same time as link). It would continue to run peak only/peak direction, except now serve the Downtown Tacoma loop. Every 15 minutes from Federal Way to Downtown Tacoma, and every 30 minutes from Downtown Tacoma to Purdy. This change would off-set the transfer time and allow the deletion of the 590.

   With all that, I can also suggest to lower the Sounder fare to a flat three dollars.

   1. Why delete the 545 and 566? We should only be deleting duplicate service. Those routes don’t duplicate any service. If the 566 is deleted, you literally cut off South King County from Bellevue. The 560 exists if people are willing to ride slow routes up into Renton and try to transfer.

      Instead the 566 should use the HOV ramp instead of running to Renton and terminate and Bellevue TC.

      The 545 technically can be replaced with 542/Link, but it’s worth keeping for service into Seattle along the 520 bridge. Perhaps a focus on SLU and North Seattle stops instead though, as the 2 Line is better for most going into downtown.

      1. The 566 duplicates the 560, and the 545 duplicates the 542.

      2. I liked the 544 proposal of Redmond-SLU from the original ST plans. Link should be faster for most destinations in downtown, but it’s a pain to get anywhere north of Westlake from the Eastside.

      3. The 560 doesn’t serve Kent, Auburn, or Renton. How does that duplicate the 566? The 566 adds needed additional peak service to the 560 during peak hours.

      4. Sorry I didn’t mean to include Renton in there.

5. I realize that the details are still probably being flushed out — like travel times and driver breaks/ scheduling are still probably being determined, hopefully with some overnight field testing.

   That said, I am a bit confused by the map.

   – Will the bus actually pull off the freeway at every freeway-adjacent Link station (noting some like Shoreline North aren’t even at an interchange)? Others are located a bit away from the freeway ramps.

   – Will a rider be able to request that the driver stop at an arterial segment bus stop in between stations (since this is late night and it can be a bit scary to walk a long distance from a station stop)? It’s done upon rider request in some other cities.

   – Finally, I’m not getting why the East owl route ends at Bear Creek park-and-ride rather than Marymoor Village (which is skipped) unless it has to do with a comfort station.

   It’s a whole new regional service concept so I’m expecting that ST will want to make ongoing tweaks as drivers offer the service and riders use it. I’m just noting that I am expecting these and other topics to emerge.

   And I am overall glad that ST is finally owning its late night service responsibility! And I’d love it if they took the brand name “NightLink” that another commenter suggested a few weeks ago! N1? N2? N3?

   1. If the bus is making any diversions off the freeway, Capitol Hill should be first on the list, way above Shoreline North.

      I’m also with you on request stops and Marymoor Village. Frankly, Bear Creek should be sold off.

      1. “If the bus is making any diversions off the freeway, Capitol Hill should be first on the list, way above Shoreline North.”

         Seriously? A Capitol Hill stop? Why would you want a Capitol Hill stop when you can simply transfer to the 49 in Downtown Seattle? I feel like if you want to follow the light rail, you take the north overnight route, then transfer in Northgate to the 6-7, then you transfer to the 49 in U District. I feel like the overnight route might as well just be an extension of the 512, the eastside overnight route might be a new number, and the southern overnight route might as well just be a 574 extension.

         What I’m trying to say is just make things simpler and not go too crazy, and I would like to see CT add overnight service to the Swift Blue.

      2. “Frankly, Bear Creek should be sold off.”

         There are many legacy park-and-ride lots that Link openings these past two years have made functionally obsolete. Many aren’t owned by ST so it’s not a direct process to abandon them and let the land be reused.

         In anticipation of this, I suggest that any sell-off funds go to improving nearby Link station access. Whether it’s new escalators, elevators, pedestrian crosswalks and overcrossings , trails or whatever, the new funds would seem most appropriate to spend close by.

         In the case of Bear Creek, it could be spent on connecting Marymoor Village station more directly and safely across SR 202.

      3. It makes sense to me, William C.

         Capitol Hill has nightlife every night of the week. That means that people working at nightclubs need a way to get home after their shifts end — and many of them are not paid well so using Lyft puts a big dent into their personal budgets. And that’s in addition to patrons that may be too impaired to drive. And a local feeder bus like Route 49 doesn’t provide direct service to the places these people want to go.

         The last southbound Link 1 Line train leaves Capitol Hill at 12:39 am per current schedules. Northbound is listed as 12:47 am. To board these trains means that a rider has to leave 10-20 minutes earlier to get to the station if they’re walking and even earlier if they depend on a feeder bus.

      4. @Scooby Doo, the Route 49 comes every half hour. Given the popularity of Capitol Hill at night, I don’t want to make everyone wait around Westlake for that long for the transfer.

         If you don’t want to delay the north route, I’ll accept extending the south or east routes instead. But Sound Transit needs to consider Capitol Hill a first-class destination rather than shoving it down to Metro local routes.

         @Al S., I totally agree. To start with, there needs to be some better connection from the northeast side of the Redmond Way / 70th intersection.

      5. William, that’s the frequency ST wants to run their overnight routes. Now if you’re coming north, you could also board the 44 at NE 45th (which becomes the 43 on some night trips). I wouldn’t recommend that since you have to go to 23rd and then on Thomas, but the best way is to catch a 30 minute bus on I-5, then transfer to another 30 minute bus at Westlake. I also can’t see good on and off ramps to deviate to Capitol Hill from I-5, and I doubt combined 15 minute service will work out.

      6. @Scooby Doo, sure, the frequency is the same. Transfers would work if they’re ironclad timed transfers, but I absolutely do not trust Sound Transit or Metro to implement timed transfers. Nor, frankly, would I want to – if there’s a traffic jam in Shoreline delaying the North Owl, that shouldn’t delay the local 49.

         Ramps are a problem. You could take Boylston-Roanoke-10th-Broadway? I agree that’s not ideal, but it’s no worse than Shoreline North, and not really worse than Roosevelt.

         Would you be fine with extending the South and East Owls, and not the North Owl?

      7. Why would there be a traffic jam in Shoreline, it’s late at night? But again I would rather wait at Capitol Hill on Broadway than a freeway station in the middle of the night which basically feels like you’re gonna get kidnapped. But the reason ST doesn’t want to add these deviations is because of travel time when late at night no one really cares about travel time.

      8. I think the routes that end at Bear Creek should be moved to Marymoor Village instead. The 545, Overnight service, and future 542. This would actually serve the giant park and ride intended for Link. In fact, I’ve already had to walk from downtown Redmond back to Marymoor Village because I decided to stay out past 10pm!

      9. It will be interesting to see the routes that ST rolls out for owl or nighttime service.

         I could see value in there being two routes. The one from Federal Way could use I-5 to get to U District station and keep going north. The other would follow 2 Line and then serve Capitol Hill and UW before terminating at U District.

         For a multi-route system to work, there needs to be a central timed transfer point with security , like at Union Station/ CID or Westlake.

         I do rue that the MLK segment goes unserved. Any timed transfer point would hopefully include a Metro service to close this service gap.

   2. I had similar observations/questions from the new night-owl route map. I asked about overnight routes in the open house today. ST staff said they are still working with their partners (KCM, CT, PT) on the final routing and schedule and cannot confirm specific details at this time.

6. The proposed changes to the 522/372 connection are awful for folks who need and want a direct connection from UW Bothell to UW Seattle. It lengthens commute time and the change from one seat to two seat is a huge downgrade. Why is the connection to Shoreline south?! It seems out of the way for most folks. The connection makes more sense from Roosevelt station. Or run another shorter route?

   1. Yes I totally agree! Now you would have to make a walking transfer at SR522/523. The 372 already gets good ridership past Lake city, maybe not 15 min frequency though but I think if anything it needs weekend frequency to Bothell/Kenmore. As a frequent 372 rider, It would really help to keep it and I think that the 372 serves such a different community than the 522/S3. Metros Lynnwood Link is one of the worst plans I have ever seen.

      1. That’s what I’m saying. The 372/522 dynamic works best south of 145th not north of it. Here are the mistakes Metro made in the Lynnwood Link Connections:
         – First of all (the most hated one), why would you want to abandon local corridors over light rail connectors? Currently all Hwy 522 buses north of 145th operate south of 145th, but in the new plan none of them do (except the peak 322 which peak is the worst time to do this). This is going to be a straight decrease in ridership when you need at least one light rail connector and another local voyager along SR 522.
         – Second of all, why are they running a frequent bus from Mountlake Terrace to Shoreline South/148th via 175th, Shoreline College, and 145th? I think this bus should be peak only at the maximum, it doesn’t work well as a frequent local connector through areas that have low ridership. If I had it my way I would have this run between Shoreline North/185th and Shoreline South/148th via Shoreline College, a peak-only local DART connector connecting schools, link stations, jobs, etc.
         – Metro seemed to love the idea of having frequent buses with lower frequency segments, I’m sure they did this to save costs but… IT’S NOT WORTH IT!!! You won’t get riders to wait another 15 minutes when they’ll simply just won’t do it at all.
         – Bus service on Meridian, 5th, and in Hillwood were all flawed, the 331’s ridership in Hillwood just sucks, 5th lost good service, and Meridian went from local service to light rail connectors. What I’m trying to say is that there should be room for improvement.
         – Finally, Metro tried to remove local service in neighborhoods over increased Aurora service. Though this plan failed and they decided to stick with the status quo, honestly Aurora service is already good as it is by only the E Line. What we need is higher E Line frequencies, not more routes on the corridor.

      2. People on here hate on long routes. Long routes are not bad.

         While few ride the full corridor, people need the different shorter rides in between. Forcing a transfer ruins the rider experience.

         The only issue with long routes are potential delays. But with enough frequency, it’s really not a problem most of the time. If the country was civilized, all buses would have lane and signal priority… not just Rapid Rides.

         Keep the service connected. Transit is already an inconvenience enough compared to driving… Splitting up people’s routes make it even worse.

      3. The ideal situation is “merging” long routes.

         Run long routes between two low density points, but all merging and following a high density / long distance rapid transit corridor.

         Serves more stops and also brings high frequency + one seat rides to more areas.

         For some reason we can run… 4-5 buses from Issaquah and Issaquah Highlands all along I-90… But for everyone else we split their route in 3-4.

      4. People on here hate on long routes.

         Says who? I’ve never heard anyone complain about the RapidRide E (and it is quite long). There are limits to the length of the route based on driver time. Basically the drivers need a break after a while. Reliability decreases as you get really long but that is just one of the trade-offs.

         But in this case I don’t think it is an issue. The 522 is going to 148th station because that is the future pathway of the Stride line. It is going there because ST decided to send it there. It is ending there because ST decided to end it there. If anything, some of the routing decisions call for unnecessary long routes. For example the plan is to connect the 75 and 77. With the 75 going to Northgate, that makes for a very long route. If the 75 went to Bitter Lake and the 77 ended in Lake City as proposed here the route would be shorter. This would make it easier on drivers while also being more reliable. (You can also compare the two combinations here.

         So really this isn’t about a route being too long. It is just bad routing.

      5. There are two issues with long routes:

         1. People not wanting to ride many miles on slow milk runs when they can imagine a sensible faster alternative.
         2. Any congestion slowdowns get transmitted across the entire route, When the 150 ran from downtown to southeast Auburn, congestion on the northern half threw the southern half off-schedule. Congestion on both halves would amplify the delays compared to two routes.

         Re the E and #1, 90% of riders get both on and off in the middle, so they don’t experience the end-to-end slog. I sometimes take Blue+E, and only three people get on at Aurora Village. By 145th the bus is entirely full, and by Belltown it’s down to 20.

         Re the E and #2, Aurora isn’t as slow as some other streets. The expressway segment is fast for three miles. Aurora is a state highway with a minimum 30 mph speed limit and more lanes, so it’s not as slow as some long 25 mph arterials. The 45 minute end-to-end travel time from Westlake to Aurora Village is substandard, but now there’s Link as an alternative, and you can now take Link+Blue or Link+Orange to the Edmonds College area, something you couldn’t do before Lynnwood Link.

         What really frustrates me is being on a slow bus for 40 or 60 minutes when there’s no faster alternative. The 226 (226!) did that from Bellevue TC to Lake Hills before last year’s revision. The 62 did that to me in the past before Northgate Link allowed one to take Link part of the way. The 5 takes a long time from Broadview, etc. The through-routed 28/131/132 are 5-15 minutes late every day almost all day, and many bus stops have no bench so you have to stand the whole time waiting. These are the acute issues with routes that are either too long, have too much uncontrolled congestion, or meander too much on small streets — that all lead to excessive travel time.

         Not all long routes are that bad. There are tradeoff issues with too-short routes. Those add a 5-30 minute transfer wait, and require more buses and drivers and layovers That’s why several north Seattle routes are through-routed with south Seattle routes. When it works well, it works beautifully. People can take the 131 north and get off anywhere from Pioneer Square to Belltown, while others can get on anywhere from Pioneer Square to Belltown, and the net result is a gradual turnover. Everybody wins. But the uncontrolled congestion issue creates a lot of delays. The solution to that is more transit lanes and signal priority, not splitting the route. The ideal length of a route is around 3-15 miles.

   2. Just to back up here, the current setup is less than ideal. Most of the ridership of the 372 (and 522) is in Seattle, not north of it. We really don’t need two buses doubling up on Bothell Way, especially if the 522 is supposed to become “BRT” (and thus more frequent).

      The problem is (mostly) with the 522, not the 372. The 522 should follow the current pathway but be extended to the U-District (if not Husky Stadium). You could still get between campuses using one bus (it would just mean approaching the area from the other side). Riders on Lake City Way between Ravenna and 145th could take the 522 to the west side of campus and (like today) they could take the 372 to the east side of campus. The 372, meanwhile, should follow the route they suggested (on 145th to the station). But it should have continued and laid over at Shoreline Community College. That would connect that college with the UW (with Lake City in between). Overall the network would be much better. You would have fewer same-direction transfers and much better change-of-direction transfers. You wouldn’t have so many buses overlapping on 145th which means the buses could run more often.

      For an idea of how silly the network will be, consider this trip: https://maps.app.goo.gl/HjQUsCBtVmGSaVXS8. This is a trip from 165th & Aurora to 145th & Lake City Way. You have to transfer twice. For a trip leaving at noon, the best option will get you there a full hour later. Keep in mind, this involves one of the fastest, more-frequent buses in our system (the RapidRide E Line). It involves going through a major hub (the 148th Station). When the restructure is done it won’t really help, despite three frequent buses going from the 148th Station to Bothell Way.

      The Metro restructure compounded the error made by Sound Transit. Some of the routes are designed to improve east-west travel. This explains the poorly designed 333, that goes across 175th (yet fails to connect to 185th Station). And yet on 145th, every bus just ends at the station instead of continuing across. Continuing would cost it nothing, yet it forces riders into making transfers, even when they are going the same direction.

      Back to the original point. I agree that there should be a bus that connects both of the UW campuses. But I think it should be an express that follows the freeway, while also stopping at Totem Lake and other freeway stations. This would be a huge benefit to Totem Lake riders trying to get to Seattle while also connecting the two campuses in the fastest way possible. This should be a Sound Transit project.

   3. Something I’ll keep pointing out is that the future 522 and 72 will have a lousy transfer at 145th street / 30th ave. People trying to travel straight north or south along LCW between Lake City and Northshore will need to take a 1/2 mile detour.

      Stride 3 originally would have had a stop at 145th and LCW, but ST moved the stop to 30th.

      ST made some questionable decisions. But Stride 3 is at 100% design. And the future 522 will be Stride 3-lite. So those decisions are baked in and Metro has to design around them.

7. The 574 is now going from a parking lot in the middle of nowhere (Lakewood Sounder Station) to another parking lot in the middle of nowhere (Lakewood Park and Ride) to Tacoma Dome, which is also mostly just a parking structure in the middle of nowhere.

   Every 15 minutes.

   There aren’t really going to be great connecting buses at the Lakewood stops. I can’t think of any reason anyone is going to transfer between the Sounder and the 574. There will be a handful signing up for a 3-seat ride from Lakewood Towne Center on the 3 to the Park and Ride. People from the north (route 3) and east (route 4) have better options to get to Tacoma Dome. There aren’t any buses to the South.

   It’s just bizarre they aren’t offering a bus to and from Federal Way Link from where the people actually work and live. Just 3 parking lots.

   1. The 574 goes to Federal Way?

   2. Good point, Cam. I sometimes confuse the 594 and 574 south of Federal Way. But the 594 serves Downtown Tacoma, while the 574 does not.

      Holy smokes, what a mess. So not only will they have the 594 cruising right by Federal Way Station (despite ramps connecting it to the HOV lanes in both directions) but the bus that actually serves the station won’t connect riders from Downtown Tacoma. You are supposed to drive to the parking lot and then take the bus to Link, followed by a trip to your destination. Why not just drive to Federal Way? I’m not saying it is close (it isn’t) and obviously it can be congested, but I’m sure a lot of people are just going to do that. It also means that lots of people who are taking buses for the entire trip have to transfer several times. Imagine trying to get from Tacoma Community College to Highline Community College. You take a bus to Downtown Tacoma. Then you take another bus (or the streetcar) to the Tacoma Dome. Then you take another bus to Federal Way. Then you take Link. If you work at the airport (and don’t own a car) it would be similar. Three buses (or two buses and a streetcar) along with Link.

      This is just so bad in so many ways.

      1. Yeah, I also agree. If the 594 got a Federal Way stop added, the 574 proposal would be useless and redundant… So why not just delete the 574? It’s really that simple, yet Sound Transit doesn’t know what will and what won’t help them save money.

   3. There aren’t really going to be great connecting buses at the Lakewood stops. I can’t think of any reason anyone is going to transfer between the Sounder and the 574.

      I agree. It just doesn’t make sense. Assume I work in the airport and live in Lakewood. I drive to whatever parking lot the 574 serves. I then take the 574 to Federal Way and transfer to Link. Or say I work in Seattle instead. I take Sounder from Lakewood to Seattle. I have to come back early, when Sounder isn’t running. I take the 594 (it serves the station). It doesn’t make sense to transfer from Sounder to Link which means it doesn’t make sense to send a bus from Federal Way to Lakewood Station.

      But if they insist on serving the station they just tack that on to the rest of the routes. In other words, serve both. Southbound you would first serve the transit SR-512, then the transit center, then the station. Months later, after they find that no one actually uses that stop, they can truncate the route at the transit center. Holy smokes — when you dig into the details this restructure is even worse than I thought (and that was saying something).

      1. I just can’t believe they decided to cut Lakewood TC for Lakewood Station… Such monsters, there is NO connection between the station and the transit center, honestly what are they thinking. Can’t they simply have the 594 go to Lakewood TC at least? Or at the max just get rid of the 574 and have a 594 Federal Way stop.

   4. The connection between T-Link and the 574 at Tacoma Dome is also less than ideal. When I used it for the airport, I basically had to run down the block, then cut through the parking structure and down a bunch of stairs with your bags, or go all the way around the structure.

      I guess with boost in frequency, it means you are not as likely to actually run to avoid missing your flight, but it’s still a shitty transfer.

   5. And I didn’t realize it until now, but basically no local routes except for the 41 even serve Tacoma Dome Station. This is a cluster.

   6. I heard when they did the Pierce County service outreach about the cut, people got really mad seeing their one-seat rides were proposed to be truncated, so the rest don’t matter.
      They probably will try cutting things right next time after people are getting used to 1 Line and discovering it is actually not too bad to transfer light rail in Federal Way.

8. Hot take but the proposed updates to the 574 do add additional peak and off-peak south-bound options for south (of Tacoma) commuters, without the jaunt into downtown Tacoma the 594 takes. Since the 592 is a peak-hour only service, and the S-Line’s first two (afternoon) south-bound trips end in Tacoma, Lakewood bound peak and off-peak riders from Seattle have an additional option with the proposed 574 changes along with Link. Even as a Lakewood resident who commutes during peak to Seattle, I did always find it strange that the 574 originated at Lakewood TC. But people more familiar with Pierce Transit routes probably know why that is.

   1. So do you drive to the Park and Ride or Sounder station?

      1. Generally during the week from Lakewood Station. But I’m pretty new to ST for commuting (only about a year), so reading through proposals and comments is fascinating to me! I’m assuming I’m like the majority of commuters from Lakewood Station to Seattle during peak – driving from the suburbs to LS, not using Pierce Transit (or Inter City) routes. I don’t know the ridership of the PT route from LTC to LS, and if the truncated 574 will have a huge impact on that.

      2. Yeah, I’m not sure either. I do think rt 3 is in the top 5 in ridership, but that’s not saying much.

         I have gone by the Sounder Station and I don’t recall seeing a ton of parking, but now see there is decent size structure. Does it fill up?

      3. Oh, and you were asking about stop data. Again, we don’t have updated info. But before the pandemic, here were some Lakewood bus numbers:

         574:
         Lakewood TC: 212
         SR-512: 228

         592 (peak express):
         Lakewood Station: 206
         SR-512: 149

         594 (all day):
         Lakewood Station: 77
         SR-512: 140

         This follows the same pattern. It is worth noting that the SR-512 acts as more of a transit center than the station. There are more local buses serving it. Thus this is consistent with the Tacoma routes. Midday riders are more likely to take other buses and transfer (not just drive to a parking lot).

   2. Since the 592 is a peak-hour only service, and the S-Line’s first two (afternoon) south-bound trips end in Tacoma, Lakewood bound peak and off-peak riders from Seattle have an additional option with the proposed 574 changes along with Link.

      Wouldn’t you just take the 594 when the S-Line isn’t running (if you are trying to get from Seattle to Lakewood)? Based on the schedule it is a couple minutes faster (from Pioneer Square to Lakewood) and that doesn’t count the transfer. I get the delay through Tacoma (that is annoying) but I still think it would be faster. In terms of frequency it is a challenge. The train runs every ten minutes. The 574 runs every fifteen. The combination is more frequent than the half-hour 594, so there is that. I suppose having another option is useful. If you check the 594 schedule and it isn’t arriving for another 20 minutes you could take Link. It still might take longer but you might save some time.

      In any event, this is what I was getting at before. To be clear, I would probably have both the 574 and 594 go to Downtown Tacoma. But if one of the midday buses skips Downtown Tacoma, I think it should be the 594. If you are commuting from Tacoma or Lakewood to Seattle there is a good chance you will take Sounder or an express bus from the Tacoma Dome. We don’t have the stop data anymore but that was the case in the past*. For Sounder riders, they want a ride home midday. Sometimes that is just their schedule; sometimes it is for unplanned events. For those riders, you just need to serve the station. Thus if you are focused on Sounder riders, all you need is for the 594 to serve the stations.

      In contrast, the 574 isn’t great for getting to Seattle. It is more about shorter trips, like to Highline College, the airport or even just other parts of Federal Way (via the buses). The 574 is more “local” and the 594 is more regional. It makes way more sense to have the local bus connect to all the other buses (in Downtown Tacoma) and the regional bus serve the giant parking lots. ST has it backwards.

      *This is an old report from before the pandemic: https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/2020-service-implementation-plan.pdf. The 590 gets way more riders from the Tacoma Dome than the rest of Tacoma. For the 594 is split about 50/50 with Tacoma Dome accounting for about half the Tacoma ridership.

      1. Yeah, I agree. They should flip them. 594 goes down to Lakewood (maybe Lakewood Town Center), and perhaps skip downtown Tacoma, if either is going to. 574 should be running every 15 minutes initiating from from 10th and Commerce.

      2. When I’m going directly to Seattle, I most of the time I just go to Tacoma Dome and take whichever bus or train is leaving next.

         Because the buses are never, ever on time, I just treat is as “a bird in the hand..” and head north. Then I figure out the appropriate transfers, if any, once I’m motion.

         If it’s the 574, I can hop on the link, or I can catch the 560 (while it still exists) if I’m heading to West Seattle or Burien.

         If it’s the Sounder, I can just head over to the IDC.

         If it’s the 594, I generally take it to Pike if I’m going downtown. If I’m going to West Seattle, I get of at Jackson and head to the H. After the 560 goes away, I’m thinking maybe getting off at Sodo with a bike, and riding my bike to Delridge and catching the H there might be the quickest. Link to the 128 at Tukwila would also work.

         Mostly though, regional transit is perversely getting worse.

      3. To Cam’s comment, the Lakewood Station garage is probably 1/2 full during peak weekday commute (first two floors of 4 total). Still well below pre-pandemic, but trending up for the last couple of years. I talk to long time Sounder (from Lakewood) riders who talk about it being full to nearly full “back in the day”. So definitely room for additional parking, if ST goes forward with LS as the 574 origin.

         To Ross – yes definitely the 594 is the current option – midday I’ve taking it a handful of times south bound. I find the combination of the 30-min schedule + the somewhat frequent delays/cancellations of the 594, having that option of Link + potential 574 could be useful – and again, outside of peak hours if that is what is needed.

         I have still yet to take the Link from FW to Int’l or Pioneer Square, but from what I read, it’s not exactly a time savings. Just another option in case I5 decides to be troublesome!

      4. (maybe for another thread?) but since we are on the topic, why do the first two PM Sounder S-Lines terminate in Tacoma? Has that always been the case? I wish there was database of historic schedules.

      5. I suspect because of the evening northbound trains. The trainset for the 1507 turns into the 1520 (and in turn, the southbound 1523). The trainset for the 1509 turns into the 1522 and in turn the 1525).

         Those northbound trips only make sense because it would otherwise be a deadhead run. But if you add an extra hour going back and forth from Lakewood, it doesn’t work.

      6. Those northbound runs, especially the 4.06pm, are actually the Sounder runs I most often take. They aren’t exactly crushload, but they don’t have to be.

      7. I wish there was database of historic schedules.

         You can sometimes find info using the Wayback machine. Here is the earliest record of the Sounder schedule there: (from December of 2019). You can probably track it from there if you are interested.

         Based on the Service Implementation Plan (or “SIP”) from 2016 it looks like Sounder first served Lakewood in 2012 (see page 24). So I’m not sure what it was like from 2016 to 2019. Those “SIP” documents highlight when they add a run to one of the lines but so far as I know they don’t mention serving (or not serving) Lakewood in particular.

9. The STB posters seem to saying: delay the shift of Route 522 to South Shoreline. If Route 522 remained on its current pathway, it would serve more real places which Northshore riders want to reach: Lake City and Roosevelt; both have transit connections. It would still reach Link. It would give ST capital and its contractors more time to work on LFP and NE 145th Street. South Shoreline is nothing today (I grew up nearby: golf course, freeway interchange). It would allow Metro to delay routes 72 and 77. Metro could provide better service at the Pinehurst station. I am pretty sure LFP wants Route 372 to continue. A better Route 77 or its successor routes would serve the existing Lake City hub stops and not new ones on 30th Avenue NE south of NE 125th Street. the LLC solution make all transfers walking transfers.

   Why does ST keep dissing Woodinville? Why turn half the trips back at UWB/CCC? They tangled up the planning for Stride3 with that notion; they created the reliability issue and now seek to solve it by creating a new terminal in the wetland under I-405 for Stride3. Woodinville is a real place inside the ST district with multifamily housing, retail, and other transit routes. ST has plenty of funds and buses. What is the operator constraint? Is that the issue?

   1. Why does ST keep dissing Woodinville?

      I think it is cost, reliability and expected ridership. The Urbanist has a good rundown although some of their links are out of date: https://www.theurbanist.org/2020/08/14/cut-from-522-brt-plans-woodinville-will-get-a-new-express-bus-instead/. As I understand it, they were worried that buses would be bogged down in Woodinville. They didn’t want to spend the money making them faster. My guess is Woodinville didn’t offer much in that regard (some cities are comfortable taking lanes, some cities require you to make the street wider). There is also a lot of demand to go to Bellevue. So rather than provide a half-ass extension of the Stride 3 to Woodinville they went with a peak ST Express bus from Woodinville to Bellevue. They will complement it with all-day service to the 405/522 hub (where riders will be expected to transfer to Stride 2 if they want to get to Bellevue). They will, of course, transfer to Stride 3 there as well. Remember, Stride 3 doesn’t serve Seattle. It serves Bothell, Lake Forest Park and Kenmore. These are good destinations for someone in Woodinville but if they are headed to Seattle they have to transfer to Link. They might as well transfer in Bellevue, rather than Shoreline.

      I still think the best option for Woodinville is an ST-Express bus that runs 520/405. It would start at the UW. It would either end at Woodinville or UW Bothell. At worst riders would have to catch a bus to the 522-405 transit center but at least they would have three buses connecting them to Link (and one of them would actually serve Seattle). If it ended in Woodinville it would replace the midday shuttle (between Woodinville and the 522-405 transit center). Either way it would benefit Totem Lake.

10. I posted my I-90 suggestions on another thread before STB posted on the ST 2026 SIP.

    The ST (and Metro ELC) network does not use Link and the WSDOT and Sound Move freeway capital well enough. The existing running times (e.g., routes 554 and 556) demonstrate that east-west routes should meet Link at Mercer Island to use the center HOV lanes and not South Bellevue that has south-to-east congestion much of the day. The ELC and ST network would split service awkwardly. Outbound riders bound for Eastgate would face a choice of alighting spots from Link: MI or SB served by routes 215, 218, 269 or Route 556, respectively. Issaquah riders would have slower service if oriented to Seattle or the U District, the major markets.

    The ELC and ST network also fails to provide a fast connection with Link for the Eastgate local bays (e.g., routes 220, 223, 226, 240, 245); they are 800 feet and four levels of the garage from one another; that seam is too large for good connections.

    Here is one solution: three ST routes. Route 555 between BTC and Issaquah via Eastgate, Richards Road, and 112th Avenue SE. It would serve two Link stations. It could have a policy headway, say 15/15. When the NE 85th Street center access behemoth opens, it could be extended to the Kirkland TC via NE 6th Street and the I-405 HOT lanes. Routes 554 and “552” would be oriented to the MI Link station; they need no lay much or at all at MI. They would use the center HOV lanes between 142nd Place SE and MI. Route 554 would serve the Issaquah TC and provide a faster connection that proposed Route 556. Route 552 would serve the local bays as Route 212 has. Route 555 existed in about 2010. Metro Route 240 could be shifted to the Route 550 arterial pathway on Bellevue Way; in ELC, it serves 112th Avenue SE along with new Route 220.

    1. One fundamental issue with the design of East Link is how it intersects I-90. To be clear, I’m not saying I would have done anything differently. But you can’t easily connect to Link going both directions from one spot. If you are trying to go from Eastgate or Issaquah then Mercer Island is great. But if you are headed to Bellevue then the best option appears to be South Bellevue. That is not as smooth as Mercer Island. You have to leave the HOV lanes and go along a busy street (Bellevue Way). Another alternative would be to just go directly to Downtown Bellevue. The problem is going from I-90 to 405. There is no HOV connection that direction (or the reverse). Making matters worse, you can’t make the connection if you use the Eastgate HOV ramps. There isn’t enough room to leave the HOV ramps and work your way over to the freeway. Thus the ST Express bus from Issaquah will leave the HOV lanes of I-90 at the Eastgate overpass and then work its way over to Eastgate Way before getting back on the freeway before quickly exiting to connect to the South Bellevue Station. Of course at that point a rider is not yet in Downtown Bellevue but tantalizingly close. So the bus will continue on Bellevue Way and serve Downtown Bellevue. Thus they will be provided a one-seat ride to Downtown Bellevue and a connection to Link (if they want to go to go some place that doesn’t require that much backtracking, like Wilburton or the Spring District). But it won’t be fast to Downtown Bellevue, with or without a transfer.

       The long term solution is to connect the HOV lanes of both freeways. That way the bus could serve the Eastgate freeway station and quickly get back on the freeway and head straight towards Downtown Bellevue. The bus would essentially be in the HOV or bus lanes from Issaquah to the transit center. From Eastgate to Downtown Bellevue is less than four miles. It would take about five minutes to get there via a bus (even when there is traffic). Other buses would continue to go to Mercer Island. Some buses would go through Bellevue College and then go to either Downtown Bellevue or Mercer Island. I believe this is the one of the cost-effective capital transit project left on the East Side* (not counting red paint). Other than that is mostly just service.

       *According to this it would cost a little less than $640 million (see the second part of page 147). But that includes a couple ramps that would not be necessary (Northbound 405 to Eastbound I-90 and the reverse). So my guess is it would cost about half that (less than $400 million of today’s dollars). Not cheap, but a lot better value than Issaquah Link (and a lot better for riders).

Comments are closed.