Renton’s Transit Center Moves Toward I-405

87 Replies to “Renton’s Transit Center Moves Toward I-405”

1. I can’t seem to find the latest plan diagram for the new transit center.

   Being next to Grady Way and Rainier Ave at this location is like having rivers in two sides of the site. The pedestrian flow around the station edges will not be great. With lots of retail close by, it’s unfortunate that the high-speed arterials create an obstacle. I hope that the City makes the area easier for a pedestrian in this area than it is today.

   By being somewhat isolated, the experience of transferring could feel uncomfortable. I’m not sure what ST has planned to give what Jane Jacob calls “eyes on the street”. To me, it seems that the transfer area needs to have something active or it could feel empty and maybe scary. Food stalls or carts? Restrooms? Lighting? Music? Security? A community resource like a police station or library? There’s a level of perceived safety if other people are around.

   1. There’s an image of the final design for Renton’s new transit center in the article linked below. The station will likely be fairly busy; I don’t think it will be particularly scary, though perhaps a bit bleak to walk around. The surrounding area is somewhat comparable to Lynnwood TC or Issaquah TC, busy roads and strip malls.

      https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/09/06/stride-s1-line-updates/

      1. The problem is downtown Renton looks like a bomb hit it. Three highways converging, so many stroads, half of downtown taken up by big-box stores and large parking lots that aren’t very walkable or pleasant to be around. That’s something the city of Renton should address; Sound Transit can only do so much in a city like that.

         Old Renton where the current transit center is shows the way: small blocks, more pedestrian-scaled buildings, design like the high school and performing arts center there if I remember. The problem with old Renton is it’s too small: you walk a few blocks any direction and it ends, and the variety of destinations within that area is not very wide. Even if the TC remained where it is, the station area would still be limited by that. Make new Renton where the TC and big-box stores are more like old Renton. Or at least, don’t make it worse than it is. Stack some of those big-box stores on top of each other like Northgate North, with parking on one of the floors instead of a surface lot taking up land larger than some of the buildings they’re serving, and free up some of the big-box lots for something else. Expand the walkable area and small blocks. I have little hope of this happening, but that’s what’s wrong with downtown Renton and how to fix it.

      2. The problem with old Renton is it’s too small: you walk a few blocks any direction and it ends, and the variety of destinations within that area is not very wide. Even if the TC remained where it is, the station area would still be limited by that.

         But that is how cities grow. Yes, Renton is small. But it seems way more likely to grow around that solid center than to be rebuilt somewhere that “looks like a bomb hit it” and has “three highways converging and so many stroads”. Consider how Google Maps defines “Downtown Renton”. It may be hard to see but there is a light red line around a pretty small area. It is only about a half mile wide and a half block tall. The definition is arbitrary but it seems about right to me. It is quite reasonable to call this area “downtown” and the rest of it just typical suburban sprawl. The aerial view shows some parking but it certainly isn’t dominated by it. If you look for restaurants you will see a ton of them (a good indication of the urban nature of the area). A “3-D” view of things shows some six-story buildings, obviously built fairly recently. Given all that, I think the Google definition is quite reasonable. For the rest of this comment I will use it do that (when I refer to “Downtown Renton” it means the Google definition).

         Downtown Renton happens to include the transit center which is next to apartment buildings and an events center. The only substantial waste of space close to the transit center is the gigantic park and ride lot. But otherwise the people who take the bus to the transit center are dropped off close to the urban center.

         It is also not hard to see how the downtown area is growing in various directions. On Burnett, just a block north of the supposed borders of downtown, there are a pair of apartment buildings. You can also see the same thing happening on Williams, a block over.

         You can also see how the area is evolving within the core itself. For example, consider this apartment building at the edge of downtown. It was a parking lot in 2008 and 2011. Now it is a large apartment building with ground floor retail. At the same time, the old building next to it are still there. Berliner Pub is inside a masonry building built in 1929. Like the buildings next to it, it has character. This is how you do it. You preserve the old buildings (with character) and replace the parking lots (inside the core and at the edge of it) with big buildings. This has a tendency to create a virtuous cycle. People want to live close to areas with character — people want to visit areas where a lot of people walk. Transit can play a very important part in the process. It is much easier for people who work in those shops to get there (without driving). It is much easier for the people who live there to get around (without driving).

         In contrast I see the new transit center just stretching things too far. I don’t really see anything good coming from it. Metro (and ST) are forced to try and serve both areas or worse yet, ignore the main transit center in Downtown Renton. From a development standpoint you have the same issue — at best you are spreading yourself too thin. We can hope that a “New Renton” will arise next to the new transit center, but why would it? The main advantage to the new transit center is quick access to the freeway. That tends to attract car-based uses (e. g. malls with big parking lots). Obviously there is a chance they will add a few apartment buildings in the area (given the high cost of housing). But the area will remain hostile to those willing to walk to their destination. It would take a huge amount of development to try and create an “urban center” there and even then it will lack the charm of Downtown Renton. It would be much better to just focus the efforts (and transit) on Downtown Renton and hope that it continues to grow.

      3. The new TC is more so geared to riders from the SE of Renton. It will be convenient for Rapid I Line riders and 102/148/153 riders.

         The F Line can act as a bridge between the Landing, downtown Renton, Southcenter, and the new TC. In summary, more riders served with better quality faster trips.

         The only degraded trip is the 101 to Seattle hence my suggestion to through route trips from Renton Highlands directly to Seattle skipping the P&R at half the frequency of the current 101, and send the other half as the 102 (shortened version not going to Fairwood) from the new TC.

      4. “But that is how cities grow. ”

         No, it’s how one city chose to grow. There are two possibilities for what was there before the big-box stores and the adjacent parts of 405 and Grady Way. Either the land was still farmland or Boeing industrial so nothing was there, or the small walkable blocks and businesses that had been there were obliterated. In either case, Renton could have extended the small-block, walkable design to that area, and adapted all the current uses to that format. I’m not singling out Renton for not doing that, because the entire country was car-happy in that era and turned from sane designs to insane designs.

   2. I wouldn’t consider the new transit area scary but I also don’t think it will be attractive. It will be similar to Lynnwood Transit Center. Basically a place to park your car and take transit (or transfer from one bus to another). There are a few malls nearby and an Applebee’s not too far away but it isn’t really an urban center (like the area next to the existing Renton Transit Center).

      As I wrote down below it means you stretch things too thin. Metro and ST are forced to serve both transit centers. Likewise, the city will try and encourage development next to both transit centers. For a city like Renton (which is not booming) it isn’t a great situation to be in.

      1. The emotion of “scary” is what I would describe as “barren” combined with a fear of crossing the st road with high speed traffic on two sides of the project. The few times I’ve been at the South Renton park and ride lot it’s felt like there’s nothing else around.

         I will add that the planned Rainier crossing at the TC is directly across from a large and busy Walmart. This helps. The giant intersections at Grady Way and S 7th St that I’ve walked crossed have lots of turning lanes with fast traffic, and the signals take awhile to cycle through — so they were stressful for me as a pedestrian to use.

      2. I assume the old TC will no longer be a transit center. The reason Renton wanted the transit center moved was to get buses out of the old Renton area. So only a few routes will be there, and they may not need all the bus bays and layover spaces. The garage can’t be shrunk, but it’s doing double-duty as downtown parking.

2. I’m glad transit in Renton is doing well despite the challenges; I hope the new less-pedestrian-oriented transit center doesn’t spoil it.

   Like you suggest, Metro absolutely should explore through-routing. The 105 and 148 feel too short. There was a good plan here some years ago to through-route them with the 106/107 to Rainier Beach; I still like that idea.

   1. The 105 is what I would call an “edge route”. By that I mean it runs every half hour but you could make a very good case for it running very fifteen minutes. It gets good ridership per service hour. The 107 is also an edge route (with similar numbers) but Metro (and maybe the STBD?) managed to bump it up to every fifteen minutes. Combining the two would be worthwhile to not only reduce some transfers but also provide worthy headways in the area.

      1. The STM is funding 15-minute service on the 107 and 106. This is for equity.

   2. The 148 and 107 are currently through-routed, though it is a very long and circuitous ride:

      https://maps.app.goo.gl/pSQGu8W5Aroi92C37

      1. The 107/148 should not be through routed. It causes ridiculous delays for 148 riders. Keep them their separate ways.

         As for the 105, I assume they’re going to extend it to the new TC for Stride connections towards TIBS and SeaTac.

         The 101 will become less convenient as it would revert to the old routing making a slow deviation to the TC then back north.

         My suggestion is to run the following after Stride:

         – Route 101: Renton Highlands to Seattle 15/30/30. Serve old Renton TC and Skyway stops. Skip the new TC. Use 60 foot buses.

         – Route 102: S Renton to Seattle 15/30/30. Skip old Renton TC, but still serve Skyway stops before I-5. Use 60 foot buses.

         – Route 103: Fairwood to Seattle via S Renton 30/60/90. Ignores Skyway stops to increase speed of route. Use 40 foot buses, or 60 foot if demand present.

         – Route 105: Renton Highlands to S Renton. For Stride connections. Use 35 or 40 foot buses.

         – Route 106/107: Extend to S Renton.

         – Route 566: Skip Renton, continue to Bellevue via the new HOV flyover that is still unused by transit…

         No change to other routes.

         WSDOT improvements:

         – Bus only lane/shoulder and TSP on the I-5 S ramp onto SR 900 towards Renton

      2. What worries me about your 102 & 103 is it appears to give an extraordinary level of service to one area (low-density, single-family Fairwood with its golf course) that none of the rest of Renton gets. That reminds me of the 1980s in the Eastside where a few arterials were lucky and got an all-day route or peak express seemingly arbitrarily while a whole sea of similar streets and neighborhoods around them got nothing.

      3. My 102 doesn’t serve Fairwood. Only 103 does.

      4. If you visit the arterials of the current 102, there are a lot of apartments. Metro picked the routing intentionally. It’s not single family homes.

      5. If the 103 seems like too much, then it could be peak only with the off peak service only going up to S Renton where they can transfer to the 102.

      6. Also where else in Renton exists other than what’s served by current routes? I’m curious Mike. Sure, not every single neighborhood but Benson Hill, Renton Highlands, and Fairwood are covered. They could build a small P&R if more people want to use it. Your suggestion of eliminating express service from a whole area that pulls 18 riders per service hour (more than the 101) is confusing to say the least.

      7. That’s a lot of service to Seattle. Renton could perhaps use more direct service to Seattle but bolstering local routes might be more impactful? The F, 105, 160, and 240 in particular do very well within Renton

         Personally I’d like to see a frequent 101-105, skipping the S Renton P+R

      8. The biggest issue is the vast majority of Rentonites live east, southeast, or south of downtown, but most of the routes terminate downtown so people have to transfer to get anywhere beyond that. And with infrequent bus routes, this becomes even more problematic. What I want is that routes from all parts of Renton continue quickly past downtown to Rainier Beach, to minimize that overhead time sink getting into or out of east/southeast/south Renton to elsewehere in the region.

      9. Well my idea is to take the 101 and replace it with multiple routes to Seattle at lower frequencies. It’s not about giving “extraordinary service” to Renton. It’s taking the existing service hours and realigning it to maintain one seat rides to more parts of Renton.

         That way Renton gets the same 10-15 minute frequency to Seattle that they currently have with the 101, but it’s distributed through multiple lower frequency routes that reach different parts of Renton (hence my 101, 102, 103) proposal.

         The 103 I proposed is just a low frequency addition that through routed with the 102 to add extra capacity on peak. That’s how the 102 already operates today, except it has very bad infrequent service that is slow and unreliable.

         Then other routes like the 105/148/153/160 can see expanded all day service to Rainier Beach station to create a better all day trip availability. That way anyone in Renton can get a reliable trip to Seattle, Bellevue, or TIBS any day of the week at any time without adding too many extra service hours to Renton. It’s more about reorienting the service hours to be through routed into Seattle rather than forcing an untimely transfer to the existing 101, which doesn’t pick up much ridership outside of peak and could use better transfer timing (this has dissuaded people from taking the 101 for transfers).

      10. I also think SE Renton could use a route to connect to S Bellevue Station, like the newly proposed 111 for Renton Highlands, if they lose on their downtown trip. This way they get better, faster direct access to Bellevue and Seattle without having to take extra time riding through downtown or MLK/Renton Ave.

      11. “Extraordinary service” was referring to the streets the 102 is on and their walkshed, not all of Renton. The point is street in Renton got that level of service and the rest of Renton didn’t.

          The planned 111 is another example of this. One lower-density corner of Renton gets an extraordinary all-day express to Bellevue, while areas where more people and retail are don’t.

      12. The obsession with “density” here is interesting. Buses should serve areas of ridership demand. An area with density may not necessarily want to travel to certain locations. I’d strongly bet that there is a higher demand for the proposed 111 than a bus from the “downtown Renton” area (which isn’t even as high density as you make out) to Bellevue. People living in the high density core usually work and travel within Renton. They’re not going to Bellevue. Express buses better serve P&Rs and distant neighborhoods that can avoid adding car traffic onto the freeways and city roads.

          Renton is getting Stride which is already an extremely good connection to Bellevue. The F Line can be improved to reach Exit 7, or if eventually an Exit 5 stop is added, that would also be useful. Sending an express bus through 10-15 mins of high density stops defy the point of an express bus. The best way to serve more people is to interline multiple bus routes at lower frequencies and through route them past the “transit center” they meet at into a consolidated higher frequency express bus.

      13. The Eastside of Bellevue is even more low density than SE and E Renton, yet they have near empty buses running on every street.

          SE Renton has been paying for Sound Transit and hasn’t been close to reaping any benefit from it until Stride. The Metro service is already bad and slow enough. Meanwhile there is the 212/218/256 and several ST expresses from the East Side. What does SE King County and he Kent Valley get? At least the Sounder helps those south of Renton. But Renton is far north enough that the Sounder has limited value. What do they ride? The slow 102 that randomly picks a few neighborhoods to waste time in? An express should be direct with local routes feeding into it either through a transfer or a through route during peak hours.

      14. In essence…

          – for lower density scattered populations like Renton and Kent, use hub and spoke, with express trips connecting spoked.

          – for higher density concentrated populations, use the grid system to allow for 2 seat rides to any point in the city.

          A mix of all of these creates an effective transit system. For an improved experience, if there is ridership demand through routing can be implemented to merge a local route into an express connection during peak hours.

      15. > SE Renton has been paying for Sound Transit and hasn’t been close to reaping any benefit from it until Stride… At least the Sounder helps those south of Renton. But Renton is far north enough that the Sounder has limited value.

          I mean to be fair, Sound Transit was planning on running the second rail line there along the former rail line 1990s and 2000s. it was Renton residents that didn’t want to convert the freight line. Sound transit investigated it a second time in 2010s but again they didn’t want it. the agency then gave up and then is implementing the now freeway BRT. this seems more renton’s fault than sound transit’s.

          > The planned 111 is another example of this. One lower-density corner of Renton

          @mike
          NE 4th street in renton (east of i405) actually has quite a number of apartments. checking both google maps and the density map https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=f9cb5e481ecc48bfbdd6486c42e19a24&find=renton that area actually has more people than downtown renton.

          honestly it is kind of sad that even after the i405 etl improvements there won’t be an direct access (center) hov ramp at ne 30th st or ne sunset boulevard. if one existed, the 111 bus could use the center bus lanes most of the way

      16. I agree it was Renton’s fault but the past is past. NIMBYs got their way. It also got in the way of Bellevue rail. But now the mindset of voters have changed.

          Issaquah getting light rail before Renton is still the joke. The average voter doesn’t have a say, it’s whoever on the ST council and the cities they favor because of their connections to that city.

          Renton and Kent have hundreds of thousands of people that need and deserve transit. They’ve been paying for it. There are lots of apartments and low income communities here. It’s not all “golf courses and single family homes” like it may seem though there are plenty of those here as well. The map you share clearly show that downtown Renton isn’t even where people live. Benson Hill, Fairwood and East Renton Highlands is where the population is at. The I Line, Stride, and the new all day Route 111 will be welcome additions, but we need more service connecting Maple Valley and Fairwood as well.

      17. “I also think SE Renton could use a route to connect to S Bellevue Station”

          I feel like SE Renton is configured in a way you are hard to skip Downtown Renton if you are going to Seattle/Bellevue Downtown Renton. It’s just like it is hard to miss Downtown Seattle if you are taking transit from Ballard to somewhere south of Seattle.
          Even after 2028, I think SE Renton to Seattle via I-5 is still faster than via I-405. I-405 ramps at I-90 remain vastly unimproved after express lane project. Larger mainline capacity might make those ramps worse especially at short section between Coal Creek and I-90. I can only wish 111 good luck after that.
          As for going to Bellevue, S1 stops at South Renton, so transferring there sort of avoid riding through downtown I guess?

      18. S Bellevue is better for a variety of reasons.

          You can reach
          1. Seattle
          2. Bellevue
          3. Eastgate
          4. Factoria
          5. Issaquah

          Right now, Renton does not have service to Issaquah. And Eastgate/Factoria is not the fastest when you take Route 240. Stride goes all the way to Bellevue TC, forcing you to backtrack.

          Luckily Route 111 goes to S Bellevue, so it’s not terrible to make the transfer from Stride to Route 111 at the planned freeway station… But it’s still a lot of transfers.

          From SE Renton and Kent, you can head down to Maple Valley Highway and enter 405 directly skipping Downtown Renton and S Renton. And it’s faster. In fact Metro Connects proposes a route from Green River College / SE Renton / Kent Meridian up into Renton Highlands where you’d connect with Route 111/240.

      19. I’d strongly bet that there is a higher demand for the proposed 111 than a bus from the “downtown Renton” area (which isn’t even as high density as you make out) to Bellevue.

          I would take that bet.

          The 111 performs very poorly (by every metric). I will describe it heading towards Seattle (inbound). It gets less than a dozen riders south of 4th/128th. Even after reaching 128th it gets only a handful. The first bus stop that gets more than three riders a day is at 4th & Duvall. The stop at 4th & Union does better — it gets eight riders a day (doubling the previous record). None of the bus stops south of SR-900 are in double digits. Kirkland Avenue & 12th (next to an apartment building and just north of SR-900) gets ten riders a day. 16th & Edmonds (next to a park and ride) gets 18. The only significant ridership after that is the Newport Hills Park and Ride, with 23 riders.

          So basically it gets hardly any riders except the one apartment building and the two park and rides. That isn’t too surprising. The area is so low-density that it gets most of its ridership from the park and rides. The 111 is currently peak-only but will become an all-day route when it serves South Bellevue instead. I’ll be very surprised if it does well.

          In contrast, the 560 and 566 already serves the Renton Transit Center. Overall ridership is decent (it has largely recovered from the pandemic). I don’t have current stop data for the route but I have old data (from 2019). The Renton Transit Center had 185 riders. This made it the second most used stop (after Downtown Bellevue). The three stops on Park Avenue got 67 riders. The three park and ride lots (Rainier & 7th, Newport Hills and Kennydale) got about fifty riders a piece. To be fair, the Renton Transit Center has a park and ride lot. But it isn’t that big (only 150 spaces) while it serves other routes. There are also other park and ride lots surrounding it. My guess is not that many people park and ride from the Renton Transit Center and catch the 560/566.

          Interestingly enough, the peak-oriented 566 is quite similar in Renton. The numbers are almost identical. The only thing that is significantly different is that very few riders use the park and rides next to the freeway. I guess they all caught the 560, not the 566. This again bolsters the case for the existing Renton Transit Center. There is enough density there to generate good all-day ridership. The stops along Park Avenue also do well and seem like they are worth covering (since they are “on the way”).

          Back to the original bet, I don’t think it would be even close. A bus like the 566 would still serve the freeway park and ride lots which means it would poach the most successful part of the 111. Outside of the lots, there is way more ridership in the Renton Transit Center. The Renton part of the 566 performs like a regular (ridership-oriented) route while the 111 performs like a coverage route. This is why Metro’s decision to pour money into service there is an odd one. It is clearly political. Folks lose their one-seat ride to downtown and in exchange get a one-seat ride to the middle of nowhere. But in return they get a good all-day connection to East Link. I just think it will be used by only a small number of riders.

      20. Ridership for routes like 111 are low because it’s slow and it’s not useful outside of those commuting to Seattle. Takes well over an hour to get into Seattle. There is no difference compared to driving.

          The new 111 connects to S Bellevue. They can take the 556 to Eastgate and Issaquah, or take Link to Seattle, Bellevue, or Redmond. That will invite a lot of riders. And once the express lanes open next summer, it will become even more attractive as it can skip traffic.

          And I’m not sure if that ridership data is accurate, because the other day I was on 405 and the 111 bus looked full. Maybe most riders get off earlier on the route before the Renton loop, but it still pulls ridership.

      21. I wonder if there will be people from other parts of Renton going to northeast Renton to catch the 111 to South Bellevue. Or they may look into it and decide not to because of the difficulty of getting to far northeast Renton to a 111 stop. That’s the absurdity of having an all-day express in an obscure lower-density corner where the major chunks of Renton’s population don’t live. This is what I mean by giving an extraordinary level of service to one arbitrary area, while other equally-deserving or more-deserving areas don’t get anything comparable.

      22. To me the proposed 111 seems like a downgrade for most riders. Are people really going to ride it off-peak to S Bellevue? It’s a painful 30m transfer on the way back.

      23. “if one existed, the 111 bus could use the center bus lanes most of the way”

          111 can enter at buffer access at N 44th which is just one interchange north. The north end might be a bigger problem. The biggest issue I see here is that if S1 is not planned to make stop at Newport Hill P&R, so there is zero transfer point between 111 and STRIDE. Sure the transfer need might not be high, but it could still be a useful transfer given off-ramp to Bellevue Way is congested today.
          If a 111-S1 transfer at Newport Hill P&R (112th Ave SE) or N 44th existed, 111 transferring S1 to Bellevue downtown might be faster than transfering 2 Line at South Bellevue.

      24. Stride S1 and the 111 meets at the new Exit 7 inline station. My assumption is that the 111 will enter 405 at exit 7.

          Also the 105 would meet the 111 if someone views that as a way to connect to the 111. However I assume most will connect to Stride by taking the bus to the new transit center. And again I think the F should be extended to Exit 7 so people can transfer to Stride there… For those who are in the Landing or Lk Washington Blvd area. A few apartments there.

          And lastly the far SE part of the 111 is quite low density but further along the route there are more apartments. And as someone else pointed it even higher density than downtown Renton (in terms of people who live there, not businesses / walkable streets which give the illusion of population density in downtown Renton). And East Renton Highlands have changed in the last few years. Lots of new housing along Sunset Blvd.

      25. The best long term infrastructure upgrade that can be made is:

          (1) Renton busway from exit 2 to exit 5 passing by the Route 105 corridor and the Landing area via the Houser Bypass, and build a new HOV entrance there at Exit 5.

          (2) HOV ramps from I-405 onto I-90 west/east in all directions, but especially going south

          (3) S Bellevue Way bus lanes, reroute Stride through Bellevue Way so it can stop at Bellevue Station and more useful Bellevue stops before hitting the TC

      26. “This is what I mean by giving an extraordinary level of service to one arbitrary area, while other equally-deserving or more-deserving areas don’t get anything comparable.”

          Well that’s the downfall of public transportation to begin with. Express service can’t go to every neighborhood. That’s why Metro Flex and local bus routes exist.

          In Seattle, an express bus doesn’t serve every single street. Neither does Link. You have to transfer. Why do you expect the same here?

      27. Check out the Astra Apartments newly built along Sunset Blvd. Also people wouldn’t just use 111 for an express trip. People may use it to get around town. Renton Highlands Library and various shopping areas fall along the route. The current 111 doesn’t work for that since it’s peak hour only.

      28. Check out the Astra Apartments newly built along Sunset Blvd.

          Yeah, that is the apartment building I mentioned (the bus stop that gets 10 riders a day). My point is there is hardly any ridership south of there and even the ridership north of there is very low. Yes, I know it is peak-only, but other peak-only buses (like those serving the Renton Transit Center) do much better.

      29. I think the 111 should either continue being a peak-only express (in this case it would head to Seattle), or it should get turned into an all-day route to Renton. A 30m all-day semi-express to S Bellevue just doesn’t make sense to me.

          Maybe something like this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/2j9rPF4fHpoGoyD5A

      30. (after serving the loop to the east)

          Or maybe it could start at the new life church: https://maps.app.goo.gl/YAmD1vKRMz8YNJWQ8

          At the end of the day though the all-day semi-express doesn’t really make sense to me..

      31. Well you just described the 105. Might as well delete the 111 completely.

          The second proposal also is nonsensical. Don’t see who would ride that to the New Life Church. Limited connection or transfer potential either without taking a long deviation to the East first.

          The current 111 is just fine. Let Renton have some transit. Sunset Blvd is extremely developed and medium density now. Just drop in on it on Google Maps.

      32. “Yeah, that is the apartment building I mentioned (the bus stop that gets 10 riders a day)”

          Why do you think it gets 10 riders a day? No one would torture themselves to ride a peak only 111 to Seattle. It sits on the right lane of 405 while cars zip past it on the HOV lane. And there is limited value to travel to Eastgate, Factoria, or Issaquah. And Bellevue/Redmond isn’t particularly easy as it would be with a 2 Line connection.

          In other articles, people are talking about how Route 28 gets less riders because it doesn’t have enough frequency. Curious why you forget about that logic when it’s come to a suburb. Does only Seattle deserve transit? Seattle should foot the entire bill then and we should keep letting suburban commuters clog your streets with their cars.

      33. Probably should delete every route east of Bellevue too. Low density areas, am I right?

      34. @South King Resident

          I’m not sure if you’re responding to me but I’m not saying the hours shouldn’t go to Renton Highlands, I just think it would be more valuable to more riders if the bus headed to an actual destination (for example downtown Renton, Seattle, or Bellevue) instead of S Bellevue, which is a 30m forced transfer from Link. A 30m forced transfer is pretty low quality transit…

      35. You know you can time transfers right? Just take the train that will reach ~5 mins before your bus leaves.

          Sound Transit is working with Metro (finally) to coordinate bus transfers in case of delays. They just posted about it.

      36. And the church is an existing P+R with a lot of multifamily, manufactured homes, and some commercial next door. It doesn’t seem like an unreasonable terminus to me..

      37. The only problem with the proposed 111 is the on ramp from S Bellevue to 405 gets really badly clogged. But the current 111 sits through it as well. Can’t do much about it unless there is political willpower to pave and let the buses use the shoulder lane.

      38. The church gets the 907 DART service though the bus doesn’t go inside. That area could see more development but I wouldn’t call it a worthy destination. However a Green River College – Renton Highlands route can partially serve that corridor. I think a Renton to Issaquah segment could also be a good idea. That area around the church and SR 900 to Issaquah sees heavy congestion which I’d hope can be reduced by adding transit service and bus only signals.

      39. “Stride S1 and the 111 meets at the new Exit 7 inline station. My assumption is that the 111 will enter 405 at exit 7.

          Also the 105 would meet the 111 if someone views that as a way to connect to the 111. However I assume most will connect to Stride by taking the bus to the new transit center. And again I think the F should be extended to Exit 7 so people can transfer to Stride there… For those who are in the Landing or Lk Washington Blvd area. A few apartments there.”

          South King Resident,

          N 30th and 44th are barely connected on local network unless you assume 111 will serve Kennydale. Even if that’s the plan, 111 and S1 won’t be able to make stop at the same platform because STRIDE’s N 44th station’s exact location is at direct-access ramp terminal south of N 44th. 111 can never stop there unless it enters I-405 at Sunset Blvd NE and enter the express lane south of N 30th.

          I strongly agree that is that something currently terminating in Renton needs to be extended to N 44th to create a STRIDE transfer. F could be an overkill (or not) but some all-day service needs to be there. Otherwise I don’t see the point of even having that STRIDE station. 112th Ave SE makes much better station than N 44th as it at least have parking. The N 44th parking garage won’t be built any time soon, how did ST expect people to use that station? I think it is just better use of money to invest some kind of all-day local service to connect N 44 than paying for 111 all-day service.

      40. I initially thought the 111 should truncate at 44th, but thinking now they are doing different things: the 111 runs on the outside lane and therefore is able to serve Newport Hills P&R, which is served by 560 but will not be by S1.

          That said, the 111 should stop at the 44th interchange for the transfer to Stride. Riders will have to walk from the outside ramp to the inline ramp, but that’s a reasonable walk. When the freeways are congested, a rider trying to get from Renton Highland to Link will want to make the transfer.

      41. AJ,

          It is possible for 111 to serve all the stop it serves today and use express lane like S1. 111 can exit express lane via 112th Ave SE direct-access ramp, and stop at Newport Hill P&R. It probably should run on GP lanes north of 112th Ave SE as there is no more exit before I-90 interchange. It is also possible for Stride to make stop at Newport Hill P&R, but I doubt any decision has been made regarding Stride-related restructure.

          My guess is that S1 doesn’t have a stop at Newport Hill is because when the ST did the planning work in 2010s, it was not clear whether 112th Ave SE direct-access will be built or not. WSDOT put out the design-build contract in 2019 making 112th Ave direct-access as an optional piece for bidder to choose to build or not with their bidding price. The selected contractor chose to build it, so it is possible for S1 to make that stop.

      42. @South King Resident, Sound Transit and Metro just posted about coordinating transfers? That’s great! Do you have a link?

      43. https://www.soundtransit.org/blog/platform/synchronized-regional-system

          See the “Working together and unifying our operations” section

          Also the 111 should be able to access the express lanes. The inline station is at Exit 7. The 111 enters at Exit 6. Or the 111 can just enter at Exit 5 to hopefully be able to merge in sooner.

      44. I also believe WSDOT is in fact making an HOV ramp for Newport Park and Ride at Exit 9.

      45. South King Resident,

          Based on latest signing and marking plan made public for design-build RFP, 111 has to enter before Southport (aka Exit 5) in order to stop at NE 44th.

          There are generally two types of manage lane access, weaving access and direct access. Weaving access (noted as weaving below) is the type where you are allowed to make lane change from general-purchase lane to enter express lane at designated location. On pavement, weaving access is where double solid stripe becomes double skip stripe. The direct access (noted as direct access below) is easier to understand. It is the ramp that directly connects the express lane (often from left-side of the freeway) to the arterial with certain access restriction. Where direct-access exists, you don’t need to weave through general-purpose lane to access manage lane, usually a more ideal access type but of course more expensive.

          For Renton-to-Bellevue project from south to north, the planned ETL access are located:
          1. inside SR 169 interchange (weaving),
          2. N 8 St (direct-access, dropped for now but not completely dead)
          3. inside Southport interchange (weaving),
          4. inside NE 44th interchange (both weaving and direct access),
          5. inside 112th Ave SE (weaving and direct access)
          6. South of Coal Creek Pkwy (weaving, southbound only).

          Let’s say if 111 enters at NE 30th like it does today, the first ETL access is the weaving access at NE 44th, but the problem is the Stride stop is located at NE 44th direct access ramp, 111 cannot enter the express lane and instantly exit using that direct-access ramp, thus it will miss the Stride NE 44th stop. Express lane is generally designed this way to discourage aggressive lane change for just such short distance of travel. Plus NE 44th interchange has ramps for general-purpose traffic, so there is really no reason to warrant this movement. So if 111 wants to make a stop at NE 44th somehow, King County Metro probably can add a stop on the general-purpose ramp on the right-hand side. That means crossing at least one ramp to make the transfer. Not ideal but not the end of the world.

          And yes the direct-access ramp at Newport Hill P&R is being built because design-builder chose to include that in their bid.

      46. It’s not the end of the world if it enters using the general purpose exit, and only use the express lanes between Exit 7 and 9. Maybe WSDOT should have a bus shoulder there.

          But I can also see the 111 enter at Exit 5 instead of Exit 6. The path it takes to Exit 6 is pretty low density with a freeway stop in the middle of nowhere. Don’t even see a P&R there.

          Not sure what Metro has planned though. And yes I agree the 111 has a purpose beyond just serving Renton Highlands. It connects the Newport Hill P&R, and also offer an option for Stride riders to get to S Bellevue Station. It may be niche but it’s possible someone wants to get to Bellevue College, Eastgate, Factoria, Issaquah, etc… via Route 556 or other local routes while Stride just goes to Bellevue TC directly and forces riders to turn around.

      47. South King Resident,

          I meant to address your suggestion of entering at Exit 5 but forgot in the process.
          Entering from Exit 5 (Soutport) will be the same as entering from Exit 6 (NE 30th) because the weaving access ends by the position Soutport on-ramp merge into I-405. The next access to express is on top of NE 44th.
          That’s why I said if 111 wanted to make NE44th stop at exact same platform as S1, it will have to enter no northerner than NE Sunset (Exit 4), which is barely possible.

      48. Well that’s unfortunate. WSDOT really should’ve done an HOV entrance at Exit 5, and Renton should’ve pushed for a busway between Exit 2 and Exit 5 which Stride could also follow.

          I guess yeah I could see it entering at Exit 6 like it usually does, then take Exit 7 and enter the express lanes until Exit 9. That’s a bit sad especially during peak hours it’ll be stuck in unnecessary traffic…

   3. Metro’s long-range plan already has a 105/106 through-route (corridor 1075 in the 2050 map, a Renton Highlands – Renton – Renton Ave – Rainier Beach route). Metro has reconfigured the map again so it’s harder to have just one route showing, but if you click 1075 on and off in the right sidebar (Data icon), you can see the route appear and disappear among the other route lines. Metro just needs to be encouraged to do it, and not take twenty-four years. The Stride 1 restructure will give an opportunity.

      A through-route Metro hasn’t recognized yet is connecting RapidRide I to Rainier Beach station, People along 108th-104th in southwest Renton/east Kent need some way to get to Link without it being a 3-seat ride. The simplest thing would be to just extend the I to it. I don’t have a particular opinion on MLK vs Renton Ave, although MLK would be faster. That would either replace that part of the 101, or overlap with the 101 or 106, or complicate the 105-106 through-route, but it’s something that’s needed somehow.

      I find the 107 in itself to be a slow, meandering routes so I’m not sure any through-route would be particuarly good. People in the eastern half would wish it were paired with a route like the 101 or 106 rather than the 107.

      As for the 147, I know little about southeast Renton so I have no opinion on what the routes there should be or where they should go to. I would like to see the 906 more frequent, since it’s a useful straight east-west route and goes to Southcenter.

      1. I think every route should be through routed to Rainier Beach station via MLK.

      2. If you’re OK with your 101/102/103 going to Rainier Beach instead of downtown Seattle, then I’ll offer an idea I started thinking of I thought you wouldn’t like. Have routes from all parts of Renton: southwest (I), southeast (102), northeast (105) go express on Renton MLK to Rainier Beach station. That would give all parts of Renton the same level of service Fairwood gets. Other local routes can run on MLK and Renton Ave as appropriate for people going to/from those neighborhoods.

      3. I suggested that in the past but I’m pretty sure you’re the one who said people wouldn’t like it because they lose their one seat ride 😁

         Most people however prefer all day service and higher frequency, even if it means terminating at Rainier Beach. Try riding peak hour routes that run every 40-60 mins that can easily be cancelled or significantly delayed every day. It’s a shock it even still gets decent ridership despite how poor the service it.

      4. Metro Connects has a modification to the 906 that turns it into a frequent fixed route from Fairwood Square to SeaTac. The 148 then takes over the tail of the 906. I like that concept a lot.

         I agree that that the 107 shouldn’t be through-routed in Renton, and that the 106 and 101 are far more promising through-routes.

         A 160-106 (cut at Rainier Beach) would be great, though I don’t know if that’s too long of a route?

      5. “I agree that that the 107 shouldn’t be through-routed in Renton”

         Metro tries to pair similar ridership/density levels together, areas that need the same level of frequency and capacity. The 101 is the fastest trunk route for the majority of trips and longer-distance ones. The 106 is the primary local route: it gets to Rainier Valley in a reasonable amount of time and serves the people in between. The 107 is the slow coverage route that serves areas the other two don’t. The 107 is paired with the 148, so Metro may consider the 149 a third-tier route in Renton.

         What’s mystifying is why the 105 is so short, and has never been paired with the 106 or anything else already.

      6. “Metro Connects has a modification to the 906 that turns it into a frequent fixed route from Fairwood Square to SeaTac.”

         This is what the route used to be before Metro converted it to DART. It was a huge loss and disappointment for SE Renton riders. I don’t know anyone who would want to take the long winded ride to Tukwila Station, just to ride the last stretch of Sounder only to be forced to transfer again in Seattle. The old route to SeaTac had far more utility as many of us aren’t going to Seattle but possibly the airport or even Federal Way, so I’m glad to see that return in their long term vision.

         I agree with their 148 proposal, but I do suggest that the 148 should be a “loop” that starts and end at S Renton. Metro Connects show the top part of the loop I’m envisioning, but the bottom part of the loop can be similar to the existing 102 possibly routing along La Rosa Meadows… Lots of completely unserved by transit apartments near SR 515.

   4. Let’s look at through routing generically:

      1. Through routing is a great way to serve a corridor that has destinations beyond the initiate vicinity of a transfer spot (like Downtown Seattle). The question however is whether or not the demand “spine” in Renton achieves this or not. I cannot say.

      2. The next reason for through-routing is that there are lots of transfers between the two routes so that through routing is useful and saves riders time . Are there routes that meet in Renton that have lots of transfers?

      There are some disadvantages to through routing:

      1. Longer through-routed routes mean more potential on-time problems so that they can be less reliable because of traffic. if one route has congestion on it that disrupts the schedule, through routing can make travel harder.

      2. The demand on each route should warrant about the same frequency. If one route has demand for 10 minute service and the other for 30 minute service, the demand profiles do not match.

      3. Through routing means that a transit center is less needed. That can save travel time if a bus does not have to pull through a transit center. But if the bus route takes turns to go in and out of transit center that advantage goes away.

      4. Drivers need breaks, some of these routes are rather long and a driver needs a break. Through routing may mean no break.

      So I’d leave that change up to what the upcoming data will tell Metro or ST in a few months. The decision should be based on a number or real-world measurements and not mere speculation.

3. It is actually never clear to me how I Line will terminate in Renton assume the plan is to get all terminal route out of Renton TC. Most other routes can simply be extended to new TC, but for I Line, I don’t see how it can be “extended” from current Renton TC to the new one.

   1. @HZ
      usually the buses stop on the street with some bus bay. though rapidride i/rapidride f and other bus routes might be rerouted to the new transit center and just end or truncated there.

      I know some people/officials say that they won’t truncate any bus routes. but the explicit goal of the new transit center was also to move some of the bus layovers out of downtown renton, so I’m not sure how both can simultaneously be true

      1. Perhaps both of them can share the F’s layover at The Landing? Or (better still) one of them can be extended somewhere else?

   2. Are they trying to eliminate all terminal routes? Some can certainly be extended, truncated, or rerouted to the new TC but I’m not sure that would be wise for all routes. Currently, the 105, 106, 107, 153, 160, and 240 all lay over at the downtown TC.

      1. For some routes, they can be sent to the new transit hub by extending them from Renton TC or simply changing through-running switch point so that Renton TC doesn’t lose them.
         The exceptions are 153 and 160 which are straight going south and don’t through-run with any other routes at Renton TC. Ideally, I hope City of Renton is not eliminating the old transit center completely but shifting focus to the new one. That means 153 and I Line can still layover there.
         I would imagine without F/101/107/240 doing all sorts of loops pulling in and out of Renton TC still help traffic a lot.

   3. Renton said it wanted buses out of old Renton because they were overwhelming the intimate walkable character it was trying to enhance, but I think what it most wanted was to get the express buses out, especially the mass of peak-hour ones.

      The I is a mild-mannered local route, so it’s less obtrusive than the express buses. And it is RapidRide, which is supposed to be the primary transit service in its area, because that was the point of building RapidRide.

4. I drive through Grady Way and Rainier almost every day. I used to sometimes take the bus to work, but I was walking a mile from my stop on Rainier Ave, up Grady Way, then over to my work on the other side of 405.
   Rainier Ave is also the end of freeway SR -167. This means cars are slowing from 60 mph to a stop at the light at Grady Way. It’s scary.
   Right now, it is 6 or so lanes of traffic and to be a pedestrian crossing at those crosswalks you have to be pretty brave – no guarantee some driver won’t run the light. Most of the pedestrians are people with signs asking for money.

   This new transit center is not in a walkable area even if it is near some stuff (near car dealers and fast food and walmart). If it is trying to get buses to move through faster to major roads, it might work. Might not once you factor in how they always design transit centers so poorly – making buses do loops and wait at stop lights.

   I like the old transit center location, very walkable. But when you are on a bus just trying to get through Renton, it is very slow.

   1. I had a few field trips in 2024 for a project in the area and I had to collect footage at every corner of that intersection, so I can relate that. The area isn’t unwalkable (given it has basic sidewalk and curbcut), but it sure is hostile. Rainier Ave has the longest ped green phase I’ve ever seen in King County because the road is wide and angled.

      Fortunately most future riders at new transit center don’t have to deal with that. The bus bay will be located across from Hardie Ave (currently a right-in-right-out intersection), which will be the west entrance of the TC featuring traffic signal with TSP and ped cross with a refuge at median I believe.
      The southern part of the lot will be layover area, so most of the foot traffic will happen closer to SW 7th.

      Knowing the traffic hassle of Rainier-Grady, Metro has been intentionally routing their service out of Grady. In the meantime, Renton recognize the better potential of SW 7th (which F and Renton-bound 153 are serving) and has plan to add bike lane and better pedestrian facilities on it.

      Unless there is a plan to redevelop the abandoned Red Lion Hotel site, Rainier Grady will mostly remain unimproved.

      1. The area closer to the freeway is hostile to pedestrians. But the new TC has areas to the north and east that can easily be transformed to walkable areas and already receive low car traffic. Renton is already planning TOD. It’s a matter of perspective. People look at the bad side instead of the good side when judging a place.

         And to be clear, very few people live near the current Renton downtown. It’s mostly businesses some with larger lots. The housing population and working population is actually more towards the Landing/Southport and I think that could’ve been an appropriate choice if Renton wanted a population centered transit hub. But now that they picked this location I hope Renton thinks about how they can revitalize the Grady Way area. There is a lot of unused land that can be transformed. Also Metro should use Rapid Ride F and Rapid Ride I to optimize high speed high frequency connections between the new TC and the rest of the Renton core near Lake Wash.

      2. very few people live near the current Renton downtown

         What? Obviously there is no official definition for “Downtown Renton”, but if you go with the Google Maps definition it includes plenty of big apartment buildings. But there are other forms of density. There is plenty of retail there. In contrast, some of the places that have high population density have basically nothing nearby. Unlike a lot of Renton, it is actually nice for pedestrians as well. This means it is bound to attract more transit riders. You can actually live there, without having to drive everywhere. This in turn leads to more apartments being built, which is why they have been added.

         In contrast, the other transit center is in an area that is openly hostile to pedestrians. If they move the buses, it will be a giant “Screw You” to people who don’t drive. It is clearly designed around the idea that you drive to the park and ride and then take the bus. Yes, if you are desperate you may have an apartment nearby but you have to choose between one of the few places in Renton that has decent, comfortable urban living (close to downtown) or a place that has a lot of buses. It is just a stupid area to put a transit center.

   2. pedestrian overpasses might help across rainier, and grady, but there would need to be something to go to. I’m guessing most people going to walmart to get groceries aren’t taking the bus, and really wouldn’t be taking it to the transit center across the street – nor are people crossing grady to go to the old red lion because nothing is there.

      about all I can think of within walking distance is that people can drop their car at les schwab in the morning to get some new tires, and grab the bus to head to work.

      This is a ridiculous location with the only benefit being that it was wide open and easy to build on. Probably relatively cheap too, but I’ve no clue if I’m right about that.

      1. Most people going to Walmart probably aren’t taking the bus, but before it closed the one closest to me always had 3-10 people get on the bus. Never 0.

      2. “Most people going to Walmart probably aren’t taking the bus,…”

         That’s true for almost anything in Renton. However, as someone who has been in that store several dozen times, it’s worth noting that the patrons are usually people of color of all kinds, with many appearing to be immigrants. If someone is culturally comfortable on transit because of their origin, they will be more willing to use transit now.

         And while Rainier is very scary and wide to cross, the new crosswalk between the bus loading area and Walmart will offer a direct walking path that doesn’t exist today.

      3. “Most people going to Walmart probably aren’t taking the bus, but before it closed the one closest to me always had 3-10 people get on the bus. Never 0.”

         Considering F has a stop there, I think that Walmart is probably one of few that’s feasible to go by public transportation.

   3. Renton TC is much more pleasant to walk around, but the Rainier stops in Renton are fairly busy (see links below). Despite the mediocre pedestrian environment there are still a lot of destinations along Rainier.

      https://seattletransitblog.com/2025/02/24/ridership-patterns-for-rapidride-f-line/

      https://seattletransitblog.com/2025/03/06/ridership-patterns-for-king-county-metro-route-160/

      Renton has been improving the Rainier with landscaping and sidewalk widenings and 7th with some traffic calming, though it will probably always be a bit bleak to walk around. I could see Rainier evolving to something like Aurora in Shoreline, a busy road with a decent concentration of housing and retail.

5. I’m back in Renton due to family issues.. I can’t believe how neglected the transit planning is there.. Still no bus to travel anywhere north from the VMC, even tho the hospital tax district is all the way up to the Bellevue border. All employees of VMC get free transit pass and they can’t even use it. Same goes for Renton City Hall, everyone in that tower get free transit pass too. There’re courts and other regional criminal justice services in there. Nothing, just a sad stop for 101. All bus traffic should avoid Rainier gas station/drive thu/box stores galore.. Nothing there is set up for transit users.. The current TC has been dysfunctional from the start. I can’t believe someone wrote, it’s mostly immigrants so that this would be ok for them.. What?? No, it’s not ok for anyone to walk with wet paper bags to walk miles across parking lots and major roads for a bus to nowhere. Leave Rainier alone, it’s a freeway extension.. and a GPS guided spill over for traffic when 405 is backed up..

   VMC needs a bus that goes North past DT Renton. Same for the Petrovitsky route, it have to reach the airport already.. Most who live in the Petrovitsky corridor works in Seattle and Bellevue. Nothing south pays enough for this area. I lived there 30 years, I know.. The 160 RR is useless for SE Renton, unless it’s extended north. And whatever is left of the 155(906) should reach the airport.

   All Highlands/Bellevue routes should use Grady-Main/Williams/Wells to get through faster with a stop at Renton city hall tower.. I really hope transit can avoid Rainer since it has no transit destinations..

   I hope 560 stays. Still really useful for the airport and Bellevue.

   1. Yes this is what I was trying to say. Renton transit is useless and unusable for most people. East Kent transit is even worse. The single route they have is the 160 and it’s such a high performer that it’s being turned into a Rapid Ride. But people here gaslight us into thinking we have low ridership.

      People from Fairwood mostly commute to Seattle/Bellevue. Luckily a Seattle option exists, but it’s not very good and offers limited value over driving.

      The 906 is also a poor route, really they need the former 155/156 back. People were quite mad when it was deleted and Metro didn’t care. No one is going to Tukwila Station, they have to be stupid to do so. It’s a 20 min ride into Seattle including transfer/waiting time and extra time meandering around Southcenter big box stores. It’s probably even faster to transfer to the 150, but the 150/906 transfer times don’t line up at 180th forcing you to wait 15+ mins at a stop for no reason. So yeah basically useless transit altogether.

      At minimum I’d hope to see some better SE Renton / E Kent routes that connect well with the new Renton Transit Center and Stride, as well as at least one commuter route that can capture S Bellevue Station travel via Exit 4 and Maple Valley Highway / Petrovitsky / 140th. Probably never going to happen though.

      That whole new SR 167 flyover is useless too. It really should be utilized by transit more for the Renton-Kent-Auburn area.

   2. Need more companies and organizations offering shuttle buses from nearby transit centers. That way riders can use local routes to the nearby TC, but can rely on a shuttle to work from there. Allow approved shuttles to use bus infrastructure like bus lanes and busways.

      VMC doesn’t need that though. Get more buses to Renton TC and the 160/Rapid Ride I to make those connections, and restore the 155 from Fairwood to SeaTac airport. A Link connection will be far more valuable for VMC and airport workers from Federal Way, Southcenter, Burien and other nearby areas. Extend the Rapid Ride I to Rainier Beach Station. Finally add a proper freeway running route on SR 167 between Auburn, Kent, and Renton, with a stop on the VMC area. That could use an inline HOV exit if I’m being honest, as the southbound direction is a bit messed up… And send peak hour buses to Bellevue via the freeway ramp.

Comments are closed.