127 Replies to “Lynnwood Infill Stations: Pinehurst and potentially 220th St SW”

1. Speaking of infill stations I always thought the long gap between Bel-Red and Overlake village was interesting, I feel like a station around 140th ave or so would be really good as it has a ton of commercial buildings around it. The only problem is that area of track is sloping upwards and may cause ST to have to rebuild that section of track.

   1. I live near Overlake Village, and I totally agree.

      Ideally, the station would be along 20th somewhere between 140th and 148th, but Sound Transit chose the freeway alignment instead. Maybe it’d at least be possible to build a station around where the train crosses 20th?

      1. I’ve shared the same observation, it strikes me as a missed opportunity. I’m sure the idea of it serving an entirely commercial node makes it unappealing since TOD opportunities may be minimal or far into the future, but imagine the workforce a station there would accommodate… not working with any math, just general observations, so maybe the numbers don’t justify. As far as a station goes, an elevated station accessible from both sides of NE 20th would likely be over the top cost-wise. I’m trying to visualize how they’d shoehorn a station into the current configuration with the incline to Overlake… do something on the south side of NE 20th? Modest parking and bus dropoff area on the north side in that vacant land? The spot seems to scream potential, it’s just hard to Tetris it together.

      2. I wanted Overlake Village station next to Safeway so that you could walk to the to the businesses in the village easily.

         When the station opened I tried transferring to the route to 164th Ave NE in Lake Hills, but it was a 5-minute walk uphill to an unreliable half-hourly route with no bench or shelter at the bus stop, so you had to stand the whole time.

         I looked at transferring to the 226, but the nearest stop is a 20-minute walk away.

         asdf2 suggested transferring at Redmond Tech to the 245, and that transfer is much better. A 2-minute flat walk, a RapidRide shelter and bench to wait at, and 15-minute service on weekdays. The tradeoff is it goes to 156th, which is further from my relative’s adult family home and requires walking up a hill to it.

         Still, I did that until until the 226 extension to South Bellevue started in August. Now I transfer at South Bellevue, which is a better transfer than either of those or Bellevue Downtown. Currently I’m transferring from the 550, but in four weeks I’ll be able to transfer from Link from Seattle. It’s a 1-minute walk from the Link platform to the bus bays. Although the bus bays only go outbound. Inbound the stops on Bellevue Way at the station entrance, which is a but further.

      3. A station at 20th would be perfect for bus transfers. There are no good bus connections between Wilburton and Redmond Tech.

      4. Jack has suggested moving the 226 to Spring Blvd. That would allow a much easier transfer at BelRed station. It’s a tradeoff between being closer to Link and being further from whoever uses the Bel-Red stops (I used to be one, and I’m not sure which street is better for immediate residents overall). Metro should at least look into it.

         I’d like to take Link for a longer segment and a bus for a shorter segment because that was the promise of getting Link into eastern Bellevue and Redmond, that people in Crossroads, Overlake, and Lake Hills could use it from the closest station — which is Overlake Village. But because the station is too far northwest and next to 520, the Overlake Village transfers are so bad, and the 226 is not close enough to the next three stations further west, that would mean backtracking all the way to Bellevue Downtown. So ST made a mess with the station location, and Metro’s limited approach to bus feeders compounds it.

         But I will say, South Bellevue (114th) to Eastgate P&R (142nd) is really fast thanks to I-90 and uncongested Eastgate Way, so I can get all the way from South Bellevue station to 164th & Main in 20 minutes. That’s such a breath of fresh air when I used to take it the other way from Bellevue TC via Overlake to 164th — that took 40 (!) minutes, partly due to the detour east of 164th. That frustrated me to no end to sit on a bus for that long just to cross from one side of Bellevue to the other — which takes 10 minutes by car.

      5. I feel like the primary purpose of a bus down Bel Red Road would be a faster alternative to the B line between Overlake and downtown Bellevue, but Link replaces that. The number of unique destinations on Bel Red Road not covered by Link is very small, and the shopping center at 140th would also be covered if the bus took 20th.

         So, a part of me says the 226 should not only take Spring, but also 20th, and maybe not use Bel Red Road at all. Or, maybe, on weekends, not even run at all, in order to use the service hours to run other routes twice an hour instead of once an hour.

      6. “I feel like the primary purpose of a bus down Bel Red Road would be a faster alternative to the B line between Overlake and downtown Bellevue”

         The purpose of the route is coverage. Historically 8th had the most service (226+253+252), Bel-Red was second (249), and 20th had no bus service. When the B was created, the 226 was moved to Bel-Red, and the 249 was moved to 20th. The 249 has been through a crazy quilt of restructures to absorb coverage segments from other routes. 20th/Northup had the tech jobs and computer shops in the 80s and 90s (including Microsoft), bur otherwise Metro thinks it has the lowest potential ridership than the other two, and I don’t know if it’s wrong. There’s not much housing there.

         “So, a part of me says the 226 should not only take Spring, but also 20th, and maybe not use Bel Red Road at all.”

         I hadn’t thought of that. That would require Metro to revise the hierarchy of the corridors.

         The place I was going to from 1989 to 2022 was off 124th between the 8th & Bel-Red. At first I took the B and its ancestors because they were more frequent, and the B had fewer stops and next-arrival displays. In the last couple years I started taking the 226 again because a low-volume route is quieter and less stressful, and the unchanged nature of 12th/Bel-Red reminded me of my childhood. I was hoping to eventually take East Link to Spring District station and walk from there, but my mom finally got too old to live independently and moved to Lake Hills before East Link started.

   2. hi yeah ive thought about it as well. Im not sure if there is a good solution. basically there’s 3 potential spots
      1) 140th. this one isn’t actually too bad of a distance from 130th and overlake village. but it is engineering wise probably the hardest
      2) ne 24th. probably possible. but also not as useful as it isn’t a north-south road
      3) 148th. this is just too close to the overlake village to justify.

      im not really sure if there is a good spot. i guess the 1.5 mile distance between the two stations leaves a small gap for 0.75 mile station placements

      > Maybe it’d at least be possible to build a station around where the train crosses 20th?

      that looks somewhat possible glancing at google maps. perhaps when the area gets more apartments sound transit could potentially revisit it. though we might need to see if bellevue wants it as well.

   3. Infill to nothing? I live in this area and have a hard time associating the ST names with reality. BelRed is the 130th P&R. “Spring District” is also completely made up. There are a few tech bros using this but it’s mostly a bunch of empty buildings that are the poster child of overbuilding prior to Covid. At grade crossing on Northup/20th was stupid as the tracks then have to go vertical to go over 148th and stop at Safeway Station. The Link route will (and has) affected development. But it’s not working to do anything but increase auto traffic.

      1. The tracks are far too vertical around there, indeed. Link should’ve gone under 148th in the same underpass as the new 151st exit ramp, and crossed the ramp at-grade at the entrance to the traffic circle. On the west side, the sloping ground could’ve easily let it go elevated to clear 24th St anyway.

      2. At grade crossings and 3-4 minute headways sounds like an awful idea.

      3. @D M, this’s East Link, with 8-minute headways and multiple existing grade crossings.

      4. “Spring District” is also completely made up.”

         So is SODO, Madison Valley, and West Edge. They were real-estate marketing terms from the 1990s or 2000s.

         “BelRed is the 130th P&R.”

         The P&R is temporary use until Spring District density expands to the area. I talked with an ST rep about this at one of the East Link open houses. He said the P&R is convertible to housing. I said the existence of the P&R will create an activist base to keep it forever. The beginning of the expansion started years earlier than people expected: there are already a couple multistory buildings there. But the area is still very spotty; there’s still a lot of 1-story light industrial buildings. The area is also an artists’ colony supposedly. It’s hard to see where artists’ houses could be, but supposedly they’re around there somewhere.

         The primary street through the area is Bel-Red Road, and many people call the neighborhood Bel-Red for lack of a better name. It’s silly the city wanted BelRed instead of Bel-Red, but that’s a modern aesthetic wave, like SeaTac instead of Sea-Tac or phone numbers with period separators instead of dashes.

      5. William

         My bad, in my mind I thought you were talking about the alignment near Pinehurst. I guess I didn’t read the thread closely enough lmao.

   4. “I always thought the long gap between Bel-Red and Overlake village was interesting,”

      Usually people say Bellevue has a surprisingly large number of stations, closer spacing than Seattle, when the population per capita is much lower. 140th would be just ten blocks from 130th, which is ten blocks from 120th.

      1. Yea. I agree that Bellevue stop spacing is pretty close, but I think that the problem is Seattle’s is too far not bellevue is to close.

2. It’s worth mentioning that any light rail station now forces an upzone of residential parcels within a half mile walking distance of the station. The average FAR has to be at least 3.5. That’s about a 7 story building with 50% lot coverage.

   1. Oh dear, West Seattle will have a heart attack when it hears that. Maybe that will turn the West Seattle Link boosters against it.

      But still, could we have that retroactively at the existing stations? Looking at you, Beacon Hill, Mt Baker, Columbia City, Roosevelt.

      1. Yes, it’s every light rail station. Look up HB 1491, it’s quite transformative.

         https://futurewise.org/tod1491/

      2. Every light rail station and 1/4 mile from every quasi-BRT (including rapid ride). But it doesn’t have to happen until next comp plan cycle (2029 for Seattle)

      3. Mike – West Seattle Junction is already fairly dense and has a 8 story building with 0 parking under construction.
         The building is almost done.
         https://housingdiversity.com/project/4448-california-ave-sw/

         Even Avalon area has new 6 story buildings under construction or completed recently without parking.
         https://westseattleblog.com/2019/07/development-3084-avalon-way-microapartments-approved/

      4. “West Seattle Junction is already fairly dense”

         The issue is west of California Ave, and both sides of California Ave north and south of the Triangle, where it drops to single-family in practically one block.

      5. “Every light rail station and 1/4 mile from every quasi-BRT (including rapid ride).”

         If we can get that built, we’d be in a much better situation. The areas that most need to upzone are the the periphery around urban villages and the areas between adjacent ones. After that. it doesn’t matter as much about the area around all the urban villages and the shorelines. I don’t really care if Magnolia and the Lake Washington shore are the last to be upzoned: I just want the areas between the urban villages and inside the ring of villages upzoned first.

         My dream is something like Chicago’s North Side from Ballard from 25th NW to 15th NE, the Ship Canal to 55th or Greenlake.

      6. Mike Orr,

         That will more or less be true once Ballard Link is done, since it’s about half a mile from 15th/Market to 24th/Market. Until then, the 1/4 mile from a Rapid Ride stop will essentially do what you are describing for urban villages served by Rapid Ride. Here’s a quick and dirty map I made a few weeks ago to see the areas affected in King County by HB 1491: https://blumdrew.github.io/hb1491-king-county-map/.

      7. It will do 15th to 24th, but my ideal is to also fill in the single-family area south of 45th in Wallingford, West Woodland, and north in the 45th to 55th area. There’s no reason these should be single-family so close to the U-District in a city of 816,000. It’s not the 1920s anymore, or even the 1960s.

         Thanks for making the map. We should link to it in an article for reference.

         Oh dear south Kirkland, there go your McMansions on huge lots between 108th and Lake Washingon Blvd.

      8. Mike Orr,

         I think HB 1491 is a good idea, but it is a bit nonsensical in some ways, especially relating to Rapid Ride as the basis for up zones (rather than frequency of service or something else). Fremont and Queen Anne are massive, glaring holes in the areas served by an HB 1491 eligible line, but yes Wallingford and other great, walkable neighborhoods are too.

      9. Funny that the streetcars are in the same category as Link. That’s one thing bus service can’t do: force an upzone of cap hill (hah)

      10. I think HB 1491 is a good idea, but it is a bit nonsensical in some ways

          I agree. It is just the legislator trying to impose some common sense on local municipalities (including Seattle). I know some urbanists would argue for high density, everywhere. But let’s get real here. There is a big difference between places like Blakely Place, Perkins Lane or Jacobsen Road versus 65th NE & Roosevelt or 85th & Greenwood. Some places are inconvenient. It is highly likely that people in the former category will drive to their destination or at best, bike. In contrast, the people in the latter category are far more likely to use transit. Thus it just makes sense to encourage development in the areas that are more convenient. Duh!

          Yet because of overly conservative local representatives (including those in Seattle) we haven’t allowed much development, anywhere. Oh, we’ve patted ourselves on the back when we finally allow a tiny little sliver to be developed. But we are nowhere near providing enough housing potential as we should. Quite often we go to the other extreme. We allow apartments *only* when they are ridiculously close to the freeway or a major arterial. Heaven forbid we allow an apartment where someone might actually want to live (say, a couple blocks away). So yeah, the state is trying to do surgery with a cleaver when it should be done with a scalpel. But the big problem is that the cities deny the patient needs surgery.

      11. “That’s one thing bus service can’t do: force an upzone of cap hill”

          Bellevue Avenue was already upzoned when I first saw it. My 7-story apartment was built in 2000 or 2004, and was surrounded by similar buildings. Not all the lots: there was still a 1950s 3-story building across the street, but several lots along Bellevue Ave.

          In contrast, there was resistance on Broadway to going above 4 stories through the mid 2000s. As a result, a 4-story building went up at the north end of Broadway & Roy, sacrificing the 2-3 more floors of units that could have been included if it had been upzoned earlier.

          Soon after that, Both Safeway and QFC abandoned their lots, QFC to consolidate with its Fred Meyer lot a block south, Safeway to build a larger store at 22nd & Madison. Those lots remained unused for years, because the developers didn’t want to build 4-story buildings when they could build more profitable 7-story buildings if it were upzoned.

          In the late 2000s the city finally approved a Broadway upzone, and the Safeway and QFC replacements went up immediately. I don’t think the upzone was because of Link; it was because there was already a pending need to upzone for a decade that the city had dragged its feet on until it didn’t.

   2. Yes, given this is the law now, ridership potential in the near future isn’t really that important. More development around every station will be coming eventually.

      I mean… outside of the section between Chinatown and U District, every station had low density to begin with.

3. Let me make a pitch for two other infill stations:

   On East Link, build a 51st St station. The existing freeway station sees decent use, and there’s a lot of Microsoft and Nintendo far from the existing 40th St station. It won’t be the most frequented station, but I think it’d get more people than Star Lake.

   On North Link, build a Maple Leaf station connecting to 92nd St at the tunnel portal. It’s half a mile from the existing station, and will allow for better community connections and bus transfer opportunities. Really, there should’ve been two Northgate stations, one here and the other at Northgate Way – but let’s make the best with what we’ve got.

   1. I think it is very difficult to add an infill station unless you planned for it in the first place. I agree with your other points though. Those stations would have been nice.

4. How accurate are the actual monthly ridership stats? They sometimes seem literally unbelievable. For example, in January 2026, Symphony jumped up to #1 overall with 427,622 total riders compared to 153,946 the previous month. 2 Line totals absolutely plummeted in December 2025 and were still significantly below post-Downtown Redmond extension average in January 2026. Overlake Village has rocketed up well past Redmond Tech the past 2 months and past Downtown Redmond in December.
   Does anyone have any explanations for these examples, or is the data wrong?

   1. Parsing the January 2026 ridership graph by day shows that the ridership the weekdays in last two weeks were clearly out of whack (appearing about double the prior week). The ridership data that ST posts needs staff to look at data quality before importing it into an online database.

5. Shame these stations dont span over their main crosstown street for better transfers to buses. Somehow other cities are better at building stations over major streets with entries from either side of the street.

   1. I agree. The crazy thing is that it might have been cheaper (at least at Pinehurst). When they were planning the station, they assumed that the cheapest option was to put the station just north of 130th. Then when they did the detailed engineering, they realized that the land to the to the northwest was steeper than they thought. They had to build a bigger retaining wall. This wall was extremely expensive. So what was supposed to a be a relatively cheap station ended up costing quite a bit. It is quite possible that it could have been built over 130th for cheaper (since it is fairly level there).

6. Looking at the various ways that riders can get to Pinehurst Station from their homes, or looking at the destinations walkable from Pinehurst Station leaves me quite pessimistic about its future ridership potential.

   – There isn’t a lot of residential density there and getting more looks problematic (small lots; park land; freeway meaning noise and loss of buildable land). There’s no parking. Route 77 is not a key, high-frequency trunk so riders in Lake City have many ways to reach Link. Perhaps bicycling is the best access mode but not many transit riders are bicycling to Link in numbers that would be major.

   – There aren’t really any destination within walking distance that will attract riders from other parts of Seattle or region.

   And unless the stations between Lynnwood and Northgate start posting volumes like Roosevelt or Beacon Hill, I don’t see 220th having a station. Given the final track profiles, I’m not even sure that a station could be built there anyway (as that needs both a flat and straight section) — even if it was funded in a future referendum.

   That raises a bigger design issue that I have with ST plans: unless any extension designs a placeholder for a future station (a straight and level track), it’s almost impossible to add one later.

   I actually think that ST should be designing tracks with many placeholders for more “infill station opportunities” with every extension — even if that station is not promised somewhere. And they should be doing the same for adding escalators and elevators to station too. Once construction begins, changes are difficult to impossible.

   1. All of your criticisms apply to all of the stations in Lynnwood Link. There aren’t many opportunities for development near the station (since they put the station so close to the freeway). There aren’t many attractions within walking distance. All true. So what?

      Every station is dependent on bus service. I agree, the 77 is poorly designed. But bus routes change. The fundamentals for Pinehurst Station are stronger than most:

      1) It is the fastest way to get from Bitter Lake or Lake City to a station. Both of those areas have high density housing as well as attractions. These are bigger, denser neighborhood than any of those to the north.

      2) The corridor also includes a medium-density area (Pinehurst, to the east) and a high school (Ingraham). Thus the long term potential for high frequency connecting bus service is high.

      3) Seattle bus funding is at a low point. If nothing else we will get more money to run buses more often (through the next Seattle Transit Benefit District levy).

      4) In my opinion the route planning surrounding Lynnwood Link was really poor. I have data to support that argument (that will be presented in the near future). This is unlikely to continue. I expect them to do a better job in the future.

      5) The neighborhoods that will feed the station are close to other destinations on Link (the UW, Capitol Hill, etc.). The stations to the north are farther away. Of course this station is farther away from Lynnwood but very few people travel that way.

      It all comes down to the buses. I have to assume that Metro will come to their senses and change the routing not only for the 77 but the buses in Shoreline as well (that have performed poorly). Hopefully sooner rather than later.

   2. Maybe it’s time to ask if Jackson Park Golf Course is providing the kind of value for this area that it could. Are the few hundred rounds of golf per day better for the city than changing this area into a residential/commercial mixed use walk/bike friendly area that’s nicely positioned between two stations?

7. > Route 77 is not a key, high-frequency trunk so riders in Lake City have many ways to reach Link

   as of the last lynnwood link (king county bus) connections page, it’ll provide 15 min frequency from 6 am to 10pm

   > And unless the stations between Lynnwood and Northgate start posting volumes like Roosevelt or Beacon Hill, I don’t see 220th having a station. Given the final track profiles, I’m not even sure that a station could be built there anyway (as that needs both a flat and straight section) — even if it was funded in a future referendum.

   as far as i can tell, sound transit did add a flat straight portion there. though perhaps it was removed? it was hard for me to figure out if in the end the flat section was added or not

   >> For that reason, we negotiated a compromise, which drops the bridge rebuilds, modifies the alignment so that it a 220th Street Station would be possible, and builds out the infrastructure so that the two stations can be added at a later date – just barely staying within the budget at $1.321 billion. It’s a good compromise. – (Former) Seattle Councilmember Conlin

   1. > Route 77 is not a key, high-frequency trunk so riders in Lake City have many ways to reach Link

      as of the last lynnwood link (king county bus) connections page, it’ll provide 15 min frequency from 6 am to 10pm

      I think that is Al’s point. It only runs every 15 minutes (instead of 10). The problem is, none of the buses serving Lake City Way are any better. So Al has a point — it isn’t more frequent than any other bus. But the counter-argument is that at least it is still significantly faster.

      The bigger problem is the routing. It barely skirts Lake City Way. It would be much better to do this: https://seattletransitblog.com/2025/10/14/better-bus-service-to-pinehurst-station/. That would provide better frequency *and* better coverage. From the north or east end of Lake City you would have bus stops nearby providing fifteen minute headways. Where they converge you would have 7.5 minute headways. This means someone leaving the station would have a bus running every 7.5 minutes to Lake City (and at worse they have to walk a little). Bitter Lake would have 7.5 minute headways to Link as well. This also wouldn’t cost any money. This is the sort of thing we should have built but the planners are just not doing as good a job as they used to.

8. More stations, slower trip.

   There are two approaches..
   1. Express buses + Link for local trips

   2. Link as a partial express + buses for local trips

   I think the latter is better. Don’t get what’s the use of a light rail station every mile when most people are taking it into Seattle, not for shorter trips that could be done on a bus with red paint. People got to be less afraid of the bus and transfers if we want a faster system for everyone.

   1. I think the latter is better. Don’t get what’s the use of a light rail station every mile when most people are taking it into Seattle, not for shorter trips that could be done on a bus with red paint.
      You have it backwards: most people are taking the light rail for shorter trips inside Seattle. Here and around the world, it’s option 1 that gets significantly more ridership.

      1. Within Seattle, yes. But in Shoreline and Lynnwood it’s the other way around.

      2. 220th St *300~*500 1,100

         Is this really worth a station? Where is this location even… Do people even want to travel here?

         If a station has high input/output all day, it should be built. If it’s mostly one direction peak travel, then stations should be sparse and focus on locations that act as the best hub. Lynnwood is clearly doing well in that regard compared to other stations to the south.

         Pinehurst seems okay but still not worth it in my opinion. I rode the Link and in that area it seemed like a minor low density destination that’s mostly meant to pick up folks as an express. Sure maybe some TOD comes out of it, but you slow down the trip by another 2-3 mins for everyone else in Lynnwood for each one of these stations that you add.

      3. The way ST built the light rail is as a pseudo commuter rail. There are fewer express buses into Seattle now, so riders expect the light rail to be efficient to get into Seattle from the south of north.

         That means a reliable fast ride from SeaTac and Lynnwood. Adding more stops within Seattle makes sense since that’s the destination. Adding more stops around Shoreline or Rainier Beach does not, especially when those areas have parallel bus routes that serve far more stops and pick up very little ridership to begin with.

         If the 1 Line is meant to be transformed to an extremely long light rail line (which doesn’t make much sense compared to how light rail is built around the world), then we should get compensating commuter rail / express bus service. But we don’t have that at the moment outside of the Sounder. And most certainly we should not be deleting people’s express bus routes and asking them to board Link instead.

      4. “Is this really worth a station? Where is this location even… Do people even want to travel here?”

         It’s in north Mountlake Terrace, the freeway exit between MT and Lynnwood stations. There are two lowrise office parks there, one with a fair number of insurance workers. Other than that it’s just houses. The lackluster station area and weak commitment to density are why ST was ambivalent about it. The county and the cities really wanted Lynnwood station and wanted MT station, but weren’t very urgent about 220th station. In the end ST put in a stub for a potential future station to keep its options open.

   2. More stations, slower trip.

      That is not true. The more stations the less time it takes to get to the station. This is way more time consuming than the actual time spent on the train. This is why metros all over the world have lots of stations.

      Consider someone in Bitter Lake trying to get to Capitol Hill. This is a typical trip, entirely inside Seattle. If you leave at noon, it takes an hour: https://maps.app.goo.gl/KH4GEbaWThhTUTFZ9. This doesn’t count the time it takes to get to the bus stop (or from the Capitol Hill Station to the actual destination). Part of the problem is that the bus has to go all the way to Northgate. This takes 27 minutes. Another problem is that the bus runs infrequently. These go together. Ridership isn’t that high from Bitter Lake because the trip is so slow. The bus doesn’t run that often because ridership is poor.

      It is quite likely that this station will save those riders about a half hour. That is a huge amount of savings. In contrast, the delay for riders will be minimal. Not only that, but there aren’t that many riders to the north. Most of the ridership is to the south (and those riders never experience a delay). So this will save some people a huge amount of time while delaying others minimally.

      1. Absolutely. I used to live in that area, and if I wanted to go into the city (marching band viewing optional), I would need to budget an afternoon (or most of one) to get there and back, and plan for a 2-3-seat ride. It was enough for me to stay in my neighborhood most of the time and just not bother with the whole… thing. Anything that cuts the bus portion of that ride down improves access immensely.

         Now of course I live in Ballard, and I’m in the same situation, and likely will be for the rest of my working life, but hey, you can’t win ’em all.

   3. It’s a good question, but the fact that the answer isn’t obvious highlights a problem with trying to shoehorn what should really be two separate rail systems into one. Light rail shouldn’t be used for regional express and visa versa.

      When you look around the world there tends to be 2 (or more) types of rail. There is your urban rail with dense stop spacing (and higher frequencies) that covers the densest part of the city, and then there’s regional rail that goes longer distances with fewer stops. For example, in Paris the Metro vs the RER, or in Germany the U-bahn vs the S-bahn.

      Ideally, we would have built regional rail in the current median / express lanes of I-5, with only few stops between Everett and Seattle, and then urban rail with frequent stops from Seattle to maybe only Lynnwood, and ideally not on the I-5 corridor (e.g. Aurora).

      Unfortunately, Link light rail is trying to do both, so it’s very slow for longer trips but also has pretty large gaps (e.g. between Northgate to Roosevelt stations or UW to Capitol Hill station there are big gaps much denser development than anything around 130th or 220th, but they don’t have stops).

      1. It does depend on what city you are talking about for comparison.

         Eg: in Berlin, the u bahn and s bahn aren’t too different in terms of operating speed, but the s bahn does go a bit further. Both could be operated by Link type trains and have the same schedule they have now.

         For the longer distance trips, they have the Regiobahn trains, which are sort of a mixture between Amtrak Cascades and Sounder, but faster than either. They operate over longer distances such as Cascades, but have more frequent stops than Cascades and run every half hour (15 minute peak). Eg: RE1 averages 70 mph (maximum 100 mph) including station stops, but has about 7 station stops between Potsdam and downtown Berlin.

         The longer distance service to nearby cities (like a faster version of Cascades that serves all local stops) helps guarantee there’s enough ridership for sustainable demand. You don’t wind up with something like Sounder North, because of the sheer number of communities connected. If you ran RE1 from Seattle to Bellingham, everything from Bellingham – Seattle to Mt Vernon – Chuckanut Park and Ride becomes faster by transit over driving.

         You’d probably not be able to put it on I-5 though, as the I-5 right of way just doesn’t have the right curvature to allow that operating speed.

      2. “When you look around the world there tends to be 2 (or more) types of rail.”

         That’s what ST refused to do because it thought it would cost much more. The result is a hybrid that’s mediocre at both kinds of trips.

      3. Yeah the trips do become mediocre because of ST’s hybrid mistake. I think the best course of action is to invest more into express bus service on I-5. Unfortunately tourists will gravitate towards a light rail ride and be disappointed at the 40+ min ride into Seattle… May tempt them to go for Uber instead if they think it’s worth the money.

         Ideally we have a faster bypass line from the airport connecting to all major stations, or a bus line that serves that purpose.

9. We can all theorize about how big or little Pinehurst Stayion boardings will be. Our opinions will be soon trivial when the station opens in just a few months! And certainly there are no major decisions upcoming that will be needed before the opening date.

   1. Boardings will certainly increase when the Jackson Park golf course is scuttled for an urban village. Huge opportunity there for living, shopping and parks for many vs. a golf outing for a few!

10. I join with Al S and Wesley Lin (above) in their skepticism about these stations. 130th is a popular corridor for motorists as they can avoid Northgate and 145th but there’s nothing around it. Transit riders would have to be going to Roosevelt or Cap Hill to make connecting to Link worth while as there’s already one-seat options to/from downtown from where the 77 is coming from.

    MLT and 185th have been ridership duds. Adding another freeway-adjacent suburban station is a waste of resources. I’d much rather see the dollars redirected in ST Express service, improvements to current stations or shifted (if possible) to ST3.

    1. 130th is a popular corridor for motorists as they can avoid Northgate and 145th but there’s nothing around it.

       You are missing the point of the station. It is about the network. Just look at a map. Lake City is very dense. So is Bitter Lake. Between there you have Pinehurst, which is moderately dense. Then there is Ingraham High School (a destination). Yet you have trips like this and this. These are hour long trips! These aren’t obscure trips, either. The first is to Capitol Hill but it applies to every Link destination. The second is a connection between two major neighborhoods less than three miles apart. It is just as fast to walk, at noon!

       The network is really poor in part because Metro is trying to balance serving Link locations and providing decent service elsewhere. Things get much easier once Pinehurst Station opens. Of course it would be nice if the station itself had the kind of density found on the rest of the east-west corridor but unfortunately Sound Transit decided to run next to the freeway. You make do as best you can.

       1. The point of a rail station is destination – not for mere bus connectivity & transfers. No doubt bus connectivity and transfers are the crucial but a rail station isn’t necessary to achieve it. As I mentioned, a station at 130th St is going to benefits riders living nearby or along the new route 77. But the benefit is miniscule. Riders in these corridors gain a much faster connection to non-downtown destinations, such as Cap Hill. But the further the destination outside of central Seattle, the less likely the demand and thus the value. How many riders are flocking in droves from 130th & Greenwood to Mountlake Terrance or Rainier Beach? If you’re going downtown, people are way more likely to stay on their one-seat rides on the 5 and the E. If you’re going to the UW, there’s already current service on the east side of I-5. Route 77 is needed but it shouldn’t take a light rail station to do it.

       2. “The point of a rail station is destination – not for mere bus connectivity & transfers.”

          So the station should have been at 125th & LCW or 130th & Aurora. The latter was in ST’s Aurora alternative! Instead ST put Link on I-5, so now we need Pinehurst station and bus feeders to get from the villages to it. That’s conceptually the same as the three-block walk from Columbia City station to Columbia City. The station should have been at the center of the village, but the next best thing is a good way between the station and the village — and not making Columbia City residents go to Mt Baker or Othello station because there is no Columbia City station.

       3. “Riders in these corridors gain a much faster connection to non-downtown destinations”

          What is their alternative? A longer ride to Northgate or Shoreline South station, and traffic congestion around both stations. Or RapidRide E, which Ross just said takes an hour from Bitter Lake to Capitol Hill.

       4. “How many riders are flocking in droves from 130th & Greenwood to Mountlake Terrance or Rainier Beach?”

          The whole point of a subway/metro is it serves all these trip pairs as well as going to downtown. A substantial number of people in aggregate make these trips — and would do much so more if the transit network were on par with the average in industrialized countries.

          Snohomish County’s all-day ridership is stunted by the way Snohomish County is, the kind of people who choose to live there), and the less local service to get to Link. But the 130th and 85th areas have much more latent ridership.

       5. The point of a rail station is destination – not for mere bus connectivity & transfers.

          Then you are saying we shouldn’t have built Lynnwood Link at all. Fair enough.

          Sorry, but you have it wrong. Of course it would have been better to run on Aurora or Lake City. But Lynnwood Link — and this station — is worthy for one simple reason. The point of any investment in transit infrastructure is to improve the network. Why do think Vancouver has such good transit ridership? Is it because you can get anywhere on the train? Every station is in the middle of a really dense area? Of course not. Not even close. It is because they have an excellent network. The trains complement the buses. That is the case here.

          As I mentioned, a station at 130th St is going to benefits riders living nearby or along the new route 77. But the benefit is miniscule.

          Oh, bullshit. Miniscule! What part of “hour long trip” don’t you understand? Seriously, look at the trip: https://maps.app.goo.gl/KH4GEbaWThhTUTFZ9. Leave at noon, get there at 1:00 pm. No traffic on the bus, yet it takes 27 minutes. This is after it finally arrives. This is to Capitol Hill, a major destination and less than fifteen minutes from Pinehurst Station. It would be ridiculous to walk to the station from there but it would actually be faster than the current options! That is how slow it is to get there, and you think the time savings are minuscule. Give me a break.

          But the further the destination outside of central Seattle, the less likely the demand and thus the value.

          Correct, which is why it can be argued that this is the station with the most potential in Lynnwood Link (because it is the furthest south — the only one inside the city itself).

          How many riders are flocking in droves from 130th & Greenwood to Mountlake Terrance or Rainier Beach?

          Who cares about Mountlake Terrace? Again, you seem to be arguing against Lynnwood Link.

          There probably aren’t a lot of people taking the train to Rainier Beach from anywhere north of the UW. So what? Rainier Beach Station (so poorly located because it isn’t close to the heart of the neighborhood or the high school) is bound to get fewer riders from the north simply because it is farther south. I doubt there are many riders going from Roosevelt to Rainier Beach either. Does this somehow a big deal? Of course not. Columbia City is bound to get riders from the north as are places like the UW, Capitol Hill and Beacon Hill. You seem to suggest that Lake City and Bitter Lake are like Lynnwood. They aren’t. They are much closer and much more urban. While city borders are arbitrary the people who choose to live in them do so in part because they want to be part of the city.

          If you’re going downtown, people are way more likely to stay on their one-seat rides on the 5 and the E.

          It depends. The 5 is very slow. It takes over forty minutes, even without traffic. It takes close to fifty minutes with traffic. The train will make the trip in less than twenty. That will make up for the transfer, especially if they eventually improve the network and run the buses more frequently. Figure it takes ten minutes to ride the bus and walk from the bus stop to the platform. At worst it is a five minute wait for the train. So the train saves time even when there is no traffic. The E Line is closer to a wash (for trips downtown). Of course not everyone is going downtown.

          As for Lake City, they don’t have an express to downtown. They have to transfer to Link. For them, the fastest option — by far — is to go to Pinehurst Station. The same is true for anyone along the corridor (like those in Pinehurst or Ingraham). Lake City riders have other options, but they aren’t as good. The only question is when Metro will take full advantage of this corridor (like so). I have to assume that at some point Metro will have decent routing in the area, even if they stumble out of the gate.

          Route 77 is needed but it shouldn’t take a light rail station to do it.

          Again, this seems like an argument against Lynnwood Link. Instead of spending money on expanding the subway line (and giving those riders a faster trip to Link destinations) we spend money on bus service. We run buses connecting Lake City with Bitter Lake. We also run a lot of buses to Northgate — a particularly difficult place to serve. Yeah, sure, but that means spending a lot more money on buses. It means that riders in Bitter Lake still have a very slow trip to places served by Link (like Capitol Hill, Beacon Hill, the UW, etc.).

          If anything, it would make more sense to end at 130th. This is the first place that is easy to serve on both sides. There are big neighborhoods to the east and west which means buses that come from the suburbs (e. g. Kenmore) would go through them. Unlike Northgate Way or 145th (other potential termini) you don’t have the traffic mess. Of course the other option is to do like they did at Roosevelt and go away from the freeway. If this station was in Bitter Lake or Lake City then we wouldn’t have this issue. You would serve dense neighborhoods *and* improve the network.

          But we don’t live in that world. They decided to run the train to Lynnwood and run it next to the freeway. Given that, then of course this station makes sense. It just doesn’t make sense to have a train line without any stations.

       6. “Columbia City is bound to get riders from the north”

          Guess who goes to Columbia City from the region? People going to the movie theater, the library, the old-town atmosphere, the farmers’ market, the performing-arts center, the unique shops, churches they belong to, the Beat Walk, events (I encountered an outdoor jazz competition in the park one day), jobs, friends who live there, etc.

          All that adds up to more than zero riders. And just as important is Columbia City residents going to Lake City and everywhere else.

       7. “As for Lake City, they don’t have an express to downtown. They have to transfer to Link. For them, the fastest option — by far — is to go to Pinehurst Station.”

          That statement is factually wrong for most transit trips!

          Pinehurst will be 6 minutes further on Link than Roosevelt when coming from UW or Downtown Seattle. The current 522 schedules show that Roosevelt is only 8-9 minutes from 125th and Lake City Way. Transfer time inside the station excluded (admittedly longer at Roosevelt than at Pinehurst), its a faster travel path. There is no way that a bus will go from Pinehurst to Lake City in 3 minutes — and it’s certainly not “the fastest option — by far”.

          Even if going to Northgate takes 5 minutes longer than Pinehurst (schedules estimate 11-12 minutes today), riding further to Pinehurst to/from the south still takes 2 more minutes. The difference is so negligible that it’s not going to create some sort of massive shift away from Northgate transfers. That’s especially true when twice as many buses will go from Northgate to Lake City than from Pinehurst and those routes cover the Lake City denser areas better.

          Of course, the routes have been finalized for later this year. Pinehurst Station almost certainly open by this summer. The outcome will soon be known — and our comments will be merely academic anyway.

       8. The last plan I saw for ST 522 was to move it to Shoreline South, which would eliminate a fair amount of service in Lake City. That’s why Route 77 does what it does here.

       9. “The last plan I saw for ST 522 was to move it to Shoreline South, which would eliminate a fair amount of service in Lake City.”

          That’s happening as soon as Shoreline finishes the street improvements on 145th, in anticipation of Stride 3. Lake City is not part of the 522’s primary service area: the route is for Woodinville, Bothell, Kenmore, and Lake Forest Park. What they’ve all along told ST they want is the fastest way to downtown. It only goes through Lake City because that’s what its predecessor the 307 did and it was the fastest way to downtown when the 522 went to downtown.

    2. “Transit riders would have to be going to Roosevelt or Cap Hill”

       A lot of people do!

       1. No doubt! I’m one of them. But we don’t need to build an entirely new station to accomplish this. I’ve always advocated for better east-west bus service in north Seattle, such as extending Stride to Greenwood. We don’t need a new light rail station to establish bus connections between Lake City and Greenwood.

       2. The point of 130th station is to get people in Lake City and Bitter Lake to Link efficiently. Lake City to Bitter Lake is a secondary benefit. Sure, you can go to Bitter Lake, but how much can you do there? Whereas if you get to Link, you can get to everywhere Link goes, which is a lot.

       3. We don’t need a new light rail station to establish bus connections between Lake City and Greenwood. [I assume you mean Greenwood Avenue, as in 130th & Greenwood]

          I agree, you don’t. The problem is, that costs money. Think about it from the perspective of Bitter Lake. Metro has to choose whether to run a bus to Northgate (which has a station) or Lake City (which doesn’t). They choose Northgate. They could do both but they would have to come up with extra money for both. This weakens the network. It stretches it too thin — the buses come less often. As it is the bus heading to Northgate runs infrequently. It is also really slow. From bus stop to bus stop it takes 27 minutes.

          So while the 77 is not nearly as good as it should be, it will still be a huge improvement in every respect — even though it won’t require extra service. Riders from Bitter Lake will have a much faster connection to Link. Riders from Lake City also have a faster connection to Link (although the time savings won’t be as dramatic). At the same time Bitter Lake and Lake City riders will be finally be connected. This will also help other riders heading to Lake City from other places (like along Aurora). Oh, and riders in Lake City will have a faster ride to Link as well. In short, you dramatically improve the network without spending extra money on service.

          As I’ve said before, you can make a good case against Lynnwood Link but if you are going to run a train to Lynnwood it should have all the stations (although the 148th station should really be at 155th). To do otherwise is just silly. It is like buying a car but trying to save a few bucks by not adding tires.

    3. None of the stations north of Northgate are at a destination of any sort. Even if you extended the line to Everett, Everett station isn’t really close to much.

       So, it means building a system designed for feeder buses. 130th at least doesn’t have a major freeway interchange of the tangled mess at Northgate that takes so long for buses to extract themselves from.

       1. Exactly. People keep ignoring this. Imagine 185th is the infill station. We would have the same argument. Same with Mountlake Terrace. Same with 148th (although people would also argue that we should have put the station at 155th). They are all basically the same — very little potential walk-up ridership and thus highly dependent on feeder buses. The only thing that makes Lynnwood different is that it is the northern terminus. It gets buses from the north. If the line is extended it will lose that title, and with it a lot of riders. Those riders will get off the bus a couple minutes sooner so that they can ride the train a couple minutes longer (oh joy).

    4. @Ross…”miniscule” benefits in the way of the *amount* of riders that will benefit from a faster ride. No doubt travel times to/from Bitter Lake and areas close to Link will be faster. But again, how strong is the demand/how many people are travelling between these places and is it enough to necessitate an entire train station versus connecting them to the ones we already have at 145th or Northgate? Additionally, if I’m at Lake City & 125th, we should rely on frequent service between Lake City and Northgate to satisfy both the demand for Link connections and bus connections… rather than erecting a new rail station next to the freeway for the mere ask of transfers.

       Network improvement? Nah. that’s just wasteful.

       I’m not arguing against the concept of Lynnwood Link. I do, however, believe much of it was poorly executed (along with Federal Way Link) due to their freeway adjacent stations. When Lynnwood Link expands further, there will be more value as it reaches Alderwood, hopefully the eastside of AshWay and Mariner – areas that will have more value than 130th St.

       1. So you are saying Bitter Lake is tiny? Sorry, but that is ridiculous. And exactly how many times must I point out that getting from Bitter Lake to Northgate takes a really long time.

          Network improvement? Nah. that’s just wasteful.

          So you are saying a more grid-like system is not a good network? Better tell that to every transit expert in the world. Oh, and while you are at it, tell it to Vancouver. Sure, they have the highest ridership for a city its size but that grid has nothing to do with it.

          I’m not arguing against the concept of Lynnwood Link. I do, however, believe much of it was poorly executed (along with Federal Way Link) due to their freeway adjacent stations.

          That misses the point. Everyone with any sense says the same thing. But given the choice — Lynnwood Link or buses that run to Northgate, which one would you choose? Put it another way. Given the same alignment (next to the freeway) would you have any stations prior to Lynnwood?

          Oh, and Alderwood? Seriously? You criticize Bitter Lake by suggesting that its riders so far out of town that they are only interested in commuting downtown but somehow Alderwood is within the urban core?

       2. Correction: *building a station* for the sake of network improvement in a low density area is wasteful. The concept of network improvement in and of itself is very meaningful.

          “Given the same alignment (next to the freeway) would you have any stations prior to Lynnwood?” …….Of course! MLT and 145th – not a redundant station at 130th.

          “Oh, and Alderwood? Seriously? You criticize Bitter Lake by suggesting that its riders “………….

          Nope. I did no such thing. I criticized the small *demand* of riders needing a faster connection to Link than what we already have – not the neighborhood or its vicinity. Current Bitter Lake / Greenwood riders are using the 5 and E because like most people, they prefer a one-seat ride. And if a faster connection to Link is needed, we can adjust current routes we already have (i.e. 345) or add more bus service – not build a rail station and argue that we need it for a faster ride for a neighborhood. THAT is wasteful.

       3. Wait, so you like the station at 145th, but not the station at 130th. Please explain, because they appear to be quite similar. Both are very close to the freeway (and the same golf course). Neither will ever get many walk-up riders. Neither has a nearby destination. Both are highly dependent on bus ridership. So why do you think 145th is a worthy station but 130th isn’t?

       4. Oh, and it is pretty silly to talk about “waste” when also supporting Lynnwood Link. Imagine it only had one station, at Lynnwood. This would get about as many riders as it does now — maybe a bit more. You would save some money by not building the other stations. But guess what? The cost per rider would go way up! Why? Because you lost a bunch of riders. Lynnwood Link cost about $3 billion to build. Most of that cost was for the line itself, not the stations. Remove the stations and you save a little money but you lose a large portion of the riders.

          Folks seem to ignore that. Stations (on the ground or up in the air) are fairly cheap. Look at the charts here: https://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2016/04/06/youve-got-50-billion-for-transit-now-how-should-you-spend-it/. Now granted, the ridership estimates and costs are out of date, but the idea remains the same. The best value — the project with the lowest subsidized cost — is Ballard Link. Graham Street is second. My guess is (given the cost of Ballard Link) Graham Street is now the best value. It would be the most cost effective project in ST3. Pinehurst Station isn’t on there but it would be similar. Not because it would get a lot of riders but because it doesn’t cost much.

          It will cost about $250 million to build (it would have been cheaper to build it with the rest of Lynnwood Link, but whatever). That is about 1/12 the cost of the rest of Lynnwood Link. Lynnwood Link averaged about 8,800 riders a day the last year. That means if it gets about 750 riders (or about 800 riders a day) it is a similar value. If you want to complain about the high cost of what is a fairly simple station, by my guest. They screwed up. But even with the inflated cost, it doesn’t need to get many riders to be in the same ballpark as the rest of the extension.

          That is just looking at it from a ridership standpoint. Clearly those riders save time (versus the alternative). It also ignores the overall impact to the network. You keep dismissing this, as if it doesn’t matter. Sure, you can spend a bunch of money on buses to try and compensate but it ends up being expensive and second rate (see First Hill). There is just no substitute for a train station at an obvious crossroad.

          Again, this is the Vancouver model. It is why Vancouver has done so well. They have, as Jarrett Walker put it, an almost perfect grid. Consider how the Canada Line fits into that grid. The Canada Line runs through the middle of Vancouver, in a north-south direction. As he emphasizes, the destinations are on the edges (to the east and west). Thus the stations themselves are not big destinations. Some areas are slowly adding density, but you can also see single family houses right across the street from the station. This is clearly not a major destination. I’m sure bean counters were thinking “Is it worth it to add a station there, given so little is there?” The answer is: Yes! Of course it is. It enables you to build the grid that transit experts praise and that leads to such high ridership. Remove that station and the 49 — a major bus route in Vancouver — has to deviate from the main corridor. Riders to the destinations to the east and west encounter big delays. Maybe not as bad as the delays on 145th or the major looping route to Northgate, but still significant.

          It really isn’t that complicated. A line should have a station at major cross streets. The fact that we don’t was a poor decision. It is being penny wise but pound foolish.

11. The 220th St. Station was included with ridership estimates that only reflect ST2 projects being completed. It was not included in ST3 and therefore no modeling has been done to show what ridership would be when ST3 projects are open. The board accepted the argument that it may make more sense at that time. Leaving a space for it in the alignment did not add significant cost. Ridership will be higher for 220th with access farther North into Snohomish County, which is where many employees in the area come from.

    Lynnwood and Canyon Park are growing and I don’t know the exact numbers now, but when the ST2 alignment was being considered Melody Hill, the area around 220th, was the second largest concentration of employment in SnpaoCo, after downtown Everett. There is a lot of health care and administration, Premera, etc and room to build infill density between 220th at I-5 and Swift Blue Line Stations / Swedish Hospital at 216th. While the existing MLT station has decent auto access, it’s worth noting that 220th would be slightly closer to Edmonds downtown.

    It will take a strong push from mayors in the area and county reps on the ST board to get it funded in ST4 or later. Having a lower cost project to throw in is a good chip for SnoCo to hold in it’s pocket.

12. There has been a push before to partially convert the Jackson Park golf course to housing, despite the current ban on converting park land. With a more friendly city leadership, I could see this making headway. That’s the only way I see 130th st station living up to its potential.

    https://www.theurbanist.org/2020/05/27/lets-tee-off-for-housing/
    I had previously seen a website dedicated to this proposition, but now I can’t find that.

    1. I still think City of Seattle should do a land swap for the 18 acre Talaris site they just purchased. Daylight Yesler Creek and create a new parkspace at Talaris to compensate – shave off 18 acres at the south end of Jackson to kickstart redevelopment.

       1. They need to daylight Talaris but otherwise there should be very dense buildings there. It should be similar to the Thornton Place project. It is ridiculous that a place so close to the UW has low density housing.

       2. It should still be possible to identify acres of land across the city to convert to park to swap for acreage of Jackson Park immediately next to the station for optimal TOD. Could do a swap of public land, a private developer could offer up private land to swap, or some combination.

    2. There is this group: https://jp4all.org/. There efforts seem to have stalled. I’ve tried to reach out to them but haven’t had any luck.

       The housing issue is bound to be controversial. They would have to amend the city law that prevents them from turning a park into housing. My guess is if they ever convert the park they would end up with some new housing but not as much as housing proponents want. There is a political aspect to this. The tree lobby is strong. They could easily support adding a lot of trees to the park. Golf courses need lots of grass — parks don’t. But if you propose a lot of new housing where there are trees, you lose them as an ally.

       The geography is challenging. A lot of the areas nearby are swampy — they can’t be developed. The area that would be the easiest to develop (from a practical an aesthetic standpoint) is near the clubhouse and parking lot. This is not particularly close to the station. The area closest to the station is to the north of the church. I could see development there (to the south and west of the three ponds) but tree advocates would go ballistic. Even if you manage to broker a compromise, my guess is you don’t end up with that much new housing (and relatively little that is close to the station).

       You still have poor fundamentals for walk-up ridership. You still have the space used by the freeway as well as North Acres Park. (They could also replace the park with housing but that seems even less likely). What is more likely to happen is to see the existing housing get a lot denser. Better egress through the neighborhoods would also help. For example this is the way that Google says you can walk to the station from the east. This is what OpenMaps says you can do. It is quite possible that you can walk that way, but it is overgrown. Either way it suggests that for a little bit of work the pathway between that little neighborhood and the station could be easier and more pleasant. That wouldn’t matter much now (there are only a handful of houses there) but they could build apartments there. For the same reason it would be nice if they built a pathway along 130th on both sides of 10th Avenue NE. This would allow people to take a straighter path to the station (less back and forth).

       I think the areas where we’ll see the most walk-up ridership is to the northwest and southeast. In both cases, riders will walk along Roosevelt. To the northwest, Roosevelt is a residential street to the east of 1st. They should shut off 1st to cars (that project stalled with the last mayor — time to dust it off again). The diagonal saves a little time and just as importantly, it feels faster. To the southwest there are already some apartments. There will be more. The walk isn’t pleasant (Roosevelt is the main corridor at that point) but they are making it more pedestrian/bike friendly. The only issue there is whether it will slow down the buses too much.

       Speaking of which, that is where the bulk of the ridership will come from. This is what happens when you follow the freeway. You never get that many walk-up riders. The parks don’t help, but the bigger issue is the freeway itself. Most of the ridership will come from urban neighborhoods to the east and west (where they should have put the station).

       1. “We can’t build housing, there are trees” pretty much sums up the dysfunction. God forbid we plant new trees in a different part of the same park.

       2. I did some walking in the area earlier today so I have an update. The Open Maps route is legit (https://caltopo.com/m/2PDNQ8H). It is a bit steep but saves about a tenth of a mile. Going the other way is fine too.

          In contrast, while both Google Maps and Open Maps show this route: https://maps.app.goo.gl/opvHKdrE6uhtZxSh9 to be a straightforward pathway, it isn’t. It is a swampy mess. So if the city tried to improve the pathway they would want to work on that as well (maybe get the help of Washington Trail Association). I see no reason why the trail can’t extend further west, thus making for a straight shot (on 130th) right to the station from due east. It is worth noting that Link is frequent here, which means it is more appealing. So you might get more people interested in a long walk if it is followed by a short wait.

    3. It wonder if council could rewrite the park land ban in such a way to reclassify only Jackson Park? This way we thread the needle of appealing to both urbanists and NIMBY environmentalists

       1. Can’t it just write an exception for Jackson Park and leave the ban in place? It’s not favoring one private company or person over another, since it owns all the parks. I’m hesitant to weaken the ban without a city council vote for each park individually, in case the city gets overzealous in converting parks for dubious benefits.

       2. I would think that it’s easily possible to exempt park land from the moratorium with a public vote.

          I think the chances of it passing are improved if there is a solid development proposal that the public would see, and it probably needs a large public park for everyone as part of it.

    4. An expensive but elegant solution could be to put a lid over the freeway to create a direct access from Roosevelt Way and/or 133rd to the north entrance of the station, which will improve the station walkshed to the northwest.

       The cheap solution would be a simple pedestrian bridge, like at Shoreline 148th, but a bolder move would be a lid. If this lid included public space, something simple like some basketball and pickleball courts, that square footage could be “swapped” with park lank, allowing for a building to be built in the SW corner of the park immediately across from the station (for example).

       This is an expense way to create “new” land, but with I5 in a trench around the station, a large lid like at Montlake or Mercer Island could really make for a better station environment. Unlocking housing is good, and perhaps a way to finance a lid (if the new housing is market rate)

       1. A bridge or a cap would be nice but I would not prioritize it. The southern entrance to the station is pretty close to 130th. It is not like 145th Station (which they ended up renaming “148th” because it was so far north). They’ve talked about it (as an extension of Roosevelt Way) and it would be nice, but I don’t see it as being that important. There are a lot of other bridges (and caps) that I would like to see first. For example a bridge at 47th NE would be huge for cyclists. It would allow bikers to go east west from the U-District to Wallingford (without fighting traffic or dropping down to the Burke Gilman (and potentially going uphill again). Likewise, any cap downtown (as an extension to the freeway park) would provide an enormous benefit to pedestrians. It would shorten the walk for a lot of people and just make that part of town a lot more pleasant.

    5. “That’s the only way I see 130th st station living up to its potential.”

       I agree with your assessment. I think that changing the station area land use is the best and even the only conceptual way to create lots more riders for the station. The way that it could realistically happen is not clear to me as there are major political and environmental obstacles — but that doesn’t make the statement untrue.

       Others try to argue that higher ridership can be achieved with more local buses. I am skeptical of this making a big difference because the stations just north and south of Pinehurst already have bus transit hubs for bus idling (waiting for boardings) and driver breaks and loading several buses at once, so these will be where Metro should prefer to send buses — and where arriving Link riders would prefer to transfer. There will be some additional station activity at Pinehurst from bus transfers — but I don’t see it being important enough to make the station get anywhere close to what other Lynnwood Link stations get. I think it will be more like how Route 50 adds some riders at Columbia City.

       Finally, redesigning a Metro network should not be done with creating more riders at Pinehurst Station as the top priority. Bus networks should benefit all tripmaking. Taking buses away from the Northgate area is making bus riding take longer to reach the local destinations there — including retail and medical destinations in addition to a college. Buses going to Northgate offer a double benefit — local destinations and a Link station — while Pinehurst offers just a Link station.

       As the data coming from this summer will almost certainly show, the station won’t get many riders. I actually think it will create a badly needed splash of cold water for the ST Board, who hasn’t shown any interest in factoring into account station ridership potential in their planning in recent years. I think the effect on Link travel time will not be that high as a one-time decision. I’m hoping that the coming low ridership embarrassment will instead spur a more important discussion about how to justify the several more relatively low-use and expensive new stations proposed for the ST3 network.

       Stations alone are not destinations. They are merely transfer points. Destinations are instead the surrounding station areas.

       1. “redesigning a Metro network should not be done with creating more riders at Pinehurst Station as the top priority. Bus networks should benefit all tripmaking.”

          That’s what the 77 does. It fulfills transit best practices in three ways:
          1. It’s a Link feeder for two urban villages.
          2. It connects the two villages to each other.
          3. It’s part of a grid of east-west and north-south routes.

          It would be even better if it were extended further east to serve more of Lake City directly, and northwest to Shoreline College to give it a major anchor on the west. (Rerouting the 75 could do the first part, and extending the 75 could do the second part.)

          But let’s not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The hardest part is the approval and capital cost to build the station. The 77 is an initial route that fulfills some of the goals. A future bus restructure could make it even better.

          “Stations alone are not destinations.”

          Yes they are, if your real destination is in the 10-15 minute walk circle. Bellevue Downtown station is so strategic because there are tons of jobs and destinations around it, and places you can stopover at in the middle of a trip, and places you can grab a bite to eat at while waiting for a transfer. Even just increasing the 77’s frequency to 10 minutes would make it better.

       2. Others try to argue that higher ridership can be achieved with more local buses. I am skeptical of this making a big difference because the stations just north and south of Pinehurst already have bus transit hubs for bus idling (waiting for boardings) and driver breaks and loading several buses at once, so these will be where Metro should prefer to send buses — and where arriving Link riders would prefer to transfer.

          What? Who cares if there is a layover at the station. That really doesn’t matter for most routes.

          Every station between Northgate and Mountlake Terrace is in in the middle of an east-west corridor. This means that a bus going east-west should not stop there. It should keep going until it has gone further east or west. The only buses that should stop there are those heading north-south. But since the train line runs north-south, there really aren’t many natural corridors attracting many riders that way. Fifth NE, between 148th and 185th is one. It is currently served by the 365. But even that bus doesn’t layover there (it keeps going to Northgate). The 346 does end there, but it is clearly flawed. It gets terrible ridership and terrible ridership per service hour. Metro is thinking of attaching it to another bus (like the 65 or 72) in a desperate attempt to get more ridership. An alternative would be to reroute it, and have it keep going on Meridian. There are two obvious options. One is going straight (to Northgate) and replacing the 365. The 365 could end at 148th Station (making it the odd stub route). But I could also see it being extended to 130th, where it would cross over and then run on 5th (replacing that part of the 75). Even if there was a layover there it wouldn’t use it. More to the point, it really doesn’t matter. That modification (which many have suggested) wouldn’t send that many riders to Pinehurst. That is because, the the ridership comes from the east and west. That is true for every station between Northgate and Mountlake Terrace.

          The layovers are nice, but they really aren’t that important. Stride 3 will go to 148th Station (while it really should go to the U-District). This bus will — for no good reason — end there. Likewise, the 333 — for no good reason — ends at the station as well. But that really doesn’t improve travel to the station. If both the 333 and Stride 3 ended at Shoreline College (as they should) you would still have the same level of service to the station. The layover really doesn’t change the dynamic.

          The reason the Pinehurst Station makes sense is the same reason all the other stations make sense. They have strong east-west potential. I think 130th is the strongest of the bunch in that regard (for proximity reasons) but there are plenty of similarities.

       3. But let’s not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The hardest part is the approval and capital cost to build the station.

          Exactly Mike, well said. The 77 is definitely flawed but it will be much better than what exists now. In the future the network could be better.

    6. “That’s the only way I see 130th st station living up to its potential.”

       The primary purpose of 130th station is to enable short feeders from Lake City and Bitter Lake to Link. Growth in the station area is a bonus but is secondary. Even the most optimistic proposals for station area growth would leave it much smaller than Lake City or Bitter Lake, and without large retailers that would draw people from other areas like the other two villages have.

       1. Oh my gosh what, I can also see another purpose for this station to be a Shoreline South/148th bypasser which has heavy congestion… It’s also going to link Aurora to light rail, the E Line has been a way to get from Aurora to Downtown Seattle from 130th, but Pinehurst Station is going to strengthen that connection. The E Line is so slow since it travels on congested Aurora, the Aurora speed limit is 25 mph, and it makes way too many stops. I did see an article that was released in 2012 on adding stops to the E Line.

    7. There are two strategic issues with converting the golf course the city needs to ask.

       1. How many of the city’s five public golf courses does it really need in the 21st century? Especially with the shrinking number of golfers. To me golfing is what my parents’ generation did, partly to shmooze with business contacts. Would three golf courses be reasonable? Which three courses are the best for golfing? Both in terms of the course’s features and its accessibility via transit.

       2. Could we shrink Jackson Park golf course instead of eliminating it? Could we take the northern part of the course for housing and more intensive park uses that would serve more people and a wider cross-section of the population?

       1. The second option is probably the obvious answer. I do see what you’re saying on the first one but they’re a great way to generate revenue especially that the majority of those golfers are rich. The Jackson Park golf course is redundant with the one near Carkeek Park and the Jackson Park one should probably be eliminated… That leaves us with the ability to create TOD there! Trust me I go to a school beside a golf course and I don’t see many people and at the same time I do see a good amount sometimes. My point is that they can be a good way to generate revenue when you know that as a mayor your city is short on money and you know that golfing is a rich people thing… But only one problem, what would another good tourist attraction be near Shoreline South? Shrinking the golf course is probably the best solution.

       2. “the majority of those golfers are rich”

          The argument for the golf courses is that the fee is lower than private courses, so they can and do get working-class golfers. Are most people at the public golf courses really rich?

       3. “what would another good tourist attraction be near Shoreline South?”

          We don’t need a tourist attraction. We need something that meets Seattle residents’ everyday or regular needs, and that can be created or relocated from somewhere less transit accessible. Tourists can visit the waterfront, UW, and the Ballard Locks and Nordic Museum.

       4. Also, I don’t think the city makes much money from the golf courses. I think that was one of the reasons the city had started thinking of maybe closing one or two of them.

       5. Could we shrink Jackson Park golf course instead of eliminating it?

          Definitely. It could become a 9-hole course instead of an 18-hole course. I also think it is highly likely they keep the driving range. This is the only part that actually makes money for the city (even though the city charges people to go golfing). It also doesn’t take up that much space. With a future park you could easily walk around it.

          I think there are two issues that get conflated. One is turning the golf course into a regular park. I think this is quite plausible. It happened in Bothell at the former Wayne golf course. I could easily see it happening here.

          The other aspect is to turn some of it into housing. That is really unusual. I don’t think the City of Bothell did that and I don’t we’ve done that, anywhere. Maybe in the distant past, but I don’t think so.

          Could we take the northern part of the course for housing and more intensive park uses that would serve more people and a wider cross-section of the population?

          This gets into what I wrote about up above. There is no way the entire area gets developed. It also wouldn’t be that good (from a transit perspective) if it was. The park is huge. That is the nature of golf courses. It is also surrounded by green belts. It is not flat, either, as you can see with this map. If they develop in the area, I think it will be only one a small section. They will do their best to preserve the existing trees. The only area that makes sense for development is the southwest and the northeast (close to the two stations). Other considerations: We can’t build in a swamp or pond. It makes sense to build closest to the station. We need a road to serve the developments. Ideally we preserve as much of the forest as possible. This would also be attractive to people that live there. I was hoping to find a map of the golf course showing the holes (which would make this easier to understand) but until then, the aerial view will have to suffice. With that in mind, here are some thoughts:

          The area closest to the church could easily be developed. That is where the “green” is. There is a slight slope until you get to the woods (to the east). The section of woods is really steep — might as well keep it as woods. To the east of the woods it reaches another plateau (where there is another green and a sand trap). Again, I think you could develop there without too much objection. There is already an existing one lane road so that isn’t a big issue as I see it. Beyond that it gets swampy. I could see some development to the north of that first parcel as well. Pretty much everything to the north until you get close to the pond as well. There is another area to the east of those trees that I could see being developed. That’s about it in terms of proximity to this station.

          For 148th station there are two parallel fairways. I could see both being developed. It is pretty flat through there.

          But in both cases it would be very difficult, politically. People would fear the precedent. There are other parks that are close to stations. Many of them are in the suburbs — Twin Ponds in Shoreline; Veterans Memorial Park in Mountlake Terrace; Scriber Creek in Lynnwood (although that is probably more swampy greenbelt than park). There are others in Seattle, although they tend to be small like Cal Anderson; or the big greenbelt that goes by just about every station in Rainier Valley. But there are plenty of parks that are really big and could add housing. I’m not saying it can’t happen or shouldn’t happen but it seems like a huge political lift without that much gain. You really aren’t going to change the city that much by allowing a bit of development in a park — we need to change the zoning rules everywhere. I have no interest in adding a bunch of housing to Discovery Park but I do think that we should add a lot more housing in Magnolia. The latter would have a much bigger impact on transit (as well as the cost of housing).

       6. @Mike (messages crossed) — The city loses money on the golf courses but makes money on the driving range. Of course golfers will (accurately) point out that the city loses money on just about every other park use.

       7. The city loses money on the golf courses but makes money on the driving range. Of course golfers will (accurately) point out that the city loses money on just about every other park use.

          Sure. The purpose of a park isn’t to make money. The city can and should make various recreation options available on its park lands, in a way that fits within the amount of public subsidy we have budgeted for parks. I think it’s notable though that you can look to book a tee time at Jackson Park tomorrow and you’ll have to pay $20-46 plus tax per person, and that apparently doesn’t even break even on the full cost of operating the facility.

          I have no objection to public golf courses in principle. I do however believe that a park that size near a major transportation hub, where the city wants to add residential density, should be available for more than ~100 people to use at a time. It should be open to a variety of free recreational options similar to other large urban parks. It should not require an admission fee starting at $20 and be devoted exclusively for the least-space-efficient sport ever devised.

       8. @Eric — I agree. But I think that is a slightly different argument. The two can be combined, of course. The park as it stands now can only be enjoyed by those willing to spend quite a bit of money. At the same time, the city doesn’t actually earn a profit.

          There is also an exclusionary argument. Most park equipment is multi-use. You can ride your bike on the basketball court. You can play all sorts of sports on the baseball diamond or football field. But the golf course is pretty much just for golf. I suppose someone could just walk the course (instead of trying to hit the tiny ball with the club) but if they were to say, throw a Frisbee (and thus play Frisbee golf) my guess is people would complain. The only time the park is general use (and free) is when it snows.

       9. “Twin Ponds in Shoreline; Veterans Memorial Park in Mountlake Terrace; Scriber Creek in Lynnwood (although that is probably more swampy greenbelt than park).”

          And we should keep them: there one of the destinations Link riders can use those stations for. I intend to go to Twin Ponds Park when the ped bridge is built. I was going to go to Veterans Memorial more but for some reason the direct path from the bus bays was cut off when Link was built: you now have to go all the way around the park on 236th on 58th. You used to be able to walk from the bus bays straight through the park to the library and city hall and the houses there. I checked this when Link opened to see what multifamily options were in walking distance of the station now, what retail amenities they had in the neighborhood, and whether there were new destinations that would draw people from outside. It’s possible that when the empty lots on the east side of the station are built, that will restore the direct path to the park, but I’m afraid it might not.

          Scriber Lake Park is quiet inside: it has a boardwalk along the swamp amidst woodland. It’s a natural oasis where the city feels far away and you can’t hear it much, like part of the Cross Kirkland Connector trail, or Meydenbauer Park was in the 80s before the renovation destroyed the ambience. So it’s a valuable gem that Lynnwood must keep.

          There need to be parks near Link stations so that people from the surrounding cities and region can get to them on frequent transit. Seattle’s large parks are mostly peripheral with only a half-hourly coverage route to them, so parks near Link are especially important. But regular parks meet a larger cross-section of the population’s needs than golf courses do.

       10. I am in animal rescue (Peregrine Falcons) and tree planting. I would love for Jackson Park to get converted to part-housing part-park as long as it increases the total tree count.

       11. I know little about golf; my parents made me take a few lessons in it in junior high. But isn’t a driving range to practice shooting and putting repeatedly? While a course has more complications and challenges.

           So why would a driving range be so much more lucrative than the course? Are there a lot of people why just want to practice hitting but don’t want to do the course? Why would they want to do that? It sounds boring. I’d think people would want to practice golfing in order to golf. When people play tennis, they sometimes hit the wall repeatedly, but usually they just find a friend and play tennis.

       12. Mike, can I introduce you to Topgolf?

       13. In Scotland, all golf courses, even the prestigious ones, are open to the public in the morning for walking. It should be possible for the golf courses to be used for more than golfing.

           Golf is a good “placeholder” use for suburban land use. As the land use around Jackson, West Seattle, Jefferson transform from low rise to midrise, the park use will change.

13. With Pinehurst Station coming, here’s what I think a restructure should look like for Pinehurst Station:

    – Send the 75 to Bitter Lake like the proposed 77, it’s not the best place to end the 75 but for now it’s acceptable. This has been proposed by many, though the 75 would continue to through-route with the 45.

    – The 372 would be split, the new 72 (similar to Metro’s proposal) would run between Lake City and U District, the 72 would basically be the 372’s routing on weekends, instead it runs 7 days a week every 10 minutes.

    – The current 372 would take over the proposed 77’s path between Ravenna and U District Station, except it would continue south on University Way NE to UW Medical Center and use the Boat St layover (replacing the proposed 45). The 372 would run on the full route 7 days a week every 15 minutes and have its schedule adjusted for timed 7.5 minute frequencies between UW Bothell and 145th on the 372/522.

    Here are some considerations I made:

    – The proposed 72 would not go to Shoreline South/148th due to the overlap with the 522. I also find this unnecessary because the 372 continues to run in this proposal, so there is no need for a 522-72 transfer.

    – Continued service from LFP, Kenmore, and Bothell south of 145th. I’m not sure if there’s enough ridership stats to prove that a majority of those riders would be headed to light rail when you need two of each. The 522 would connect Northshore to light rail and the 372 would connect Northshore to Lake City and Maple Leaf without having to transfer. You still need some way to head to Lake City without transferring.

    – Riders to be headed from Shoreline South/148th to Lake City on the proposed 72 can use the 1/2 lines and the proposed 75 or the 65.

    – Since we want to avoid a major restructure, I would suggest to leave 5th Ave NE without buses between 125th and Northgate Way for now as likely covering it would end up in a major restructure. However Ross has proposed a 76 between Northgate and Pinehurst… But is a route this short worth running? I don’t think so, 5th can be covered in the future once a major restructure is possible. Plus this was Metro’s intention before they decided to keep the 75 running to Northgate, the early proposal truncated the 75 in Lake City and ran it less frequently.

    Any thoughts?

    1. Just to back up here, you get a lot more out of overlapping in Seattle than you do overlapping north of Seattle. It takes a while to drive through Lake Forest Park (even in express mode) and you don’t get many riders.

       This gets into one of the main problems with the 522. We really only need one route on Bothell Way. Buses like the 228 or 331 (which will overlap the future Stride 3 line) are doing so mainly because of logistics (although it enhances each route to have a better anchor). But the main route on Bothell Way should continue on Lake City Way. It wouldn’t be the end of the world if buses could just layover at 145th but there are no plans to do so. Thus we have a gap between 125th and 145th that isn’t easy to fill. This is where you have the most potential ridership. Yet the Stride line avoids it.

       Thus if you were to extend one of the two routes north of Lake City, it does make sense to extend it to 148th. Not because it is a great connection, but because once you reach the city border, that is the shortest potential layover. In my opinion the 65 and 72 should both follow the same path between 125th and 145th. That gives you better frequency on that section. It makes the transfer between Stride 3 (which is supposed to run often) and Lake City much more palatable. At the same time, you’ve improved service between 125th and 145th. Sending a bus to Kenmore (or Bothell) would accomplish the same thing but at a higher cost. Another (more cost effective) option would be to have both buses stop in Lake City. That means that only the 65 runs between 125th and 145th. This would be less than ideal but I could see this happening.

       Of course the ideal solution is to just change the route of the future Stride Line (and send it to the U-District). I know, I know — it is “BRT” — it can’t possibly change. But they really aren’t doing anything special along 145th to deal with the bus. It will be stuck in the same traffic as everyone else. At least there are some BAT lanes on Lake City and maybe they could add more in the future. This would be much better for riders and not that expensive.

14. The Pinehurst Station design is refreshingly compact and efficient. Not sprawling like other ST stations. It should be used as a template for future elevated station designs.

    1. That’s a function of not boring a deep tunnel Link segment. Consider how efficient the circulation at new Federal Way Link stations are also laid out. It appears that there are even fewer steps to/from these three new stations than Pinehurst will be.

    2. Tbf, there’s really only 2 overly large link stations, Tukwila and SeaTac but they were built in a different era of planning compared to now where ST design team has learned what works and what doesn’t from the 1st generation stations (I’m not including DSTT in this Convo because they were built before Link was conceived). Tukwila while definitely feels overbuilt now may end up benefiting from it in the longer term if there ever ends up being an extension down the West Seattle Peninsula via Burien to go to either Renton or the Kent Valley. Becoming a major non- Seattle transfer point in the system.

       1. The Stride station on SR518 might connect directly to TIBS via the mezzanine, which would make the mezzanine useful and not just a thing one has to walk through.

15. I think this post is ill-timed.

    Pinehurst Station will soon open. Metro has finalized the route structure. Any speculation here will be soon forgotten once these changes happen in just a few more months.

    How about revisiting this post in a year? By then, we will actually see real-world demand and travel time data.

    Meanwhile, we have the larger ST capital shortfall of tens of billions with the West Seattle Link as its poster child and DSTT2 lurking in the wings. The DSTT2/ Ballard DEIS is delayed and the Board must make major decisions about the shortfall in 2026.

    Let’s not squabble and create dissension about the inevitable outcomes with the Pinehurst opening and Metro rerouting. Let’s instead prepare ourselves to come together about responding to the generational decision about our transit system and tax money soon coming with West Seattle Link decisions. This seems like the most important transit planning advocacy needed in 2026.

    1. hi Al, the idea was to write about the post before the pinehurst station. also metro was still changing the bus routes and we weren’t sure what exactly was going to be the final one.

       > Let’s not squabble and create dissension about the inevitable outcomes with the Pinehurst opening and Metro rerouting.

       perhaps I could have changed the tone of the article a bit. For reference I originally drafted this article back in fall 2024 but i didn’t really finish it until now. so back then it was going to be ~2 years away.

    2. The article is informational: it’s telling us what the agencies and governments have put together when Pinehurst opens, and what the situation at 220th is. I actually think they should have been in separate articles because there are very different issues in each place. But the article overall is telling what others are doing or desiring.

16. For the 220th St. infill, I’m skeptical about adding yet another bus route between downtown Edmonds and the light rail. It just seems more practical to focus on upgrading the current bus network to frequent network standards and developing the areas surrounding those stations. For example, Community Transit’s relatively new Route 202 connects a lot of the medical facilities on Highway 99 (and apartments in the vicinity) with the Lynnwood station, but it runs half hourly during the day and hourly at night and on weekends.

    The neighborhood, like the entire stretch between Highway 99 and I-5, would need serious re-development for it to be worth it. I’ve seen some interesting redevelopment plans for the 128TH ST station, that’s the kind of effort I would like to see for a potential 220TH ST station, otherwise it’s just overflow parking for Lynnwood, which probably won’t be needed, because Lynnwood would no longer be the end of the line.

17. Pinehurst will take some time to fill out to be sure, and it will likely never become a major destination, but I would expect it to see a lot of development over the next decade or so. The biggest problem has been how long it’s taken for Seattle to release the comp plan. For a point of comparison, 148th station is similarly constrained and has thousands of units in the pipeline.

18. Wesley, the Route 77 map you provided is from the P3 outreach phase. It had the loop shown. The adopted ordinance version will use 30th Avenue NE between NE 125th Street and Lake City Way NE (Dick’s), that the text discusses. The ordinance is available on the council website. As Ross has pointed out, routes 65 and 75 are set up well to serve the corridor; they could serve the Lake City hub stops. The ordinance Route 77 will serve its own unique pair, so all transfers will be walking ones. Metro is using Route 77 for two purposes: to backfill routes 522, 322, 312, and 306; to serve the Link station and the two urban villages. It is an awkward pairing. The east-west purpose needs much more service. It could be two routes. At the intersection of NE 125th Street and Lake City Way NE, north to west left turns are not allowed and the east to south right seems too tight for buses.

    1. Hi jack. I already clarified it in the next section with the image of the bus using 30th ave ne.

       “At the intersection of NE 125th St and Lake City Way NE there were a couple different ways for the bus to travel. The final chosen approach (Option 2) was to use 30th Ave NE to avoid the bus having to turn sharply at Lake City Way NE.”

       >The ordinance Route 77 will serve its own unique pair, so all transfers will be walking ones. … It is an awkward pairing.

       I agree it is a bit awkward. though i couldn’t think of a better way to fix it. there are a lot of different routes all leading into and out of lake city.

19. Pinehurst is the iconic how not to build infill: sandwiched between a freeway, a golf course that will be be developed and walking distance from shoreline south with spacing unsuited to the low density. The other one is totally unnecessary as well as MLT and Lynnwood already provide bus services into link.

    1. It’s about 1 mile, or 20 minutes walk, if you could do it in a straight line.

       What’s your proposal for the people in Lake City who lose bus service when the 522 moves to South Shoreline?

    2. > Pinehurst is the iconic how not to build infill: sandwiched between a freeway, a golf course that will be be developed and walking distance from shoreline south with spacing unsuited to the low density.

       The problem is that typically same people lamenting this station are also the same people who insisted on the light rail built next to the freeway.

       It is hard to take these complaints seriously. Of course it would be better if it was built in a denser alignment along aurora or lake city way. but it was now routed along i5. if we now rarely build train stations then the light rail literally would just go from parking garage to parking garage

Comments are closed.