Judkins Park Station Access Guide

89 Replies to “Judkins Park Station Access Guide”

1. Finally, all buses serving a station (Judkins Park) will stop on the street at the front doors of the station, and continue in a straight line, while more and more cars have to do a loop to get by the station.

   Yeah, the 8 will have new turns (just in time to shuttle people to the party from Mt Baker, along with other routes, or many people enjoying the walk from Mt Baker). But it will be in service of a major destination.

   1. Route 4 is nearby but has not been revised to serve the 23rd Avenue South entrance. What of battery power (ESS)?

      1. One of the weaknesses of Metro’s website is that the route maps have trouble coming up on iPhones.

         Another is that Metro is falling behind CT on the bells and whistles. CT’s site gives users the option to see all the stops (and actual projected arrival times for each stop).

         Metro’s old-school site leaves me unable to give an informed analysis of route 40’s path and stops.

         I think we agree that there is much less incentive for the City to install any new trolley wire if new battery-powered buses are on the way. Of course, they are all going to the new Renton base. In terms of emissions reductions that makes more sense than replacing trolleys not at the end of their useful lives with battery electrics.

         I realize there are facilities near the new station, such as the Lighthouse, that ought to have stops as close as possible. The City might have to spend money on trolley wire if that really is a priority.

      2. I’ve walked many times on the path from the 4 stop on MLK to the Judkins Park Station entrance. It’s a 4-5 minute walk, depending on how the traffic lights work. It’s not much longer (timewise) than the journey at Montlake from deep in the Husky Stadium Link station to a transfer to the 255 or 271.

      3. Are there any facilities near the southeastern-most stops of route 4 that justify not realigning it to serve Judkins Park Station?

      4. Because it’s on trolley wires and its continuation has been questioned in the past, I think Metro has just wanted to leave Route 4 alone for now.

         Any Route 4 adjustment is probably going to trigger opening up these bigger issues about its future.

2. The west entrance of the station on Rainier illustrates a pet peeve of mind about construction projects in general. All the work in the area has long since been finished, yet construction crews refuse to take down the temporary fence because the station hasn’t officially opened yet. The station entrance already has a lockable gate, so this fence is providing no security value, and accomplishes nothing except for providing a tripping hazard to people walking or biking through the area, and creating pinch points when someone on a bike wants to pass somebody walking.

   I see this over and over again when construction crews block a sidewalk, then, when the work is done, decide to wait months or more before taking down the fence. I guess, the way the system works, once a construction company has a permit to block a sidewalk for a period of time, they have no financial incentive to get the sidewalk opened until the permit expires, but it shouldn’t work that way. The incentive should be to remove the fencing as soon as possible.

   1. I too have been surprised that the temporary fencing didn’t go away long ago.

      I assumed that it was kept as a deterrent to homeless encampments that used to occur on the sidewalk there.

      I’m not sure where ST police/security jurisdiction begins geographically or chronologically but I’m wondering how much sidewalk ST will be allowed to patrol in the station area.

      1. Yeah, it cut down on the camping space. I think the main reason is to prevent graffiti and vandalism to the station entrance until it is at least occupied most of the day. Right now that’s pretty much a dead zone. Nobody walks there and bike riders tend to avoid Rainer if at all possible. Also a bit of a visual cue to people north and south of I-90 not to walk there assuming it’s an active bus stop. My bet is ST or City of Seattle is keeping the fences there. The contractor does have a financial incentive to remove the fences; they would be paying a rental fee on it and responsible for maintenance.

   2. Yes this was a big problem with the buses, too. Those bus lanes could’ve been used for years if Metro could’ve moved the wires and bus stops there. And the replacement stops are so bad.

   3. They finally took down the fencing yesterday. We live in the area so it’s been an on and off major frustration since the fencing and other debris frequently make the sidewalk there narrow and forces being closer to the curb (and in some cases uncovered tripping hazards from the bolts of missing poles …)

      On the bright side, as part of station area improvements, SDOT has been fixing sidewalks in the area which is great as there have been a number of blocks near us that have had huge discontinuities (like 6+ inch sharp ones) in them for 15 years.

3. It looks like a bus stop is getting built on S Massachusetts St at MLK Way Jr S. Does anyone know what this is about? The text says route 4 or 8 will not be rerouted onto 23rd Ave S, but this construction suggests a reroute to build a better connection to Judkins Park Station. Thanks for any information!

   1. That stop will be used by northbound Route 8. Route 8 will be rerouted to 23rd Ave between Massachusetts and Yesler.

      1. Thanks! Now I see that in the article. Rerouting the 8 between Massachuetts and Yesler makes so much more sense than the silly Jackson to Yesler detour.

4. Where is the parking garage entrance?

   1. Judkins Park station does not have a parking garage. The closest Park & Ride garages will be at Mercer Island station and South Bellevue station.

   2. Weak trolling attempt noted. You have two more tries before being shunned by the cool kids here.

   3. Seattle has a law against adding more P&Rs. When the Rainier Valley segment was built, some people in the eastern and southern part of the valley wanted a P&R, but the city said no.

   4. The on-street parking is on the neighborhood streets just beyond the restricted parking zone (RPZ). And the RPZ restrictions aren’t enforced beyond weekday mid-afternoons. Ever heard of hide-and-ride?

      I wouldn’t be surprised if the new nearby apartment buildings end up renting out spare spaces on a monthly or daily basis.

      Or just go over the bridge to Mercer Island. It’s only a few minutes on the freeway.

      Of course, the Metro bus frequencies are so good that it will be generally faster for most nearby residents to wait for a bus than drive, park and walk to the station.

      I think a potentially bigger unmet challenge is instead with drop off and pick up. But even then, I’m expecting 23rd to evolve as the place where that happens.

5. Are they going to remove the stop NB on Rainer just south of I-90? Doesn’t seem like it’s good for anything after the Station opens. The SB stop on of Rainer north of I-90 they had better keep or there will be a lot of hacked off people. Not sure where they come from but that stop is always busy.

6. The suggested lane diagram is rather unrealistic for southbound Rainier. The southbound left turns at Massachusetts are very heavy, and even today Rainier southbound traffic underneath I-90 backs up because of it. It can be so congested that traffic routinely backs up all the way up the existing loop ramp and onto the I-90 westbound mainline almost reaching the tunnel in the afternoons.

   Making the backup worse into the tunnel by restricting southbound Rainier to just one lane that then quickly becomes the very short left turn lane at Massachusetts sets the stage for I-90 fiery catastrophes that then suck all the oxygen out of the tunnel, suffocating those in the tunnel.

   A few times in the last two years, a southbound Rainier lane was closed just south of Massachusetts during construction of the school. Even that congested the westbound tunnel. This would be much, much worse.

   The northbound Rainier lane doesn’t seem to be needed so that likely could be removed. But that southbound lane reduction to one lane is likely not going to happen because it could be an epic disaster.

   1. Sorry what are you even saying? It’s absolutely absurd to imply that taking a lane away on Rainier will lead to catastrophic fires in the Mount Baker tunnel that will suffocate people. I personally don’t really care if Rainier is more congested, since the 7 will be going by in its bus lane. And the 2 Line will be open. We can’t be afraid to do things because it may make congestion worse. If things are really unbearable (or dangerous), then they can be adjusted. But it’s dishonest to imply that this project will cause mayhem and death, when it’s clear to anyone who has ever walked on Rainer around here that the status quo is actually a real and present danger to pedestrians.

      1. “I personally don’t really care if Rainier is more congested, since the 7 will be going by in its bus lane.”

         Not caring about modes that you don’t personally use is fairly selfish and uncompassionate. That’s the very same logic car drivers use when they don’t want to spend money on subsidizing transit — or creating protected bicycle lanes.

         A well-functioning city has to consider and balance everyone’s transportation needs. Not just yours.

      2. A lot of drivers don’t need to drive for a lot of their trips, they just want to, and they do an excessive number of them. That’s what’s causing a lot of the congestion and why 7 arterial lanes are filling up. Mass transit is the efficient way to allow people to do as many trips as they want to: cars just don’t scale because they’re several times larger than the passengers inside, they need space between them, and 2 1/2 cars’ worth of parking spaces (home, work, and a shared one at shops and public places).

         So we need to design complete streets around essential car trips and a reasonable amount for some discretionary car trips, but we can’t accommodate everybody’s desire who wants to drive all the time. And we need comprehensive transit coverage and frequency so that people don’t feel they have no choice but to drive.

      3. Every argument used for “balanced” transportation investment is just an investment in a car-centered status quo. We have over 100 years of outsized public investment in roadways, and it’s logical to assume we need to spend *more* on transit than highways as a result. This is barely happening in Seattle in capital terms, even with sort of comically high costs for ST.

         I personally comment on STB and care about transit being better. That doesn’t happen if everyone is worried about car traffic for every bus lane. I want a bus lane on every single street with a bus. Then we can figure out how to manage car traffic afterwards.

         Do I lack compassion for drivers because they may be slowed down for this? You could frame it that way. But it’s about speeding buses up first, and sorting out car traffic later. It’s about prioritizing buses over cars.

      4. Al, the point of bus lanes is to get buses out of general traffic congestion. Traffic congestion influences travel demand; increased SOV congestion on a specific road segment reliably results in reduced SOV travel as people change modes or find alternative routes, unless there are no alternative modes or routes. Reducing travel lanes by half does not double congestion.

         Cars are mostly driven by folks who could take transit but choose not to because driving is more convenient. Reducing the number of drivers actually improves the transportation situation for people who must drive or be driven in car.

      5. I personally don’t really care if Rainier is more congested, since the 7 will be going by in its bus lane.

         Your 7 won’t be going anywhere; take another look at the diagram. It will be stuck north of the light at the I-90 ramps. I guess you don’t care either about the business in south Seattle since delivery is going to impacted. Or any buses on Dearborn that will feel the effect of the backup. Or any of the people that live and work in the area that are going to be breathing all the additional emissions from vehicles stuck idling.

         It’s crazy to go from two lanes north of I-90 to one lane under the overpass only to go right back to two lanes south of 90 when there’s already a perfectly good 3rd lane they could use for buses. It’s only purpose now is as a merge lane for the current WB to SB exit ramp. That’s not needed when the end of the ramp becomes signalized. They pay people to “plan” this stuff?

      6. Bernie,

         By the time this project is done, Dearborn won’t have any buses. It’s just the inbound 554 now, and that’s going to Bellevue in the fall.

         I don’t think this change will have an appreciable impact on business in the south end. If it does, then that’d be a reason to modify after. I’d imagine that I5 to MLK or Columbian is a more important delivery route than I-90 to Rainier, but I won’t pretend to be an expert.

         For a bus rider, having two through lanes and a bus lane in the third makes no difference, because of the merge you mention. It’s just a meh queue jump then, rather than an actual bus lane that helps the 10 to 12 buses an hour through a bottleneck

      7. ““I personally don’t really care if Rainier is more congested”

         Not caring about modes that you don’t personally use is fairly selfish and uncompassionate.

         I don’t think you get the point, Al. It really doesn’t matter how many lanes you have for cars. If you add a bunch of lanes then they will fill up. This is known as induced demand. The opposite happens as well. As long as there is a good transit alternative, reducing the lanes doesn’t matter. This is what years of research tells us.

         The point is, the mode you are worried about (driving) will be just fine. It will be about as congested as it is now. The only way to reduce congestion is to add some tolls.

         Your 7 won’t be going anywhere; take another look at the diagram.

         The diagram (likely created by WSDOT) is incomplete. It is not what either the Harrell or Wilson administration would implement. In all likelihood it is not what the mayor will implement ten years from now. The city is clearly moving away from the idea of two general purpose lanes on any corridor. There is an added bureaucratic hurdle when it comes to dealing with state highways but since Rainier is no longer a state highway, the city can do whatever it wants. It is like building a dam though. There is a proper order of things. You don’t want to make changes in the wrong order or it can impact the buses (which in turn means more traffic congestion).

         But at some point Rainier should have one lane for buses and one lane for general purpose traffic in its entirety. So you are correct — the diagram is wrong. The southbound BAT lane should start at Jackson. This means that in the diagram it would go to the top of the page. Similarly, the northbound BAT lane should continue to around King (there is no need to go all of the way to Jackson since all of the buses turn left onto Jackson). Again, this means it should go to the top of the page. This might not happen without cooperation from WSDOT though. They have two lanes turning left there. That may be because they are concerned about traffic backing up onto I-90. I have no problem with two lanes as a holding area but they should converge into one lane before drivers turn left. If there is too much traffic then again, charge a toll. We really shouldn’t be encouraging an excessive amount of cars into the heart of the city. That just leads to a lot of congestion (for everyone).

   2. It’s not saying it will cause a fire; it’s saying that if a fire occurs in the tunnel as it inevitably will with internal-combustion cars or spontaneous electric-battery combustion, it would be catastrophic.

      1. A catastrophic fire in the I-90 tunnel is entirely unrelated to how many lanes SB Rainier has. It’s disingenuous to bring that potential up as a reason to not make transit better.

         I see no reason to think a fire would be more or less catastrophic based on the number of SB lanes on Rainier

      2. Well, that’s the issue. If there’s a need to evacuate the tunnel immediately is one southbound lane at Rainier enough? Or would even four southbound lanes not be enough so we could never get cars out quickly enough anyway?

      3. I’m sure WSDOT has an evacuation plan for the tunnel somewhere if you want to find it. But in the event of a fire, I’m sure no one would bat an eye about a bus lane being used for evacuation. I wouldn’t even bat an eye about sidewalks being used as long as someone is directing traffic.

         This is a complete non issue.

      4. “A catastrophic fire in the I-90 tunnel is entirely unrelated to how many lanes SB Rainier has.”

         I disagree. My many experiences have shown to me that Rainier and Massachusetts is a major southbound bottleneck — and it’s driven partly by high amount of left turns happening there. They already back up one lane of Rainier underneath I-90 often.

         Actually, the diagram has an error. Rainier is just five lanes wide south of Massachusetts. For that matter, the west sidewalk there is extra deep, which has attracted homeless encampments in the past.

         There really is no reason to add sidewalk space to the west side of Rainier under I-90 there anyway . There is already a southbound Rainier bus lane and a queue jump for buses at the I-90 eastbound off-ramp. For that matter, the diagram doesn’t show crosswalks either.

         So while you’re out there on opening day, take a look at what’s going on with the lanes there and how Massachusetts is getting more and more traffic. I don’t think some of you have recently observed what’s actually going on there.

      5. Al S.,

         In the event of an emergency – like a fire that is threatening to suffocate everyone in the Mount Baker Ridge tunnel – the bus lane would simply be used for emergency egress. WSDOT would send people to direct traffic. It’s absolutely ridiculous to say that fire evacuation procedures in the I-90 tunnel should have any impact on the design of Rainier.

         No reason to add sidewalk space to the curb-tight sidewalk underneath a freeway overpass leading to a light rail station? You really can’t think of a single reason to do this? Come on.

         I care a lot more about a more comfortable pedestrian environment than cars queuing at a light at peak times. I’ll use Judkins Park any time I want to go the East side, and I’d really appreciate sidewalks that are wide enough to make me feel like I’m supposed to walk to my local light rail stop.

      6. From a safety standpoint you are better off with fewer cars on the road. The easiest way to achieve this is by adding tolls and/or bus lanes. Tolling Rainier is probably unrealistic but tolling I-90 is. Meanwhile, Rainier should have BAT lanes from Jackson to 57th Avenue South. It is highly likely it will eventually. Emergency vehicles can use BAT lanes.

         There have been fires in the tunnel before. What happens on Rainier is basically irrelevant. If you are in front of the fire you just keep going. If you are far enough behind the fire to see the fire (or sign saying “Closed”) you don’t enter the tunnel. If you are stuck in the tunnel you use the emergency exits. The key is to access those in the tunnel (who may be injured or otherwise unable to exit). Having an HOV lane on I-90 (or a shoulder) is very useful for that (the vehicles approach from Mercer Island). If there is a massive backup than rescue crews would have to go into the tunnel from above (on foot). Having BAT lanes on Rainier would allow them to get there sooner. So again, more BAT/bus/HOV lanes improves safety.

      7. @blumdrew

         for context last time when we talked about protected bike lanes in capitol hill, Al said that it would cause traffic and since fire trucks wouldn’t be able to get to the apartments they would burn down. It’s honestly ludicrous

         I really wouldn’t take their analysis of fire safety seriously.

      8. You know what makes fire response times faster? Smaller fire trucks and ambulances that can use bike lanes more easily. We have smaller buildings on average than many European cities and they haven’t all burned to the ground yet so clearly what they’ve been doing has worked. Also, fewer responses due to crashes from high speed and bicyclists and pedestrians getting hit by cars means overall less load on our healthcare and emergency services.

   3. Al, the suggested lanes will not change southbound throughput to Massachusetts. In my regular experience, southbound Rainier is practically reduced to 1 general lane immediately south of the eastbound I-90 offramp as drivers try to get around the 7 and 106 (and 9 a few time a day) when they’re stopped there. The majority of drivers exiting WB I-90 to Rainier are not turning left onto Massachusetts. I’d be surprised if it’s more than a third of them.

      Meanwhile, I think many of these are likely commuting to/from employment centers served by the 2 Line and aren’t well served by current services. There could a be a significant shift in how many people are driving from the Mount Baker area to the eastside once the 2 Line opens. Of course, any reduction in congestion would quickly be negated by an ensuing increase in traffic, but that will always be the case as long as the travel demand is there.

      1. I assume that the southbound bus stop just north of Massachusetts will be removed once Judkins Park Station opens. That will allow buses and autos to flow more smoothly through the Raineir/Mass intersection.

         The left turn lane (SB) from Rainier onto Mass will continue to be a problem, however. I know there are drivers who turn left onto Mass and then right onto 23rd or MLK just to avoid the congestion on Rainier. SDOT needs to re-work the signals at the intersection of Rainier/Walker/23rd to increase the number of vehicles that move through on Rainier. SB traffic merging from 23rd onto Rainier rarely has to wait more than 1 interval to proceed, while traffic on Rainier can wait 4-5 intervals at PM peak to get through that intersection. Drivers know that they can avoid the long wait and congestion at Rainier/Walker/23rd by turning left at Rainier/Mass.

7. A northbound through bus-only lane between Massachusetts and I-90 EB ramp makes sense.
   Previously, I was afraid that the ramp consolidation that creates a new signal at Intersection 5 would put more pressure on Rainier corridor and subsequently causes more delay on 7. This might be able to mitigate a little bit.

   Just some perspective how busy is each ramp these days.

   (Table rows:)

   Ramp
   AM Peak (vehicle per hour)
   PM Peak (vehicle per hour)
   Daily

   I-90 WB off to Rainier Ave NB
   600
   820
   8,820

   I-90 WB off to Rainier Ave SB
   350
   500
   6,410

   I-90 EB off to Rainier Ave
   470
   580
   8,400

   I-90 EB on from Rainier Ave NB
   1,120
   790
   11,760

   I-90 EB on from Rainier Ave SB
   320
   480
   5,340

   Source: https://wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2025-08/2024RampRoadway-report-KingSnohomishAverageDailyVolume.pdf

   (Hope that table will show up properly)

   [Ed. Tamed the table display somewhat.]

   1. oops it did not.

      1. There are only a few formatting tags allowed in these comments, unfortunately.

      2. Yeah, it isn’t easy making a table in the comments. One option is to use the [pre] tag with a lot of spaces. Here is an example:

                Column 1 -- Column 2
         Row 1: R1/C1    -- R1/C2
         Row 2: R2/C1    -- R2/C2
         Row 3: R3/C1    -- R3/C2
         

         You can’t really tell what it will look like until you are done though. It is easier to use an editor with a fixed width font and just copy and paste. I copied the data (I think) in the comment below.

      3. Ramp                           --  AM Peak (vehicle per hour) -- PM Peak (vehicle per hour) -- Daily
         I-90 WB off to Rainier Ave NB  -- 600                         -- 820                        -- 8,820
         I-90 WB off to Rainier Ave SB  -- 350                         -- 500                        -- 6,410
         I-90 EB off to Rainier Ave     -- 470                         -- 580                        -- 8,400
         I-90 EB on from Rainier Ave NB -- 1,120                       -- 790                        -- 11,760
         I-90 EB on from Rainier Ave SB -- 320                         -- 480                        -- 5,340
         

      4. Comparable to or higher ridership than most light rail stops…

   2. Anyway, to get to your argument, I’m not sure I entirely follow you. It makes sense that Rainier northbound is more crowded with the work they are doing on I-5. The extra BAT lanes on Rainier should help. You still have an awkward mix of cars and the bus with the on-ramp to eastbound I-90 from northbound Rainier. There are 1,120 cars moving over into the right lane every morning (if I got your information right). The good news is that most of those riders are throttled. There is only one general-purpose northbound lane south of State Street. So other than drivers from Massachusetts, you don’t have that many cars weaving with the bus. Hopefully that reduces the backups onto Rainier from cars trying to get onto I-90 in the morning. It still isn’t ideal (which is why I would like to get rid of the ramp) but apparently WSDOT didn’t like that idea (I’m not sure why). This won’t be implemented for years so I could see them eventually getting rid of that ramp as well. The work will have been done to “square” the on/off ramp at Bush. It wouldn’t take much for this to be the only connection between I-90 and Rainier (all directions).

      There are issues with southbound traffic which many have influenced the decision. If they went with a traffic light then it would have to have an extra cycle for northbound cars turning left. The roundabout would have a lot more cars in it if they went that route. I think the best bet would be a BAT lane heading southbound from Jackson to about Charles. Then it would merge with the single lane heading south (the BAT lane would be a skip-ahead lane). Then traffic would enter the roundabout. I think that might work but it certainly isn’t the obvious improvement this will be. I can see why they made the choice they did even though it wasn’t my first choice.

      1. ” You still have an awkward mix of cars and the bus with the on-ramp to eastbound I-90 from northbound Rainier. There are 1,120 cars moving over into the right lane every morning (if I got your information right)”

         That movement is least of concern because it is not signalized, so it is unlikely to form a queue that is long enough to block the bus lane.

      2. That sounds right to me, HZ. The on-ramps to Eastbound 90 don’t ever appear to pose a congestion problem. Even when ramp meters are on, there is quite a long distance back to Rainier. The only congestion is perhaps on Massachusetts because SDOT gave left turns for westbound Massachusetts their own exclusive lane rather than make it left+through for that lane. It’s rather silly as neither movement happens much there and cars can only go on a green light. I think that’s a recent change.

         Anyway, I don’t think northbound is ever congested under 90. Southbound is often congested — partly because all the southboundxwxitingvtraffuc must go under 90 on Rainier.

8. Since the escalator is offset from the crosswalk by about 200 feet, will there be jaywalkers on Rainier? I could see that happening.

9. In terms of station access, the most shocking thing about Judkins Park (to me) is not included in this article: anyone entering or exiting via Rainer Ave S will have to deal with an at-grade crossing over the westbound tracks to get to the center platform. See page 6.

   Besides the obvious safety issue, it’s just shockingly shortsighted to include an easily-avoided grade crossing when the standard around the world for new rail transit includes automation, and it’s going to be a real inconvenience if you’re rushing to make a bus connection on Rainier and you have to wait for your train to leave (or for the other train to leave).

   1. Well those compromises are the same reason that the east link “only cost” 4 billion dollars and why west seattle link now costs 7 billion and ballard link costs 22+ billion dollars.

      honestly we need to bring back more at-grade cost effective sections for all 4 west seattle/ballard/tacoma/everett link extensions if we want to build them within this century. at the current pace ST3 will not be built until like 2100+

      1. Well those compromises are the same reason that the east link “only cost” 4 billion
         No, East Link “only” cost that much because it used a lot of existing infrastructure and has few tunneled sections. It made few compromises; in fact, the only other grade crossing is there because Bellevue forced ST to tunnel under their downtown for little reason.

         I think this grade crossing would not have been expensive to remove, and if they had to remove something, better remove something that doesn’t affect the reliability of the entire system. Obviously, Rainier Ave isn’t that safe, but I think no pedestrian bridge would’ve been better than this grade crossing.

         honestly we need to bring back more at-grade cost effective sections for all 4 west seattle/ballard/tacoma/everett link extensions if we want to build them within this century
         The solution to the cost problems should not involve adding grade crossings that destroy most of the reasons for making such a huge investment in rail in the first place―why spend any money on a train at all if the train is going to stop at red lights just like the busses it replaces. The STB proposal is a better starting point: cut the West Seattle extension and instead add bus ROW, cut the DSTT2 with room for a Westlake -> First Hill extension, and automate the Ballard extension. This would actually result in better service for everyone; building the current projects with more grade crossings (or fewer down escalators, or fewer stations) really would mean billions of dollars spent on worse service for everyone.

      2. Half the cost of West Seattle Link is just to go from Delridge to the Junction.

         Engineer’s keep saying that boring tunnels is cheap and easy. What they don’t tell you is about the cost of having deep station vaults to reach those tunnels. Ironically, SDOT has recently proposed closing Alaska Street between California and Fauntleroy anyway. So why not simply build the segment as cut and cover and close Alaska Street a few years earlier?

         It’s like ST lets consulting engineers design things to be as expensive as they can, which gives them more hours to charge and thus increases their profit.

      3. “tunnel under their downtown for little reason.” No, tunnelling in Bellevue was an excellence investment because that is a corridor where many riders travel *through*. West Seattle, OTOH, will by definition have no through ridership, which makes it a great candidate for at-grade crossings.

         The framework is a “tram-train” – when through ridership is small or immaterial, speed is not important and therefore terminus are a good candidate for at-grade service.
         https://pedestrianobservations.com/2020/11/03/tram-trains/
         https://humantransit.org/2009/10/karlsruhe-the-tramtrains.html

      4. @Al it’s almost like if Seattle understood that 90% of North King cost reductions flow back to Seattle taxpayers, Seattle city government would be super engaged with creative solutions to reduce cost.

      5. > in fact, the only other grade crossing is there because Bellevue forced ST to tunnel under their downtown for little reason.

         there’s at grade crossings at east main, bel red, overlake village, redmond technology, and marymoor village

         > The solution to the cost problems should not involve adding grade crossings that destroy most of the reasons for making such a huge investment in rail in the first place

         I mean would you delay east link another 2 decades aka in 2045 to remove the at-grade crossings? the money has to come from somewhere.

      6. Someone mentioned that East Link cost $4 Billion to build. If that’s true it’s a bargain compared to the estimated $4.4B for the TDLE which as proposed is almost entirely elevated. The only part of East Link I wish they had grade separated is the crossing at Northup (NE 20th St). It goes elevated immediately north of Northup and has to climb to the stars to cross 148th Ave NE. It’s not a big deal now but as Bel-Red gets built out to look like DT Redmond it will be. It would make an infill station more expensive but also take up less room as you’d have a pedestrian mall on the lower level that would serve as a bus transfer platform. With the surface alignment they would have to do a total road rebuild which involved a huge amount of utility work as part of the project.

      7. “in fact, the only other grade crossing is there because Bellevue forced ST to tunnel under their downtown for little reason.”

         “there’s at grade crossings at east main, bel red, overlake village, redmond technology, and marymoor village”

         June is right: those segments were lowered to the surface to free up money for the City Hall tunnel. Bellevue begged ST to do this, and paid half the capital cost of the tunnel. The other half came from lowering the Bel-Red and south Redmond segments and adding the level crossings, and North King taking on the cost of the CID-JP segment and Judkins Park station. Originally East King was going to pay for everything from CID on, because Judkins Park station wasn’t something North King wanted.

         In retrospect it became clear that Judkins Park station is a strategic benefit for North King. But it wasn’t clear then because the station area hadn’t been identified for densification, and people didn’t yet believe that people would take a bus to Judkins Park station to the Eastside, or would use a bus transfer to Judkins Park station as a faster way to get to downtown Seattle (vs 3 intervening stations and a surface segment between Mt Baker and CID), or that there was much potential ridership between southeast Seattle and the Eastside. All those have changed, and give North King something valuable for agreeing to take on the cost of Judkins Park station and the segment west of it.

      8. > there’s at grade crossings at east main, bel red, overlake village, redmond technology, and marymoor village
         Yes, and those are there because Bellevue insisted on the tunnel. Mike explains this in more detail.

         > I mean would you delay east link another 2 decades aka in 2045 to remove the at-grade crossings?
         This is why I am upset that these grade crossings are there. They could’ve been avoided at modest cost in the first place, but now they are there pretty much forever.

      9. > Yes, and those are there because Bellevue insisted on the tunnel. Mike explains this in more detail.

         uhhh yes but that isn’t quite the whole story. the original alignment for bellevue was also going to be at grade at 108th Ave NE or elevated so that would have just flipped the bellevue transit center at grade to the east main one being at grade

         also redmond town station was going to be at grade. it was switched to be elevated and marymoor village was switched to have an at grade section.

         either way there was going to be at-grade sections for east link.

      10. > This is why I am upset that these grade crossings are there. They could’ve been avoided at modest cost in the first place, but now they are there pretty much forever.

          it wasn’t a small cost, it would have cost probably a 1.5 or 2 billion to add in that much grade separation along all the stations.

          it’s the same reason why all the new extensions cost so much and why sound transit will need to truncate

      11. Except for NE 20th St and Spring Blvd, the East Link grade crossings are next to stations. Trains are moving slower so the slow train speed makes automation much less dangerous.

          The higher-soeed ones are NE 20th St and Spring Blvd. But even those may be suitable for automation if the speeds are slow enough.

      12. They could’ve been avoided at modest cost in the first place, but now they are there pretty much forever.

          I don’t think it would have been a modest cost. My guess is it would have cost a lot of money to push the tracks apart wide enough to allow an elevator and stairs in the middle. Adding an overpass would have been cheaper but that would have been worse for riders. Avoiding an overpass or level crossing would provide some benefit to be sure but I don’t think it would fundamentally change things. It really doesn’t change the nature of potential automation, for example. It is essentially grade separated as long as you add gates. Then they work essentially like platform screen doors (which we lack on every station).

          I don’t really see this is a big flaw with East Link. In contrast, I see the lack of stations in Downtown Bellevue as a major flaw. The station at East Link is very poor. Not because it is on the surface, but because it is in a terrible location. A station at Bellevue Way & Main would be much better. Bellevue Way and 4th would work as well. In both cases you change the dynamic. Not only do a lot of riders have a much shorter walk to the skyscrapers in Bellevue but the buses change as well. Even after spending all this money on a high quality subway line from Bellevue to Seattle we will be sending a lot of buses towards the freeway, because that is where the station(s) are. The bus connecting the UW with Bellevue — the second and third biggest destinations in the state — will be forced to turn and work its way to the station (instead of just continuing on the main corridor). The same is true for buses coming from Issaquah, Eastgate and Bellevue College. They too will run on Bellevue Way and then turn east, to serve the station. The transit network for Bellevue isn’t nearly as good as it should be because the East Main Station is way too far to the east. This is a much bigger flaw then the fact that a few riders have to walk past a gate to get to the platform.

   2. Same setup at Red-Tech. And you have cattle gates to get from one side to the other at Bel-Red. FWIW they seem to have the signal priority working on 132nd Ave NE. At the open trains were often stopping for cars. No more, the lights turn and the gates come down about 30 seconds before a train arrives. I think signal priority is working on Northup (NE 20th St) as well.

   3. I’m pretty sure the assumption is that trains won’t be running that frequently. At grade-crossings are pretty common throughout our system. SoDo, Columbia City, Othello and Rainier Beach all have them. Yet I find those stations to be the easiest and simplest to use. In this case, ideally the entrance would have been between the tracks. I think that was just too difficult to pull off without spending a fortune. You will be able to enter into the center via 23rd but at Rainier you have the elevator and stairs and that is just too wide. You could add overpasses but I don’t think many people would use them.

10. Well the Route 8 was rerouted to the S Massachusetts St and then to turn right onto Yesler on March 28th, which is supposed to be a zigzag so we lost to the routes 4, 14, and 27 it doesn’t connect to the Judkins Park Station I think the Route 8 should add peak-only Monday through Friday to stay on the MLK and East Madison and SPU

    1. routes 4, 14, and 27 [don’t] connect to the Judkins Park Station

       In the case of the 14 it would be really awkward to do so. It would be some sort of crazy zig-zag (https://maps.app.goo.gl/ztovwXmBxrdcj5Qs9). It is just not worth it. The 27 would be similar. The 4 is the only one that would work. But the tail of the 4 is infrequent. At some point it is just easier to transfer.

       Which gets to the bigger problem. The buses aren’t frequent enough. They aren’t frequent enough because buses like the 4 and 8 are wasting service hours providing a minimal amount of coverage. They should be trimmed and we should be running the 48 every 7.5 minutes.

       Assume for a second that the 4 is rerouted to get closer to the station. Now consider someone trying to get from Cherry Hill to the East Side. This is by far the most common scenario of this type. A bus runs by their Cherry Hill bus stop every 7.5 minutes each direction. Only once every half hour is there a 4 heading towards Judkins Park. So odds are, the first bus that arrive will get them to 23rd (close to Garfield High School) but no further. This is still valuable, as they can then catch the 48. After walking to the stop for the 48 they might catch the 4 after all (and feel kind of silly catching the other bus). But chances are, they will catch the 48 (and save time doing so). Thus it doesn’t make that much difference for those riders where the 4 goes.

       But there is more. The 8 is also running but it will serve a different bus stop. The 8 and 48 run every fifteen minutes. Thus if you count the 4, there are ten buses an hour heading from Garfield to the station. That is an average of a bus every six minutes. That would be fantastic! But it doesn’t work that way. Riders have to pick a stop and live with a bus every fifteen minutes (and the occasional 4).

       Of course a rider from Cherry Hill may decide to avoid this obvious network failure and just take advantage of the part of the system that is really good. Just ride the bus towards downtown and catch the train there. The biggest weakness in our system is not these missed connections but the infrequent nature of the buses.

       1. “a rider from Cherry Hill may decide to avoid this obvious network failure and just take advantage of the part of the system that is really good. Just ride the bus towards downtown and catch the train there. ”

          The 3/4 is crawlingly show between Cherry Hill and downtown. People will do anything to avoid it if there’s another way. The only advantage it has is frequency.

       2. The 3/4 is crawlingly show between Cherry Hill and downtown.

          Yes, and we should be trying to speed things up (instead of wasting our money building a rail line to places like Fife, Ash Way or even West Seattle). But obviously a lot of people endure the slow bus ride just like they endure the slow bus ride on the 8. At least the 3/4 it is frequent.

       3. When I lived near Harborview I took the 27 eastbound when it was coming because it was faster.

    2. I’m happy with the Route 8 shift to Massachusetts from Jackson.

       Having double service (8/48) south of Yesler is I think a good move, as that’s about the point where a 23rd to Link ride saves time in both directions compared with riding a bus Downtown. Riders north of Yesler are likely to ride into Downtown unless they’re going to the Eastside. Keep in mind that Route 14 is mostly a 15- minute frequency and Route 27 is mostly a 30- minute frequency — so waiting for a bus going Downtown using those routes is not only a slow trip, it’s less frequent one too.

       As to rerouting of 4, 14 and 27, those changes are probably best developed once new patterns and needs become clear. Route 4 and 14 are trolley bus wires and that takes effort, time and money to move. Of the two, Route 4 is probably the best to consider moving. Meanwhile, Route 27 (not a trolleybus) does seem more useful if it was extended to Mt Baker Station so Metro can eliminate the Route 14 loop to Hunter Blvd.

       Finally, Metro has toyed with a direct way to connect Beacon Hill station area with Judkins Park using College Street. The corners on Beacon Hill are perhaps so narrow and tight that it looks difficult and perhaps impossible.

       All of this to me points to a general Metro route restructure in a few years. Waiting a year before restructuring to observe what happens is to me a smart move, as the recent system changes are fairly major — and there are no more major changes happening in the area except RapidRide R. The 2016 restructure (wow now a decade ago!) was limited by a hesitancy to rely on Link which still stopped at Westlake at the north end during discussions.

       1. Mt. Baker Station needs to be re-worked/expanded/rehabilitated before any restructure of transit service can be conceived in SE Seattle. Metro is completely hamstrung by the inadequacy of the bus accommodations at MBS. There’s plenty of greenfield area west of MBS with plenty of room for bus layovers, but I haven’t heard any rumblings about how Metro can expand its facilities there.

          My suggestion would be to keep the existing facility for the trolley routes and build a new facility for the articulated coaches in the area west of MBS. Extending the 4 to MBS should be high on the priority list. The 4 offers a backdoor connection to Harborview and Swedish/Prov without having to go downtown. The trip from MBS to Harborview on the 4 would take less than 20 minutes and riders would avoid having to transfer in downtown Seattle. Keep the 4 on its current route path and run it every 15 minutes. Then, turn the 8 back at the 21st and James terminal to save service hours.

       2. Keep the 4 on its current route path and run it every 15 minutes.

          Sorry, No. We should stop trying to add a bunch of ‘L’ shaped lines. There is no reason to — not there. We would have to branch the 2 as well (to serve Union/Seneca). Then there is Yesler of course. So that is the 8, 2, 4 and 27 all turning at 23rd and connecting to Judkins Station (so that riders don’t have to go downtown if they want to the East Side).

          That is just the wrong way to go about the problem. First you start by running a bus along Boren to Mount Baker. This gets a lot of those riders right off the bat. It also gets a ton of one-seat rides and other transfers. Then — if you have enough money — run a bus along 15th and 14th to Mount Baker as well. Now you have a real grid. You don’t need the tail of the 4 or 8. The east-west buses can basically just keep going east-west. But all of that should happen *after* we bump of the frequency (and speed) of the 48. Oh, and we need to make the 3/4 a lot faster. It is silly to think that a trip from Harborview to the East Side should involve going on a bus through the Central Area when it is so close to the Pioneer Square Station.

       3. Any bus running on Boren is going run into the same problem the 8 encounters on Denny. It will have to fight its way through a tangle of cars trying to get onto I-5 during rush hours. Sorry, but Boren is not the key to any frequent grid network.

       4. Yeah I knew that some comments would want to jump on making changes. The thing is once one more route gets changed, a more general restructure quickly lands in the table.

          We are now just two weeks away from Judkins Park Station opening. There’s no way any significant route changes will happen before then. We soon have a real-world result of all the recent changes to observe.

          From planning for RapidRide R to reimagining MBS to directly connecting SE Seattle to Harborview via Boren there appears to be several further changes that can be considered beyond a mere shift of Route 8 for a few blocks.

          Can we all just simply agree that Metro should study a possible restructure in 2027? There’s lots of opportunity to make the buses work more productively, but there’s lots of ways more changes could screw up things for some riders too.

          I suggest a full East/ Southeast Seattle restructure from the Ship Canal to Renton and from 4th Ave to Lake Washington. Incremental route changes are helpful but it seems time to look at the larger picture.

       5. It would be next to impossible to take the route 4 away from Center Park.
          I can’t believe anyone who knows that neighborhood would suggest rerouting the route 4 away from 25th and Walker. I would never happen. I must be misunderstanding some of the comments.

       6. Sam, Center Park’s needs will be changing once both the 2-Line and the 1-Line are open. Center Park should be connected to both lines and currently it’s connected to neither without a long trip to downtown Seattle.

          The Judkins Park Station is going to change many ridership patterns and the results won’t be clear for several years. Capitol Hill to JPS is about a 13-minute ride; how will that affect the 7 and 9? I sure won’t be waiting for the 9 when the 2-Line saves about 10 minutes. A trip from 3rd and Pine on the 7 will still take 25-30 minutes while the 2-Line will go from Westlake to JPS in less than half the time. How will that affect ridership on the 7? But, no matter how the ridership evolves, Mt. Baker Station needs to be fixed before a large restructure can be envisioned.

       7. the route 4 should probably be extended to at least mt baker for now. it is a very odd terminus

       8. “All of this to me points to a general Metro route restructure in a few years”

          The problem is it’s not guaranteed. We may want a restructure in a few years, but Metro may not do one for ten or twenty years. I wondered why the Broadway north-south route, 8-Madison, 106-Boren, and 2 Pine routes in Metro Connects weren’t in the Northgate Link, Lynnwood Link, RapidRide G, or East Link restructures. I assumed they were waiting for the latter two, but those came and went. I saw a few Metro planners at a Lynnwood Link preview and I asked them, but they wouldn’t say why those weren’t in the G restructure, or when/whether they might be, or what’s the criteria for triggering them. I asked if the concepts were dead new, and they said they’re still alive, they just don’t know when/if they might be implemented.

          So if those haven’t happened, and Metro has refused to make some other changes in the past three years, and it considered moving the 3/4 to Yesler but then decided not to, what’s the chance that it will do anything with the 4?

       9. “ The problem is it’s not guaranteed. We may want a restructure in a few years, but Metro may not do one for ten or twenty years.”

          I note that Metro staff has had their hands full with major restructure studies in North Seattle, South King and East King in just the past few years. Restructures take lots of work. They haven’t had any motivation to pursue other things.

          And I think RapidRide R planning may be enough to trigger a restructure interest.

       10. Any bus running on Boren is going run into the same problem the 8 encounters on Denny.

           Yes, you would need to add BAT lanes. In general we need a lot of BAT lanes everywhere.

           Can we all just simply agree that Metro should study a possible restructure in 2027?

           I agree with that. There should have been a bigger restructure in the area following RapidRide G. My guess is they will make the 8 a lot faster and still not do a restructure. The structures in the north end (following Lynnwood Link) were significant. But they were a clear failure in Shoreline and it is highly likely they will fail in Seattle when they are fully implemented. (It doesn’t help that Sound Transit made of mess of things with the 522.) I don’t view the East Side restructures as being that bad but that may be because I don’t know the area as well. Like other areas (e. g. West Seattle) they mainly need a lot more service.

           But for the areas I’ve spent a lot of time analyzing (the greater Central Area and the north end) the restructures have been poor. I’ve lost faith in the planners. I’m sure they still have some smart people there, capable of doing good work but I think we should call in Jarrett Walker’s firm (or some other third party planning company). Maybe this could be done in-house but that seems less likely.

       11. “All of this to me points to a general Metro route restructure in a few years”

           The problem is it’s not guaranteed. We may want a restructure in a few years, but Metro may not do one for ten or twenty years.

           I agree. The time to do a major restructure is after a big change. The routes in the north end changed with each expansion (U-Link, Northgate Link, Lynnwood Link). In my opinion they have gotten progressively worse. RapidRide G was a similar change. Yet they did very little. I could see maybe holding off until East Link was done (even though it is a smaller change for the area) but they didn’t even do that. They basically did as little as possible.

           Although I think we should have a major restructure (the bigger the better in my opinion) these sorts of changes are a good opportunity to make little changes as well. For example we have had buses on 15th and 19th Avenue East for a long time (since the 1940s if not before). Since the 80s this has been the 10/12 combination. At times they have gone on Pike/Pine; other times on Madison; more recently they were separate. Now they are back together again. They both run on Pine and then branch at Madison. Like a lot of old routes, it is flawed.

           They are very close to each other and not especially frequent. This is a violation of official Metro policy and common routing methodology. You are making headways worse while providing a minimal amount of extra coverage. It would be quite reasonable to just run the 10 twice as often. Or have the 10 turn and serve the tail of the 12 as you get to Aloha.

           If we insist on branching the two routes, it would make more sense to branch at Thomas if not Aloha. That way you have better headways on more of the route. The branch point south of Thomas is unnecessary. Thomas and Madison form two sides of a triangle there. On Thomas you have several buses that can shuttle you to Link. On Madison you have the most frequent bus in our system. Thus frequent service is not far away — the 12 isn’t providing much coverage there. In contrast as you head further north (past Thomas) the 10 and 12 are the only buses (other than the 48 to the east but it doesn’t go downtown).

           The simplest thing to do would be to branch at Thomas. You wouldn’t need any new wire. The 12 would simply follow the same pathway as the 10 until Thomas and then take a right (followed by a left at 19th). It isn’t my favorite option but it would be a huge step in the right direction. Yet they never bothered to do that. There are similar little fixes around the city that get ignored all the time.

           And yes, the 4 is similar. If we insist on keeping it then it should go to Mount Baker (if nothing else). These sorts of changes are long overdue.

           There have been some major changes in King County transit in recent years. The expansion of Link was huge and impacted routing significantly. Likewise the RapidRide G was a major routing change that could have easily set off a whirlwind of changes in the area. But now things have settled down. There won’t be any significant change for a long time (once Pinehurst gets built). Graham Street Station is pretty much it for the city and that won’t even happen for five years. It is also the opposite of Pinehurst. Pinehurst is highly dependent on transfers. It isn’t clear if Graham Street will involve any change in routing. I think a lot of us expected a lot of small fixes and bigger changes with all of the expansion but they didn’t happen. We might as well do it now and make it as big as possible. But it isn’t likely to just happen. Not without a lot of public pressure.

       12. I do not think the East Link restructure was revenue neutral; it’s easier to move routes around when you have more service hours to work with.

           It still leaves something to be desired, though I think it’s net positive. Most of the wigglier/infrequent routes were straightened out or consolidated (for example 271’s tail). There are still some awkward routes (240 in Factoria), coverage gaps (Richards Rd), and unconsolidated service (223 between Redmond and Overlake) though.

11. Clarification to Sam: Center Park isn’t connected with front door service to either Link line without a trip downtown. If the residents are able to get to MLK or Rainier they can get to both MBS or JPS.

    1. Understood, but removing front door service from Center Park is a political impossibility. Anyone suggesting removing the route 4 from that location, must explain what will replace it … at that exact same location.

       1. Send the 8 there; it’s already diverting to Judkins Park Station.

       2. Center Park could be better served with a DART bus that begins at MBS (not in the wedgie transit center, but on the west side of Rainier, under the station); then goes to MLK to make the CP/Lighthouse loop via 25th Ave S (instead of Rainier); then goes to Judkins Park (east entrance); then returns to MBS via Irving and Judkins, where there is a traffic light. Service hours for the DART could be found by eliminating the 14 legacy loop to Mt. Baker. The DART could also offer service to the legacy loop, if political pressure requires. Better service for Center Park, additional connectivity for Judkins Park, maintains service to all of the existing 14 path.

       3. > Send the 8 there; it’s already diverting to Judkins Park Station.

          The route 8 will continue to be on mlk way which is right next to center park

          https://cdn.kingcounty.gov/-/media/king-county/depts/metro/documents/projects/east-link-connections/routes/008.pdf?rev=a4ccd074a76841838c147cfb1dcb96a9&hash=B30A5CF5AA0B9431A9FB6BEA310FDD0C

Comments are closed.