BY TRANSPORTATION CHOICES COALITION
As many of you all learned last week, Sound Transit is facing significant cost projections for its Sound Transit 3 projects. Over the next few months, the Sound Transit Board will have to have some hard conversations about the future of light rail expansion in our region. Whether that means deferring projects, station consolidation, or pulling existing levers to find revenue, there is a lot to unpack. The Sound Transit Board will need to make tough decisions on what projects to prioritize, as well as ways to cut costs to deliver the projects promised to voters.
Transportation Choices Coalition (TCC), along with community partners, have organized a series of town halls across the region to help educate the public on what is happening with Sound Transit. These events will feature Sound Transit board members and staff – the folks who make decisions about the future of light rail – answering questions in a structured format. The events are open to all.
You can sign up and submit questions using the links below.
Where/when/who:
Eastside: Bellevue City Hall, 3/30 from 6:00-7:30 pm, featuring King County councilmember Claudia Balducci and Redmond Mayor Angela Birney (full 2-line will be open by this point)
Everett/Snohomish: Everett Station, 4/14 from 6:00-7:30 pm, featuring Snohomish County Executive Dave Sommers, Everett Mayor Cassie Franklin
Tacoma/Pierce: UW Tacoma, 4/27 from 6:30-8:00 pm, featuring Pierce County Executive Ryan Mello, Tacoma City Council Member Kristina Walker
Seattle: Still organizing this, but likely to be May 5th somewhere in downtown Seattle.
To learn more about how to advocate for light rail, check out the Build the Damn Trains campaign here.
Transportation Choices Coalition is a statewide nonprofit advocating for safe, sustainable, and equitable transportation in Washington. From better buses to safer streets for walking, biking, and rolling, we work to connect people to opportunities and each other, no matter how they get around.
A bit of history here: In 2019 Sound Transit promised CID a choice of 4th Avenue or 5th Avenue routes because they couldn’t decide (Leda Chahim, Gov’t Relations & Community Engagement). We chose 4th Avenue via DEIS public comments because 5th Avenue would have devastated the community with loss of National Register Chinatown Historic properties (2 blocks) and 9 or more years of Chinatown street closures. ST never talked about choice again, instead, dropping N&S of CID stations on us on 1/5/23. On 3/23/23, N&S of CID became preferred alternatives, bypassing CID. That’s like closing all streets into U Village or shutting down California Avenue and surrounding streets for 9+ years. And what else was CID promised? Check out the Need and Purpose for light rail in the 2022 DEIS: Bullet 4 “The region’s citizens and communities, including transit-dependent residents, low-income people, and communities of color, need long-term regional mobility and multi-modal connectivity (as called for in the Washington State Growth Management Act (Revised Code of Washington 36.70A.108)” and the purpose of light rail: “Expand mobility for the corridor and the region’s residents, which include transit-dependent residents, low-income people, and communities of color…” Therefore devastating Chinatown with another eminent domain project is not an option (Chinatown 1 on the waterfront–gone, Chinatown 2 in today’s Pioneer Square–gone; I-5 construction–eastern half of Chinatown & Japantown–gone; 3 blocks of current IDC station–gone, promise of TOD for immigrant businesses & housing never happened). So please understand why CID (Chinatown, Japantown, Little Saigon) is opposed to the 5th Avenue route. We ask your support for 1) correcting backwards station name of IDC to Chinatown International District as per Seattle City Ordinance 119297 (urgent for the disabled community who cannot match apps to the CID name) and 2) supporting a Sound Transit solution that fulfills the promises made to CID communities of color and the Region for accessibility and connectivity without further harm to the Chinatown International District (Chinatown, Japantown, Little Saigon).
Either of the Fifth Avenue options outperforms ANY other option, both for cost and rider accessibility. Because a loud caucus in your community would not give ST chance to investigate construction ameliorations, believing you held a veto card, you are now stuck with the closest station to the International District on the Beacon Hill / Rainier Valley Line 1 — which serves the most international part of Seattle outside The District — will be north of Yesler.
Congratulations for knee-capping your business base permanently.
Either of the Fifth Avenue options outperforms ANY other option,
Nonsense. The best option, by far, is to use the existing tunnel. The stations in the second tunnel simply won’t be as good. They will make things much worse for businesses — in both the short and long term. This is why the area isn’t excited about the second tunnel. Compare this to Ballard. In Ballard they keep pushing to put the station closer and closer to the cultural and commercial center. In Chinatown they don’t because they already have a station that is quite good — the new one won’t be.
The quality of the station locations for pedestrians going to CID destinations, Jackson Street bus transfers, or Link-to-Link transfers are from best to worst:
1. Single-tunnel solution. (Lines 1/2/3 in CID1 station, or with a Ballard-Westlake shuttle.)
2. 5th Avenue Shallow. (The original alternative in the ballot measure.)
3. 5th Avenue Diagonal.
4. 4th Avenue Shallow.
5. South of Dearborn. (ST’s preferred CID2 alternative.)
6. 5th & James. (ST’s preferred Midtown alternative.)
5th & James can claim a bit of use for people going to whatever the Administration Building site will be, but one building does not compare to an entire neighborhood that a lot of residents, workers, shoppers, and tourists go to — and to tens of thousands of people transferring between lines 1 and 2/3 that need a short transfer walk.
That’s a great synopsis of transfer difficulty for 1/2 Line transfers by alternative, Mike! I will note that all the new CID platforms — no matter where they go — are both expensive and deep (even the “shallow” ones).
The thing missing is the 1/3 and SODO transfer setup though. The EIS had two choices — one with each SODO transfer as one escalator ride and the preferred one with two. Note too that ST has probably removed the down escalator and second elevator by now.
ST has never put a 1/3 same direction cross-platform transfer alternative at SODO on the table. NEVER. We don’t know the cost nor difficulty.
And here we read that ST is again considering cost cutting at SODO but hasn’t submitted a new diagram to see what they’ve proposed.
But for 1/3 same direction transfers it would slide right in between 1 and 2 in your list — if only they would consider it.
I wouldn’t call a meeting with the primary goal to “educate the public” a “town hall”. It’s an “information presentation” instead. Paraphrasing, it’s “we are the smart ones and we have to educate you the stupid people to validate our superiority.”
By specifically indicating that TCC wants to educate, they are saying that they only want follow up questions at the end but not consider or even hear feedback. It sounds like it’s specifically targeted for the uninformed public — rather than anyone who is informed and has opinions to share and discuss.
To me, a town hall is where anyone in “town” can opine and discuss things, rather than merely ask questions at the end of a long presentation. It’s not mainly l a lecture or presentation with a few minutes reserved for questions. Its origin is as an actual building representing the New England town structure, which is a particular kind of local government structure where any citizen can have the floor to express opinions.
I really dislike our local agencies constantly using feel-good, participatory terms like “workshop” and “town hall” and even “transportation choices” when the meeting agenda is mainly “educational” lectures (65% of the allotted time) followed by a short panel discussions (40% of the allotted time) by people who are already hand-picked because they can be expected to not offer dissenting views, leaving 5% at the end for questions.
Now if the TCC began the meeting by initially putting this question on the table: “How do you want $20B spent on ST capital projects that would best meet the ST3 goals?” the event would be interesting and create lots of discussion. I would want to attend! But I’ll pass on getting the version similar to the ST-style lecture format pushed on me for most of the meeting.
TCC has a different viewpoint from the ST board. So it can’t be an “education session” as you seem to think of it: TCC would teach something different than the boardmembers would, and you’d be hearing two mutually-incompatible messages. TCC’s ultimate goal is to convince the ST board to change its mind and do what TCC wants — the same way we and others want to convince the board to do what we want. It’s not to hear the board’s view: we already get that from ST’s marketing materials. It’s to ask the board tough questions, or at minimum, to elicitate what the individual boardmember wants and why they feel that way and what motivates them. My reason for participating would be to ask each town hall one primary concern I have about the position for that subarea.
For whatever it’s worth, a precedent for “town hall” here is Town Hall Seattle, which is not a government entity, much less City Hall informing us and we debating and giving our views on an issue. It’s just ordinary presentations and events by various people. This forum is a panel, so I think it will be at least more interesting than just one person talking about their view.
I’ve never ever seen TCC deviate from whatever ST wants to do. Dow even attended the “Build the Damn Trains” presser that TCC organized a few months ago. The bills that they advocate for all appear to the ones that ST wants too.
To me they appear to function as ST’s shadow advocacy arm. They even state:
“We’re working to ensure Sound Transit’s leaders don’t cancel light rail projects, keep projects moving to avoid further cost increases, and stand together as one region.”
Note their objective is building already defined PROJECTS (a word used twice) and not creating better transit outcomes for riders. The big civils and construction companies love ‘em!
I watched TCC send a spokesperson to a King County Council committee meeting once to oppose the staff proposal to just extend the bus route between Rainier Beach Station and Mt Baker TC to IDCS. The committee pushed back and staff came back with what is now route 106.
The questions I’d have for each subarea are:
– North King: Those wide transfers downtown are a hinderance to using the network, and worse than other multi-line subways. Shouldn’t it be a high priority to mitigate this? Why aren’t you doing so?
– East King: Will people really use Issaquah Link? (Implication: cancel it or replace it with BRT to save money.)
– Snohomish: How will workers get from Everett Industrial Center station to jobsites? It’s too far to walk. Will all employers provide shuttles? Are you sure they’ll do it? Or will you have a circulator bus that’s frequent enough that employees will be willing to take Link, and they won’t get tired of it stopping at every other employer along the way? (Implication: Delete the Paine Field detour, or make it a shuttle line or bus feeder to another Link station.)
– Pierce: How will Pierce County residents get to Tacoma Dome station? Pierce Transit is very infrequent and most routes don’t go to Tacoma Dome station, and Pierce Transit doesn’t have much money to improve this. How does it help residents and visitors to get to various parts of Tacoma and the county? What about their need to get from one part of Tacoma to another or one part of the county to another? This is most of their trips, and ST is providing little regional transit for that.
– South King: I don’t know.
In the same spirit of your questions on Snohomish & Pierce:
For Snohomish, articulate how Link north of Mariner will be an improvement on the Swift Green. Why not just “upgrade” the Swift Green to a Stride line (like Stride 522)
For Pierce, articulate how the Streetcar merits investment over a frequent bus network. Why not just invest in the Stream network? Route 1 is already funded under ST3; a similar investment in BRT Route A is likely better than a mixed-traffic extension of the streetcar
https://piercetransit.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/SESS-Fact-Sheet-021622.pdf
Excellent comments.
Will TCC speak up for the 4 line, oriented to a parking facility, just like Tacoma Link is? A frequent and truncated Route 554, oriented to Mercer Island station, would probably provide better service than the costly 4 Line.
Would it be much less expensive to build a brand new Bellevue College campus next to a current station than to build a gigaproject line for which the main purpose is to have a train to somewhere near the current campus, and (less popularly) the Garage Majal in Issaquah?
Bellevue College has a pretty big footprint, so probably not unless you were going to sell the the existing campus for market-rate redevelopment.
On a more serious note, what to do about South Seattle College? Is it possible to serve well with transit, or do you do a land swap with the West Seattle golf course to move it closer to the C & H and future Link?
I also agree Stride could be an Open BRT.
The big double deckers can focus on express transport with limited stops.
Then Metro should run their own articulated buses (depending on demand, they may be peak only) that uses the corridor for the express portion… Then deviates into a local portion.
Instead of the 4 Line, we could turn I-5, I-90 and I-405 into a very high quality open BRT network.
Open BRT can complement Link operations along I-5, offering a faster trip into downtown.
And for I-405, Open BRT should allow connections from Burien, Airport, Renton, South Bellevue, Bellevue, South Kirkland / Yarrow Point, Kirkland, Totem Lake, Bothell / Woodinville / UW Bothell, and Lynnwood seamlessly… While also adding Issaquah, Sammamish, Eastgate, and Factoria to that spine… With Metro operating additional peak open services from other suburbs.
The current setup is too rigid and limits trip possibilities and effective connections to light rail and the airport.
South Bellevue itself is not exactly a useful location.
But it acts as a hub connecting two major freeway intersections: I-405 and I-90.
It’s the fastest way to connect to the 2 Line from the southern part of the county. Obviously people would use the 101 to get to Seattle, but there are niche use caches for Renton Highlands and Newcastle. The 111 addresses that.
However Seattle isn’t the only connection. South Bellevue will also offer the 556 for riders to Issaquah. And they do exist. People from Renton and Maple Valley go to Issaquah. SR 900 gets heavy traffic during peak.
Eastgate, Bellevue College, and Factoria are also valuable connections that can be easily accessed from South Bellevue using routes like the 203, 240, etc. At the moment, Stride is fully cutoff from these destinations. Adding some sort of South Bellevue connection is useful.
The Renton-Issaquah route is okay but still requires a transfer to Stride if you want to keep going west… Or the route keeps going to the airport or something. Largely duplicative of Stride.
The 554 running in mixed traffic in the Issaquah Valley is clearly inferior to whatever L4 becomes, unless you invest in a bus/HOV ramp somewhere in Issaquah.
The proposed Central Issaquah station will not be at the existing TC & parking facility.
The 554 running in mixed traffic in the Issaquah Valley is clearly inferior to whatever L4 becomes, unless you invest in a bus/HOV ramp somewhere in Issaquah.
First of all, the 554 is only one bus. There are other buses that serve Issaquah. More to the point, there is only one planned station for Central Issaquah. So if you are at one of the bus stops (Issaquah Highlands, Issaquah Transit Center, anywhere on Sunset Way) then a bus will be better because you avoid the transfer or you have a more direct, faster trip. For example, Issaquah Highlands to Eastlake. This is much faster via a bus.
You have to be by the one and only stop in Issaquah to come out better with Issaquah Link which is why it is such a bad idea. You are spending billions of dollars (essentially replicating the freeway) all to save those particular riders a tiny amount of time. It has the same basic flaw as West Seattle Link. The existing infrastructure is actually quite good and could use a small investment to be outstanding. The light rail line offers no significant destinations along the way (that a bus doesn’t). It costs a fortune to serve the new stations since they are quite a ways from the existing rail network. Thus you spend a fortune making things better for only a small number of riders while the rest of the area either ignores it or sees their system degraded.
A better network. Route 554 between Issaquah TC and Mercer Island link, fast and frequent. Route 555 between Highlands and Kirkland transit center via Issaquah TC, center HOV lanes, Eastgate, Richards Road, 112th Avenue SE, BTC, NE6th street center access ramp, I-405 HOT lanes, NE 85th street, Central Way, KTC.
The 4 line is oriented to the south Kirkland P&R that is half in Bellevue. Link should be used to serve pedestrian centers. The 4 Line would serve freeway envelopes.
@Jack — See my comment below. There should be three spines involving Eastgate freeway stop:
1) Eastgate to Downtown Bellevue Transit Center.
2) Eastgate to Mercer Island.
3) Eastgate to Bellevue College.
In all cases the buses diverge after serving the spine. A bus from Eastgate to Bellevue can end at the transit center, continue to Kirkland or serve part of Downtown Bellevue (like the current 550). The bus that goes to Kirkland could end at the Kirkland TC or continue to Juanita. A bus from the east can approach Eastgate via the freeway or the local streets. If it approaches via the freeway it can start in various places in Issaquah (the Highlands, Central Issaquah, north Issaquah). If it is on surface streets it can come from the north, serving neighborhoods like Robinswood, Lake Hills or West Lake Sammamish. Or it can come from the south to Factoria or Newport Hill. There are a lot of different combinations that are possible. I’m sure we could come up with a good network but for now we need to emphasize that this would be possible without spending a fortune and yet lead to a much better system.
Well then Ross, perhaps Issaquah Stride needs typical 1/2 mile stop spacing?
A station at 11th (essentially where Gilman touches I90)
A station at 4th Ave NW (or the to-be-rebuild Front interchange, but I prefer 4th for pedestrian access))
A station at 3rd Ave NE/Dogwood, if Olde Towne is important to you and you are willing to build an HOV ramp to Highland Drive.
Standard 1/2 mile stop spacing, and all of Central Issaquah is within a 15 minute walk. Each station is a simple inline freeway station, project is dirt cheap relative to any Link project. Notably, the existing TC on the valley floor is irrelevant; the Stride line should end at the Highlands TC
This is why Link is so dumb on this corridor. Leveraging the HOV lanes in I90 in sufficient, easily freeing up cash for additional stations, which can all be built independently.
I think part of the problem we have right now is that people think bus infrastructure is second rate. It is either a temporary fix or a down payment on something better in the future. Partly that is because of how we stumbled into the light rail system we have. The bus tunnel was excellent. But Link is better. So now we view the bus tunnel as simply a step in the right direction and not one of the most cost-effective transit improvements in the region. We are starting to see that with freeway stations as well. The Judkins Park and Mercer Island freeway stations were good — Link is better.
The problem is, this model falls apart if you don’t invest enough into the rail system. The bus tunnel had five downtown stations. A train running between there would not be as useful as the bus tunnel. Even with an extension to Bellevue this could result in the same problem. Imagine if East Link consisted of just the downtown tunnel and three additional stations: Judkins Park, Mercer Island and Downtown Bellevue. Again, a bus could travel between those stations just as well as a train. This means a bus tunnel is better, because buses would not be limited to those areas. You basically have the same system as Brisbane. It is Open BRT. Not because the buses are painted a special color, run more often or have off-board payment. Mainly because they run in a busway, similar to the way the buses ran in the tunnel. That is one of the fundamental advantages to investing in bus infrastructure. You can easily take advantage of existing roadway infrastructure. We have miles of freeway and local roads which could allow us — for very little money — to build a system that is often better than a rail line.
Thus to warrant an investment in rail you have to provide more capability than the existing (road-based) system. In the case of U-Link it was Capitol Hill Station. In the case of East Link it was the additional stations *not* by the freeway. A bus could easily compete with Link on a trip between Downtown Bellevue and Westlake Station. But a train will be much, much faster between Spring District and Capitol Hill (as well as many other combinations).
But even with all of that you could (theoretically) do the same thing with buses. The main advantage rail has is capacity. Imagine if Northgate/U-Link was a giant bus tunnel instead. You would have to run a lot more buses through it to handle demand. It might be better for riders but the cost of operation skyrockets. It makes sense to have rail.
Thus there are a couple factors to consider before you even look at the cost. Will this be much faster than with an investment in a busway and will there be enough riders to justify rail. In the case of West Seattle, Everett, Tacoma Dome and Issaquah/Kirkland Link, the answers are “No” and “No”. Riders in those areas would be much better off with an investment in bus infrastructure. Never mind the cost — investing in bus infrastructure is just better.
I’m optimistic Stride 405 does the opposite: it demonstrates what high quality bus service looks like, with branding, wayfinding, and a level of service that is distinct from regular bus service. My hope is that once voters & regional leader rider Stride, in particular 405-North where the bus maximizes the use of the HOT lanes, will lead parts of the region to conclude, “hey, this is quite good and we can get it cheaper and sooner than rail? Let’s do that!”
I hope that you’re right about 405 Stride, AJ. I am however concerned that its fundamentals will result in weak ridership except during commute hours:
— Many stops are in the middle of interchanges so there’s a longer walk to reach anything else.
— Except for Downtown Bellevue (which is mostly an office district right around the BTC), other stops tend to lack immediate day-long destinations. Other ones along 405 that have constant activity — Alderwood, Factoria, Southcenter — don’t have Stride stops.
— While Stride is faster when direct connectivity is possible, its attractiveness vis-a-vis Link suffers if two transit transfers are required. Going from Redmond to SeaTac Airport can be one transfer at CID (Link 2 – Link 1) or two at Downtown Bellevue and TIBS (Link 2 – Stride – Link 1). A trip from Mountlake Terrace to Redmond Technology is circuitous but direct using Link 2 Line, while a Link to either Lynnwood or Shoreline South to get to Stride to then transfer again in Downtown Bellevue involves lots of transferring.
It will probably be very commute heavy, but that’s the nature of express service in the first place. I think it will do well, for many who have access to one of the P+Rs it will much more convenient for heading to Bellevue or Microsoft during peak.
The biggest loss in Stride S1 is a lack of connection in South Bellevue.
Completely lost opportunity for Factoria, Issaquah, and Eastgate.
The best tradeoff is a bus that does this:
– S Renton
– Renton Downtown / Landing
– Newport Hills P&R
– Eastgate
– Issaquah
That opens up a new Stride connection at Exit 7. For Factoria, you’d have to connect at Eastgate and that’d be a 3 seat ride to hit Stride S1.. but Eastgate/Issaquah will get a 2 seat ride only.
This also adds more capacity to Renton to connect to Stride, as well as restores downtown service that the 560 previously provided. Riders on this route can connect to Route 111 (to S Bellevue from Renton) and Stride S1 easily. That also gives Issaquah and Eastgate a better ride to the airport.
For Factoria, I’m not sure what the best option is. Maybe select trips can deviate through Factoria before Eastgate/Issaquah via I-90.
Unfortunately this bus won’t be particularly fast during evening peak. I-90 to 405 S gets severely congested. An HOV ramp is necessary to keep the buses moving, or red paint / TSP through Factoria would be even better.
But an HOV ramp is still preferable in case express buses heading that direction become more common in the future.
I’m optimistic Stride 405 does the opposite
I could see that. But I also see Al’s point. Part of the problem is that Stride is so limited. For example the freeway station at NE 85th may be too expensive but it will be effective. But how many bus routes will serve it? One? Maybe two, with the other one being peak-only? That just isn’t a good network. To a certain extent, that is the problem with Stride. It is building bus service as if it is rail. This is corollary that follows from the first idea: Don’t build BRT unless it is open. Also run a lot of overlapping buses so you have good frequency on the closed part. Again I go back to the bus tunnel. While way too small, it actually worked as open BRT. Various buses from outside the region served it — that was the “open” part. The buses were slow there. But for the closed part — the tunnel — the buses were not only as fast as a train but a lot more frequent. There were plenty of people taking trips from Westlake to CID for that reason. Unfortunately, I don’t see that with the changes on 405. Stride will have only one bus on each section and they won’t be particularly frequent. This is one of the problems with Stride — it has many of the disadvantages of rail (limited stops) without the big advantages of BRT (its openness). Imagine someone arguing for replacing Stride with a rail system a few years after Stride opens. The only argument against that idea is cost.
But to get to Al’s point, you also want the closed part of the BRT to serve major destinations. NE 85th really isn’t a big destination. So I get that, but I also don’t think 405 Stride is that bad in that respect. For a freeway based line, you actually come very close to plenty of destinations. Totem Lake, UW Bothell — these are relatively big destinations. The open section is Downtown Bellevue. Thus it is quite reasonable for someone to walk from an urban part of Totem Lake to the freeway bus stop (not that far away) and expect a bus every couple minutes to Downtown Bellevue (the largest urban center on the East Side). But instead the bus will come every ten minutes at best.
But more to the point, with an open system the lack of destinations on the closed part isn’t that big of a deal, especially if travel along there is quick. Nor is the relative infrequent nature of each individual bus. Consider the trip from Issaquah to Downtown Bellevue again. Imagine they make that key connection (between 405 and I-90). So now the core “closed” part of BRT is from I-90 in Issaquah to the first stoplight in Downtown Bellevue. There is only one station in the closed part — the freeway station at Eastgate. That station isn’t that great. Some people walk to the college from there, but it is about a ten minute walk. That isn’t the end of the world. The open part is what is so good. You have three buses from Issaquah, all running every fifteen minutes connecting to Eastgate and Downtown Bellevue. You have other buses from Downtown Bellevue serving the neighborhoods to the north and east of Bellevue College. Now you have a spine from Downtown Bellevue to Bellevue College. It is not completely closed, but it is pretty close. Just as importantly, it opens up, to serve various neighborhoods in Bellevue and Issaquah (instead of one in Issaquah and two in Bellevue). At this point, a lot of people in Bellevue and Issaquah would be worse off with a train.
So yeah, I see your point AJ, but only if Metro and ST leverage what they are building to a much higher degree. There really should be a lot more buses along those corridors — otherwise they are wasting the investment in infrastructure. That would be like building a mass transit system and then running the trains infrequently (which unfortunately is common in the USA). I think it is quite possible we will have a significant number of extra buses — but as Al mentioned, only during peak.
“ That would be like building a mass transit system and then running the trains infrequently (which unfortunately is common in the USA). I think it is quite possible we will have a significant number of extra buses — but as Al mentioned, only during peak.”
That’s exactly my concern! It may be really great for peak-hour commuting to Downtown Bellevue — but for little else. Over time, ST will want to reduce frequencies at non-commute hours — unless it better connects with day-long destinations. It also passes by many major Metro routes on I-90, 522 and 181 (West Valley Highway) without having a transfer point. To me, it’s either start envisioning a few more infill stops at day-long destinations and Metro stops soon or watch Stride ridership perform disappointingly at non-commute times when it opens.
Another Stride limitation is that — unlike ST Express median stations — there are not plans for adjacent new large park and ride garages. I get how these garages are not ideal — and people should ideally not have to drive to ride transit. But these garages do add boardings at the median stations — and not having them will also suppress Stride’s ridership potential.
The service looks like a great service on a regional diagram! But its success ultimately depends on how well connected it is at a more granular level.
I mean I-405 BRT is going to be one of the most cost effective projects in ST3, and it’s going to save riders a whole lot of time. Sure it could have been better but it’s easily one of the best projects in the package.
And the Stride branding doesn’t preclude additional routes from using the infrastructure, even if not under Sound Transit. Something like the 256 would be an obvious addition.
@Al
I’ve not heard about a lack of P+Rs on I-405 Stride before… the vast majority of stations have fairly spacious P+Rs, and additional structured parking garages are planned (though deferred)
The biggest loss in Stride S1 is a lack of connection in South Bellevue.
Not really. There is nothing in South Bellevue. In the long run, the regional bus system should largely ignore it. If you are going to Seattle, then Mercer Island is better. If you are going the other way on Link, then Downtown Bellevue is better. Some local service makes sense (via Bellevue Way) and maybe a connection to Factoria but that is about it.
Of course what you need from a regional perspective is to connect the HOV lanes of I-90 and 405 (in all directions). This allows riders from Issaquah/Eastgate to easily get to Downtown Bellevue. Also run buses from Issaquah/Eastgate to Mercer Island. Your Renton, Eastgate, Issaquah would also work. But you are bound to get a lot more riders heading to Seattle (via the 101) or Downtown Bellevue (via 405). Ironically, the only connection that has actually been implemented (Mercer Island to Downtown Bellevue) no longer makes sense on a bus.
“ I’ve not heard about a lack of P+Rs on I-405 Stride before… the vast majority of stations have fairly spacious P+Rs, and additional structured parking garages are planned (though deferred)”
I think you overlooked a key adjective that I used: large
When the park and ride garages were originally built for Lynnwood and Eastgate and Federal Way, they each had well in excess of 1200 spaces.
From what I can see, the only planned Stride garage over 400 spaces is at South Renton (700 spaces) and there’s preliminary proposals to turn the existing adjacent 385 spaces into TOD and if that happens it would be a net gain of just 315 more spaces.
And the Stride branding doesn’t preclude additional routes from using the infrastructure, even if not under Sound Transit. Something like the 256 would be an obvious addition.
I agree. But Metro is very short on funds right now and ST has other priorities. This really should be done by ST — they are a regional transit agency. They have done this in the past and it is quite reasonable they will do that here. This is a much better value than Issaquah Link (for folks in the East King County subarea).
The biggest weakness with Stride 1 is how it handles Renton. To be fair, there is no cheap solution. The approach (to barely touch it) isn’t the end of the world as long as they run the 566 (through Renton) every fifteen minutes. That would give folks in Renton a good one-seat ride to Downtown Bellevue. It would mean that riders at the South Renton TC and the NE 44th freeway station have more frequent trips to Bellevue as well. The 111 will also help, but it won’t run often. I could see a Southcenter to Bellevue express working as well.
I think Stride 2 has plenty of potential. A bus from Downtown Bellevue to Kirkland Transit Center seems justified. But it wouldn’t end there. At a minimum it would go to Juanita. Then one branch could go to Kenmore via Juanita Drive (taking over the northern tail of the 225) while the other goes to Bothell via 100th and Jaynita Way (taking over the northern tail of the 230). Meanwhile, folks in Woodinville will soon have an express to Bellevue. Unfortunately this will only happen during peak. But I could see this being an all-day thing over time. That would give you good frequency along the Bothell/405 TC, Brickyard, Totem Lake, 85th and Bellevue. Throw in an all-day 256 (or even just an all-day Totem Lake to UW) and you have a nice set of regional buses on 405.
if that happens it would be a net gain of just 315 more spaces.
That’s plenty. I would much rather have direct service to other neighborhoods then spend a bunch of money on bigger park and rides. I guess your point is they aren’t doing either. But if the lots fill up then they can at least think about adding additional bus service (which is a much better value).
“The approach (to barely touch it) isn’t the end of the world as long as they run the 566 (through Renton) every fifteen minutes”
An additional bus from Renton to Issaquah, as I suggested, can close this gap as well. It can go through downtown. Riders would have to transfer to Stride at the inline station though. But that shouldn’t be too bad given the frequency of Stride.
I also think ST should work with Metro to make this an open BRT. There are more parts of Renton, Tukwila, and Bellevue that needs service along the Stride corridor.
If Metro adds some buses to I-405 to make the open BRT, Stride S1 can reduce its frequency and move some of the double deckers to a new Stride S4 along I-90. This can entirely replace the 4 Line and save significant costs.
Stride S4 would follow this path:
1. Issaquah Highlands
2. Issaquah (inline freeway station / new TC)
3. Lakemont
4. Eastgate / Bellevue College / Factoria inline station
5. South Bellevue (2 Line connection)
6. Bellevue TC (red paint on Bellevue Way and 112th) – no intermediate stops. Transfer to 249 instead for Bellevue Way.
Stride S1 could also be moved to stop at S Bellevue and run along S4 to Bellevue TC.
The saved costs can go towards building HOV express lane ramps in every direction at the I-405/I-90 intersection. Though if Bellevue Way is repurposed, it’s not necessary going North, only South.
“ I guess your point is they aren’t doing either….”
Yes that’s my basic point!
ST drew Stride lines with dots on a map, placed where it was the easiest and cheapest to create. There are parallel services to get some idea of how it would be used, but there was never a concentrated site layout effort to try to maximize ridership if the line existed or even to meet a minimum expected daily ridership. The Stride package generally appears to be assembled in a shopping cart full of projects approach rather than a maximize transit ridership and travel time approach.
I do believe that a BRT that branches (aka Open BRT) has more ridership potential as the buses can get closer to more destinations. Then the question starts to become about frequency and reliability of staying on schedule.
The classic problem of coverage versus frequency emerges with branching. Three branches feeding a trunk would be amazing frequency for the trunk, but as each branch starts to get lower frequencies so it can be much worse for them.
A variation would be to keep a trunk line base service but supplement it at peak hours either branched routes. That appears to me to be the most strategic in the 405 setting. However, even the base service may have poor off-peak ridership — my original concern.
@South King Resident
I think there are plans for center exit ramps in all directions from I-90 to I-405, though that’s likely not coming any time soon
@Ross Bleakney
Yeah I don’t see a good way to serve Renton either. I think some kind of center stop at Southport Dr could have worked, since the 240 (and maybe an extended F) could serve as a feeder for the northern half of Renton, but I don’t know if that’s feasible and it certainly wasn’t on the table. Maybe a stop crossing I-405 at N 8th St could have worked as well.
@Al S
“A variation would be to keep a trunk line base service but supplement it at peak hours [with] branched routes.”
This is essentially what is getting built. Most likely routes like the 532, 566, etc will continue at least as peak-only service. Also I believe the original study looked at branching routes and concluded that the operating cost would be too high for too little gain in ridership.
If Metro adds some buses to I-405 to make the open BRT, Stride S1 can reduce its frequency
Sorry, no. That misses the point. Stride will not be frequent. I don’t think people get that. It won’t be like the RapidRide G that runs every six minutes throughout the day. It will be like an ordinary bus in Seattle — every ten minutes peak, every fifteen minutes midday. The whole point of adding more buses is to provide a spine along the section where buses overlap.
Stride S4 would follow this path:
First of all, we don’t need a Stride 4. This is part of the problem. ST is building BRT lines as if they are a new rail line. They are focused on a single route, instead of improving the infrastructure to support multiple routes. This is reasonable for Lynnwood to Bellevue but we’ve already seen how this is a weakness with the other two projects. Stride 3 is poor routing. Stride 1 won’t serve Renton very well.
They should focus more on infrastructure, not routing. Routing is bound to change and it should change. Cities change, so should the bus routes. But once you improve the infrastructure, many buses can use it. Again, look at the bus tunnel. A lot of different routes used it. Not a single one was “RapidRide” or “Stride” or “Swift”. The buses were all the same color as every other bus. Riders boarded and alighted like any other bus. The unusual part was the tunnel itself. The same thing should be true with this corridor. Make it like the bus tunnel by connecting the HOV lanes of I-90 with 405. At that point, a bus would be in the HOV lanes from Issaquah to Downtown Bellevue (with a stop at the Eastgate Freeway Stop). Then run multiple buses that overlap along the freeway from Eastgate to Downtown Bellevue.
As far as your routing suggestion goes, it misses the point. Once you connect 405 with I-90 you can skip South Bellevue. This saves riders a considerable amount of time and means that the buses are as fast as the train from Eastgate to Downtown. Since the buses can serve multiple place in Issaquah, riders come out ahead there as well. If riders are trying to get to Downtown Seattle they take a bus to Mercer Island. Riders heading to Bellevue Way can transfer (at Eastgate or Downtown Bellevue).
RE: South Bellevue-Stride 1 connection, there should be a route that serves the Stride station at 44th, but runs in the outside lanes, serves the Newport Hills P&R freeway station, and terminates at S Bellevue (or MI) station. The 111 is probably the best candidate, as it enters the freeway at NE 30th so simply needs to add an exit ramp stop at NE 44th. It won’t be a same-stop transfer, but walking from the HOV ramp to the SOV ramp in the NE 44th interchange is a very reasonable transfer.
RE: Renton, I think the solution is the create two solid transfer between Stride and RR-F, and let the RR-F provide the service away from the freeway. With 2 transfer points, riders in Renton can always take the F “on the way” so they don’t need to backtrack. Looking at the current F routing, there are two obvious candidates
1. Lind Ave SW. Simple in-line freeway stop serviced by stairs and an elevator or ramps. The Stride station at TIBS is to cost <$15MM, and that requires a pedestrian bridge whereas here we just need sufficient sidewalk space on the Lind Ave bridge. This is cheap and should be done now. Abandon the Renton TC/P&R.
2. The Southport/Sunset Blvd interchange. Like the 405/90 direct access ramps, this is already considered within the WSDOT 405 master plan (i.e. is covered within existing EIS work) but is unfunded. Would probably be on the scale of the interchange rebuilds at 44th & 85th, but would result is an excellent anchor for the F.
Much like the Issaquah TC, the Renton TC is in the wrong spot and should not be served by Stride; either serve it with a local KCM route or sell it off.
@AJ
It’s not just the F that needs a connection, there’s a large swath of the area that’s served by S Renton. Anyone south of Rainier Beach or north of Kent headed to Bellevue will want to head to S Renton. Most notably anyone connecting via the 160, but also the 106, 107, 148, 153, 101, and 102
But why run extra buses when S Bellevue knocks out two birds with one stone?
From S Bellevue, you can go literally anywhere in the region in the most optimal way possible.
Bellevue TC requires significant backtracking and slows down the trip. Mercer Island buses are a lot of service hours that are not necessary.
Bellevue Way service will also serve more riders at nearly the same speed if a bus lane is built along 112th.
Stride S4 is a replacement for light rail. Peak hour buses can continue but we don’t need 10-15 min all day Mercer Island service to Issaquah Highlands. It’s absurd.
Similarly Stride S1 is for a fast trip between major destinations. Local deviations should be done by Metro routes. Otherwise it’s no longer an express.
The only place S Bellevue isn’t efficient to go to would be Kirkland or further north. But from S Bellevue to Bellevue TC, it can be pretty fast if the infrastructure is built. At most riders into downtown only lose a couple minutes, but it saves people who are transferring 15-20 minutes.
Yeah I don’t see a good way to serve Renton either.
People have suggested various infrastructure projects but none of them sound cheap or obvious. For now I would try and fix things by adding more service. All the buses would stop at the freeway stations (TIBS and NE 44th) if they go by them. With that in mind, I would run buses like so:
Peak:
a) Express from Burien to Bellevue (staying on 405).
b) 567 (express from Auburn/Kent to Bellevue that stays on 167/405).
c) 566
e) Express version of the F Line. The only difference would be between Renton and Burien, where it would run express (using 405).
f) 111 (as planned)
Off Peak:
a) Stride 1 (stopping in South Renton)
b) 566
c) 111
The 566 would run every fifteen minutes all day long. It would no longer serve Redmond. Peak buses would run at least every fifteen minutes.
During peak the riders from Burien, TIBS, Auburn and Kent have express buses to Bellevue that avoid congestion. Once the bus enters the HOV lanes (in Kent or Burien) it never leaves them. Riders in the heart of Renton would have buses headed express to Downtown Bellevue and TIBS/Burien.
Outside of peak, riders have slower trips, but they aren’t that bad. Burien or TIBS to Bellevue is still pretty fast. Those in the heart of Renton still have a one-seat ride to Downtown Bellevue. Those trying to get between Downtown Renton and Burien have to transfer (or they can take the F). The combination of the F and the 566 mean that someone who takes Stride from Burien can transfer to a frequent combination of buses to get to Downtown Renton.
This is more expensive but not a lot more. You are no longer running Stride buses during peak. This is when the bus is scheduled to run most often and it is also when it gets bogged down serving South Renton TC. The station is not that far from the freeway but just exiting the freeway at that point and getting back into the HOV lanes will cost it a considerable amount of time. You could save some money by running a shorter version of the 566 (Downtown Renton to Bellevue) opposite the other bus. But you are still bound to spend more on the buses. That’s OK. It is still much cheaper than Issaquah Link (or some aspects of the Stride projects).
This proposal does slow down the S Renton trip. S Renton is a major transfer point for several Metro routes and P&R.
I think your proposal works but the S Renton stop should be retained even during peak. I don’t think Burien or TIBS has justified capacity to shave off 5 mins by skipping South Renton (which arguably will produce the most ridership on S1).
But in the end, I think Stride S1 should remain as proposed.
And all we need to do is enhance the F to serve NE 44th, run the 566 all day terminating at S Renton, and run the 567 during peak. Any other local routes especially from the south should be realigned to include S Renton as a key transfer point.
S Renton will also enable 566 riders to transfer to the 101/102 if they want to go to Seattle outside of Sounder hours.
@Ross
“Stride will not be frequent.”
It’s not Link frequency but it’s fairly good. My understanding is that it is running at 15 minutes from morning til 9 PM, and 10 minutes at peak. That will put it among the most frequent KCM routes. That’s better than (I believe) every other route outside of Seattle except the A. It’s better than or comparable to some of the most productive routes in the entire network, like the 8 or 45.
On more express service: I think the Burien-Bellevue route will be fast enough (even with the exit/entry delay at S Renton) that an express layered on top doesn’t add much value unless the buses get fairly full. An Auburn/Kent-Bellevue express would definitely be useful though.
But why run extra buses when S Bellevue knocks out two birds with one stone?
Because it is not that good at either objective. Keep in mind, I’m assuming we connect the 405 and I-90 HOV lanes. This changes things. Suddenly the fastest way — by far — to get to Downtown Bellevue from Eastgate (and anywhere on I-90) is via a direct express bus. This saves you quite a bit of time — and a transfer. Keep in mind, Link doesn’t go everywhere. The Bellevue Transit Center is a major transit hub. Thus if you end at South Bellevue you force some riders to transfer twice — once there and once at the Bellevue TC.
If you are going to Seattle then Mercer Island is faster. You avoid the congestion on Bellevue Way approaching the station. That doesn’t mean that every location in Issaquah has buses to both Mercer Island and Downtown Bellevue. Imagine this combination:
a) North Issaquah to Mercer Island
b) Central Issaquah to Mercer Island
d) Highlands to Mercer Island
d) Highlands to Downtown Bellevue
e) Lake Hills to Downtown Bellevue (via Bellevue College)
f) Factoria to Redmond Tech and Downtown Redmond (via Bellevue College)
Now assume buses are running every fifteen minutes and timed accordingly. This means people from north and central Issaquah have to transfer at Eastgate to get to Downtown Bellevue. But a bus comes along every 7.5 minutes (which is better than Link. The bus runs every five minutes from Eastgate to Mercer Island. The transfer from Eastgate to Link is more frequent than Link itself. Many of the riders just walk up the hill to campus. But if they ride a bus, it should be around every 7.5 minutes. If you are trying to get from Issaquah to Redmond you transfer at Eastgate. Eastgate becomes a major transit hub. This is good, since it is actually a relatively dense area with a major college nearby. This is just an example or potential routing, but you get the idea.
The only place where it really makes sense to end at South Bellevue is with a bus like the 111 or 240. That is because those buses serve the area in between the main part of Renton and I-90. Once you are on I-90 you should go to Mercer Island or Downtown Bellevue. If you are in Renton you should go directly to Downtown Seattle or to Downtown Bellevue. But if you are in between you should go to South Bellevue Station (whether you keep going or not).
Peak hour buses can continue but we don’t need 10-15 min all day Mercer Island service to Issaquah Highlands. It’s absurd.
Why? It is quite reasonable for people in Issaquah or Eastgate to want the fastest way possible to get to Seattle (a much bigger destination than Downtown Bellevue). You also don’t want to create a situation where riders have to figure out what time it is and thus which station to use. Imagine they run an express from Mercer Island to the Highlands, but only at peak. So now it is 6:15 and a rider has to figure out whether the express is running or not. If not, they have to stay on the train until South Bellevue. That is just not a good system. There is also some additional benefit in making Mercer Island a hub. While not a major destination, it is a much bigger location than South Bellevue. It is quite reasonable for someone to want to go from an apartment in Mercer Island to Eastgate with one bus.
Stride S4 is a replacement for light rail.
Yes, which is why it is not a good idea! This is my point. ST is trying to have one bus replace a train. That is the wrong approach. Take the bus tunnel approach. Have multiple buses use the same corridor.
Similarly Stride S1 is for a fast trip between major destinations.
Except it fails on both counts. Again, this is why you should have multiple buses. It isn’t an express. During rush hour it has to leave the HOV lanes to “serve” Renton. Then it won’t serve it properly. Thus it is the worst of both worlds — it shortchanges a major destination (Renton) and it is not really an express from TIBS or Burien. To be clear, it is more an express than it is now and it will be plenty fast outside of peak. But during peak (when it will have a high portion of its riders) it won’t be that fast to Burien or Tukwila (while it will always shortchange Renton).
It is because the model is wrong. The idea that we have this one special bus (that is similar to a train) is just wrong. You should have multiple buses. To be fair, it works fine for Stride 2. There are a lot of destinations that happen to be close enough to the freeway to work. But even then it manages to skip Downtown Kirkland, which is a bigger destination than many of the places where it will stop.
I think your proposal works but the S Renton stop should be retained even during peak.
I don’t think you are following my proposal. With my proposal you have the 566 running more frequently. It runs through South Renton. The express version of the F Line (https://maps.app.goo.gl/vZPWRWWEpSu3nF3s6) runs through South Renton. So you still have connections to South Renton. The difference is, you also have connections to Downtown Renton (and Boeing and The Landing). Again, this is just during peak.
Put it this way: If you want to do what’s best for Renton, you run a bus through Renton (like this, more or less — https://maps.app.goo.gl/cPJwv6y3BtEYTjPD7). If you want what’s best for those disinterested in Renton, you bypass it. I basically suggest we do both during peak.
I think the Burien-Bellevue route will be fast enough (even with the exit/entry delay at S Renton) that an express layered on top doesn’t add much value unless the buses get fairly full.
I disagree. It will take a while. Obviously it is still faster than the existing bus, but a bus has to leave the HOV lanes and then get over into the exit lane. Then it has to enter the freeway and work its way into the HOV lanes. That doesn’t count the time spent on the surface streets. Sure, this looks like overkill but it is only during peak and it is a relatively small amount of money compared to a typical ST project.
Oh, and ironically, Downtown Bellevue has the kind of access that you want. A bus along 405 could leave the freeway, serve the transit center, get back on the freeway and continue without much of a delay, even when traffic is really bad. This means you could combine Stride 1 and 2 easily (but there isn’t much point). It is a shame getting to South Renton isn’t as easy.
@jd — Yes, compared to the rest of the crappy transit in the area, the multi-billion dollar “BRT” will be frequent. But it doesn’t work as a spine because it isn’t frequent enough. It is just fine if you are making a direct trip — say Burien to Downtown Bellevue. But if you are making a transfer (from say, Renton, Southcenter or even Link) the 15 minute frequency will be a problem. I’m not saying it easily lends itself to multiple, overlapping routes (unlike a lot of corridors) but a few more would change the dynamic.
Ross, my S4 proposal runs like the 556. It doesn’t terminate at S Bellevue
It uses 112th with bus lanes to quickly reach downtown Bellevue
Either way ST won’t fulfill your Renton fantasy. They’re building an expensive new station there. South Renton will be a major hub going forward.
S1 only has five stops/ stations.
Removing any stop will be detrimental to attracting riders as there would be just 4 stops. If anything, S1 should probably have more infill stops so that it can attract more riders throughout the day.
S1 only has five stops/stations.
Yes, that is part of the problem. It has only one stop in Renton — a very poor one. Yet serving Renton means leaving the HOV lanes. In the middle of the day it doesn’t impact travel time. But during peak it is the worst of both worlds. You delay those heading to Downtown Bellevue from Burien, Tukwila, Kent and Federal Way while failing to serve anything significant in Renton. That is why trying to serve the area with only one route doesn’t work very well.
“Yes, that is part of the problem. It has only one stop in Renton — a very poor one.”
Yes.
To put it in quantifiable terms, a five stop route has exactly only 10 on/off combinations. With the #3 or middle stop (Renton) being off-freeway, only 2 of those 10 don’t require going through Renton. 4 end in Renton, and the remaining 4 go though Renton without stopping — and those through trip riders must endure getting off the freeway than back on too.
So S1 is set up to be travel time frustrating for 4 of 10 trips. And those are the longer trip distances and the ones likely to attract more riders.
The route looks brilliant on a regional map. But the route details have some basic structural problems that limit the route’s success as a day-long route.
The Renton stop is not insignificant.
Rapid Ride I, Rapid Ride F, 102, 148, 153, 566, etc. will all be able to connect there. It’s also the most accessible location for P&R.
It is also the easiest location to realign transit connections from the south and east. The only disadvantaged area is Renton Downtown itself, which can be served by the 566 and F. Renton Highlands will be using the 111 instead.
“those through trip riders must endure getting off the freeway than back on too.”
Lol endure 5 mins to serve a station ? The total S1 trip will be under 40 mins. It’s not a slugfest like Link.
And when I complain about 15-20 mins wasted by the 1 Line in Rainier Valley, there is no similar complaint.
Ross, I’m not sure why you refer to Stride as “Closed” BRT. There isn’t anything stopping KCM from running routes that leverage some of the Stride stations, and I would expect some STX routes to overlap with Stride stations as well (for example, Everett-Bellevue probably stops at most of the S1 stations). As new ridership patterns emerge and TOD infills in response to new stations, I would expect frequency at Stride stations to grow overtime, both as well preforming routes get increased frequency and as new routes are introduced.
Ross has the right framework for Renton: an express service that sticks to the freeway and local service that does not. Can KCM do that by overlaying a bunch of routes and throwing bus hours at the problem, sure, that’s not the question we are debating.
The Renton stop is not insignificant.
It is basically a transfer point and a park and ride. That’s about it. By the way, the closest stop to it (44th) is also basically just a transfer point and a park and ride. The South Renton stop has more transfers, but in neither case are you close to a destination.
In contrast, consider the pathway of the existing 560. It also serves South Renton. But it also serves the main commercial core of Renton as well Boeing. If you look at the old data (https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/2020-service-implementation-plan.pdf#page=148) some people used the stop to the south but a lot more used the main transit center. Theoretically this is all people who transfer or park and ride but I doubt it. There are plenty of apartments and retail nearby and it makes sense that someone would walk to the bus stop. That just won’t be the case with South Bellevue.
Or consider Bellevue Transit Center. It is more than just a transit hub. It is also within walking distance of lot of huge buildings. Since it is the end of the line I think the bus should keep going (after serving the transit center) but it puts the rider in a very urban part of Bellevue. Unfortunately, the South Renton stop won’t do that.
Ross, neither the 560/566 stopped inside the P&R. It’s an uncomfortable 5+ min walk to reach the stop. Of course people will choose to park in the downtown garage instead if they wanted to ride those routes.
The timing also didn’t line up with transfers either. Hopefully Metro makes a better effort with Stride to coordinate with local routes.
Ross, I’m not sure why you refer to Stride as “Closed” BRT.
Yeah, I probably didn’t explain things that well. To begin with, I don’t have a good term for levels of right-of-way. At one extreme you have a bus tunnel or a subway line. At the other end you have transit running in mixed traffic. While the freeway sections are not quite “subway-standard” they are pretty close. For want of a better term, I’ll use that. So a bus that always runs in a subway-standard right of way can be thought of as closed.
With that in mind, the Stride 1 line is mostly closed. It is open in the middle, and a little bit on the ends. The open section in the middle is actually bad, since it slows down through-riders. Being open on the end is ideal. That is what typical Open BRT is like (Brisbane is a great example). Riders at each end (in the open sections) avoid a transfer. The only people who encounter a delay are those riders — thus everyone comes out ahead. Stride could do more of this. I could easily see it extending from the Bellevue Transit Center to serve more of Bellevue (similar to the 550). The same is true in Burien.
Yes, there is nothing stopping agencies from altering these routes or add new ones. But this isn’t being offered initially despite the massive amount of money being spent on the project. A lot of the money went into new buses and a new depot. This was largely done for political reasons (so they can call this “BRT” I guess). I’m sure it will have off-board payment, but given the lack of stops and the huge distances, it is way down on the list of buses that would benefit from it. A bus like the 75 — an ordinary, boring bus with mediocre ridership and a similar schedule — would benefit a lot more from off-board payment.
So my point is, if you are going to invest a fortune in bus infrastructure it should be done for more than one bus running 10 to 15 minutes a day. Either it should be like the RapidRide G — one route, but very frequent — or there should be a bunch of routes planned the day it opens. That gets to Renton and the “open” section in the middle. Again, this isn’t ideal. That is why it makes sense to have a bus that skips Renton and one that runs through it. Sure, that is expensive, but we aren’t talking about a lot of buses here (four buses an hour most of the day). Running another version (that goes through the Renton in the same manner as the existing 560 or 566) would not cost that much. You can also leverage the 560 (as I described before). It is this lack of initial functionality that will have people questioning the value of these projects.
In my opinion it gives bus-infrastructure a bad name. That certainly wasn’t the case with the bus tunnel. The day it opened there were a lot of buses running there. Plenty of people realized its value almost immediately. I don’t think that is going to be the case with Stride 1. Maybe Stride 2, but again, it too could use more overlapping routes. Stride 3 will add some worthwhile — but very expensive — right-of-way. But it will struggle to get the kind of ridership that came from the 372/522 combination. In that case the problem is just poor routing.
Ross, neither the 560/566 stopped inside the P&R.
Exactly! The park and ride is basically just a side benefit. It is like the park and ride at Roosevelt Station. Sure, it is there. It is actually quite big and it routinely fills up. Does it account for a high portion of the ridership? No, of course not. People walk to the station or they transfer from other buses.
The problem with the new station is that it pretty much *only* has the park and ride. Very few people will walk to it. There are connecting buses but they are less straightforward. Someone from the middle Renton will take the bus south, then transfer to a bus that goes back north again. In Renton, the routing is clearly much worse. The only significant benefit is better frequency. To be clear, riders from TIBS and Burien headed to Downtown Bellevue benefit (because the bus won’t spend so much time serving Renton). But those trying to get to and from Renton are pretty much out of luck.
When I saw “TCC” and “light rail” in the headline here, I thought this was going to be a post about advocating for the Tacoma Community College T Line extension. While regional transit advocates may be fighting to “Build the Damn Trains,” I haven’t heard much of anything about saving the ST3 T Line extension from transit advocates or local officials in Tacoma. But I’m not necessarily surprised by that.
Consider different modes to achieve the core goals of ST3 with dramatically lower costs. Each of my suggestions below save billions and can all be implemented independently.
West Seattle: invest in BRT infrastructure now, defer a bridge over the Duwamish until the West Seattle bridge reaches end of its useful life.
Ballard: Build as a standalone automated metro line. Zero tunneling to save billions; with a rubber trye vehicle, the metro can easily climb the grade from Smith Cove to Westlake using the existing street grid, and a fixed span bridge over the Ship Canal can have a Ballard station with reasonable station access.
Everett: Build to Mariner, defer the remaining alignment, and invest in the Swift & STX network in Snohomish.
Issaquah: Pivot to a Stride line with infill stations at Factoria and Central Issaquah. Leverage WSDOT toll funding to build HOV/HOT direct access ramps between I90 and 405.
Build a large OMF-S and defer the OMF-N, which more than offset the costs of an Interbay OMF for Ballard.
I agree about much of what you said. A few things:
West Seattle: Connect the Spokane Street Viaduct with the SoDo Busway. This is the best of both worlds for West Seattle riders. They get a fast trip to downtown and a fast connection to Link. The buses don’t have to be BRT to take advantage of the expressway (just as the buses in the bus tunnel weren’t BRT). For example, an all-day 56 would not be BRT. Yet getting to Alki or Admiral Junction from outside West Seattle would be better than with West Seattle Link.
Ballard: Agreed. It should be a standalone automated metro line. I also think an elevated bridge over Ballard makes the most sense. But running elevated through downtown might be difficult politically and as expensive as a tunnel. Smaller stations (that are a given with an automated metro) can dramatically reduce the cost when you are going underground. They make less of a difference above ground. The train in Ballard should be built so that it can be extended to First Hill and the UW.
Everett. Lynnwood is an excellent terminus. Ash Way can easily add bidirectional bus ramps. This would allow express buses from Everett to continue to serve Ash Way but do so without encountering congestion. At that point, there is very little value in extending the line. You don’t add anything significant from a network standpoint until you connect to SR-99. You don’t add anything big from a walk-up standpoint until you get to Boeing (and even that is challenging as Boeing is fairly spread out). It just isn’t worth the money. Invest in improved bus service.
Tacoma: Same idea. Federal Way is an excellent terminus. Just run the buses more often.
Issaquah: Connect the HOV ramps of I-90 and 405. Now Eastgate to Downtown Bellevue is as fast as Link. This is basically your “spine”. Buses from various places can converge onto that corridor. Central Issaquah, the Highlands, North Issaquah are the obvious examples. But also in the neighborhood, via Bellevue College. For example Robinswood through Bellevue College and then onto the freeway at Eastgate. So people from outside the Eastgate/Downtown Bellevue area have a reasonably frequent trip to Eastgate or Downtown Bellevue (a bus every fifteen minutes midday) while people trying to get from Eastgate to Downtown Bellevue would have a bus every couple minutes. Factoria should have a frequent bus to Bellevue College as well as South Bellevue Station. Now you’ve got a lot of good one and two seat rides. For example, someone can take a direct bus from Downtown Bellevue to Bellevue College (via the freeway and Eastgate). If they miss the bus they can take a bus heading towards Issaquah. Then they might end catching a bus from Factoria heading to the college. Meanwhile, someone from Issaquah gets off the bus at Eastgate and catches one of those buses to get to the college. Or they stay on the bus to get to Downtown Bellevue.
Ballard: elevated through LQA & SLU most certainly is cheaper than a tunnel. A tunnel is typically +50% the cost of an elevated line.
Everett: Getting to Mariner/128th provides a strong transfer to Swift Green. Connecting to Paine Field MIC to high quality transit is very important to Snohomish leadership, and a direct Link-Swift Green transfer provides that.
Tacoma: I’d at least get to South FW & build the OMF-S. I’m also considering the Tacoma Dome extension far enough along that I’d let that continue as-is and spend political capital elsewhere.
Mariner itself is also reasonably dense and it has the highest ridership estimates of all remaining stations for the subarea (higher than Everett)
https://seattletransitblog.com/2020/01/27/sound-transits-station-ridership-in-2040/
A tunnel is typically +50% the cost of an elevated line.
Yes, but this is not a typical location for elevated rail. In most cities — even in Europe or maybe especially in Europe — they go underground through areas like this. Not only is it urban, but there is a big hill. This means that the train has to be well above the street — not “just above” like at Northgate. It is worth exploring, but my guess is it would be just as expensive and a lot tougher politically.
Getting to Mariner/128th provides a strong transfer to Swift Green.
Yeah, but Swift Green doesn’t carry many riders (about 3,300 a day). It gets about 25 riders a day (each direction) at the stop closest to the Mariner Park and Ride. If this really was a big ridership pattern then ST should run an express overlay on top of the northern section of the Green Line. Start at Seaway — better yet, loop around Boeing — and then run on Airport Road until 128th, get on the freeway and then run express to Lynnwood. Once they add the bidirectional ramps it makes sense to stop at Ash Way. That is similar to the 513 — maybe it would get more riders.
Connecting to Paine Field MIC to high quality transit is very important to Snohomish leadership, and a direct Link-Swift Green transfer provides that.
Right, which gets back to the other idea. Just run a bus. In terms of politics, the main thing they want is the full spine. They don’t want to end at Paine Field. They certainly don’t want to end at Mariner. They want to end in Downtown Everett. I get it — I’m just saying from a *transit* perspective it is a poor plan. Any extension north of Everett is bound to get you very few riders for the money. Which brings up the next comment (from jd).
Mariner itself is also reasonably dense
Yeah, sure. But it is still very close to the freeway and there are very few destinations close to it. It is the type of station that historically has performed poorly. Most of the people in the area will have cars and for most of their trips, cars will be used. I would expect net ridership to increase only slightly. Even many existing riders would not benefit much. Lynnwood gets a lot of riders from north of Mariner. Riders on a bus like the 512 will just ride the bus a little bit less but ride the train a bit more. They don’t save much time at all. Likewise, drivers who park and ride will do the same thing. I’m not saying it doesn’t add any value — I’m saying it doesn’t add much and it is very expensive.
This is a fundamental problem with any extension to the north (or south). We already have good connections to I-5 which means that buses (and park and riders) can get there easily. To really add value you need to leave the freeway envelope. But doing that is expensive, especially if you plan on serving several stations along the way.
But the biggest problem is that the fundamentals are weak. You have tiny pockets of density that aren’t that dense. The destinations in Snohomish County aren’t that big (other than Downtown Everett and even that isn’t that big). You are are a really long ways from Seattle (and its destinations). In contrast, I remember talking with someone about one of the Shoreline Stations. She mentioned how quick it will be to get to the UW or downtown. By the time you get up to Lynnwood this goes away. It still might be the fastest way to get there, but it takes a while. You largely have commuters and people going to special events — the same people who take the bus to Lynnwood now.
I have no problem at all with the routing of Everett Link (although I think it should have more stations). It makes a lot more sense than Tacoma Dome Link. They are really trying to take advantage of the advantages of a metro. The problem is, they are just too small and too spread out to get a lot of riders (and any extension is too expensive). Just run more buses. Oh, and connect the HOV ramps at Ash Way.
Again: use a rubber tire bus so the grades can be identical to the local street grid. The RR-D doesn’t need an elevated viaduct to drive up the hill. Since we are talking about smaller, more frequent trains than Link, the value of steel wheels & rails is mostly lost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber-tyred_metro
“ Consider different modes to achieve the core goals of ST3 with dramatically lower costs. ”
Yes! Absolutely, AJ! The corridor/destination objectives and the travel time objectives for riders should be what’s most important. The thing is that ST cannot fulfill the corridor and station promises of ST3 because it’s short by tens of billions using the current Link technology.
Saying that it’s “shovel ready” is fine for a bridge replacement. But this is a rail line. It’s supposed to be for rider benefit and service and maintenance will be ongoing in theoretical perpetuity. “Shovel ready” may be relevant in construction phasing, but if the project has poor benefit, it’s a lame excuse to just waste public money.
The core question that no one will dare ask of ST and TCC is this:
How can we best achieve the high capacity corridor goals and travel time goals of ST3 by merely changing the technology?
TCC and ST absolutely refuse to reconsider going with anything but current Link as the technology. They are even willing to drop segments and stations and even subarea allocations before examining if a different technology can bring the intended system connectivity, reliability and speed while staying more on budget.
Finally, TCC and ST continue to repeatedly blame inflation as the cost overrun culprit in their narratives. That simply is not true! It has been initially low-balled cost estimates (including assuming much less land acquisition in the initial budget calculation), shortchanged assumed contingencies and massive scope creep (especially switching to underground segments) that are the main culprits. By blaming just inflation, they create pressure to start building ASAP, which is what TCC (funded heavily by big civil and construction firms) and ST (with its bloated extension program staff size) want to protect. The urgency to build appears to me to be mostly artificial.
The issue with Link in Issaquah and Stride Renton is fundamentally stop spacing. Issaquah and Renton are cities, not neighborhoods, and they require standard ~0.5 mile stop spacing to be served properly. Issaquah Link should become a Stride line, which will free up billions to add multiple stations in both Issaquah and Renton (helpfully, both are in East King).
Issaquah needs stations at 11th (to serve “Central Issaquah” and the Costco campus), 4th Ave NW, and perhaps 3rd Ave NE (to serve Olde Towne), plus should terminate at the Highlands TC and serve the 3 existing bus stops in the Highlands, operating in mixed traffic in the Highland.
Renton should have freeways stations at Lind Ave (connection to RR-F), Talbot (future RR-I), near S 2nd/3rd, and Southport. Only the last of these requires an interchange rebuild, the rest should be inline freeway stations with costs in the tens of millions.
Would stops at Lind at Talbot really be that cheap? To me they look like they would require the bridges to be rebuilt
On the Issaquah side, shouldn’t the bus just exit at some point and serve Issaquah rather than staying in the freeway median?