Previously we talked about the pilot route of Sound Transit’s overnight bus service which launched last weekend from SeaTac to downtown Seattle. This article will go over Sound Transit’s full overnight bus service proposal extended south through Tacoma to Lakewood, north to Everett, and east through Bellevue to Redmond.
Overview
Sound Transit plans to run new overnight bus service when Link is not running between about 1 a.m. to 5 a.m., which is slightly shifted from the pilot service which currently runs from midnight to 4 a.m. There will be 3 lines heading north, south, and east of Seattle. All three routes will run about every 30 minutes.
The exact service name, as well as specific routing, stops and schedules are still under consideration, but we’ll go over the existing proposal. For discussion purposes, much of the routing will be assumed based on the high-level map and existing ST Express routes. Sound Transit has been informally calling the routes “Night Bus” which we use. (King County Metro calls their overnight service “Night Owl”).
- South Express Night Bus: Seattle via SeaTac to Tacoma (and Lakewood)
- Will replace the initial pilot service
- North Express Night Bus: Seattle via Lynnwood to Everett
- East Express Night Bus: Seattle via Bellevue to Redmond
Downtown Seattle
All three Express Night Buses will serve downtown Seattle. Above are the stops in the initial service proposal. While ST express buses usually travel on the 2nd Ave & 4th Ave couplet, the initial service proposal and probably also the Express Night Buses will travel on 3rd Avenue instead. The bus stops used on 3rd Ave mostly mirror the Route 4 bus.
South Express Night Bus
The initial service proposal and full South Express Night Bus will both start in downtown Seattle. They will then head south to the SODO district.
SODO and Rainier Valley
In SODO, they will both stop next to the Stadium Station and SODO Station using the SODO busway. Afterwards the Express Night Bus will head south on I-5 using the Spokane St ramps.
Both the initial pilot service and the full South Express Night Bus will skip Rainier Valley, though the Route 7, Route 36, and Route 107 have night owl service and partially cover the Rainier Valley stations. The initial pilot service, Route 570, was discussed in a previous STB article.
One problem with these existing Rainier Valley night owl connections is that they only connect north to downtown Seattle. None of the routes provide service south to TIBS nor SeaTac.
SeaTac on International Boulevard
The South Express Night Bus will then exit I-5 and enter the TIBS bus loop. Then it will head south on International Boulevard to reach the SeaTac light rail station. The bus will stop at the existing RapidRide A bus stops.
Returning passengers from the airport to Seattle will board at the northbound bus stop at International Boulevard. From the airport, one will enter the SeaTac garage, cross the first pedestrian bridge, enter the SeaTac Station, cross the second pedestrian bridge, and then go down the elevator. (When the full South Express Night Bus, departing passengers from Tacoma/Lynnwood will use the same path just in reverse.)
Departing passengers from Seattle to the airport will disembark at the southbound bus stop in the median of Airport Expressway and International Boulevard. Riders will then use the crosswalk to the east, go up the elevator, and cross the two pedestrian bridges. When the full South Express Night Bus opens, returning passengers to Tacoma/Lynnwood will also use this path just in reverse.
Currently there is a bit of conflicting official advice by Sound Transit and the Port of Seattle whether both pedestrian bridges stay open. It’s assumed Sound Transit would now keep the pedestrian bridge open overnight. Alternatively if Sound Transit is unable to keep the pedestrian bridge open, travelers can take a 20+ minute detour at the S 182nd St intersection to reach SeaTac. (This is sarcasm please keep the bridges open).
The initial service proposal ends at SeaTac.
The full South Express Night Bus will continue south first by heading east on S 188th St to reach the I-5 freeway. (Skipping Angle Lake Station).
Lynnwood and Tacoma
The South Express Night Bus will likely follow the existing Route 574, before the future truncation to Federal Way (the overnight service alignment looks the same as Route 574). The bus will stop at the I-5 freeway flyer stops next to Kent/Des Moines and Star Lake and then stop at Federal Way Station using the HOV direct access ramp.
The bus will continue south on I-5 and then stop at Tacoma Dome. The bus will skip downtown Tacoma and then head to Lakewood. The bus will first stop at the SR 512 P&R before ending at the Lakewood Sounder Station.
East Express Night Bus
The East Express Night Bus bus will start in downtown Seattle then head east via Bellevue and then finally stop in Redmond. Starting from Wilburton Station (East of I-405), the bus stops about a quarter mile from many stations in order to maintain decent travel time on Bel-Red Road.
Judkins Park, Mercer Island, and I-90 route
After leaving downtown Seattle the East Express Night Bus will likely follow routing similar to the existing Route 554. The bus will likely stop at Rainier Ave & S Charles St (maps) which is the closest bus stop to Judkins Park station before the I-90 on/off ramps. Then the bus will merge onto I-90 to the Mercer Island Park & Ride next to the Mercer Island Station and then continue on I-90.
Bellevue and Redmond first Night service
The East Express Night Bus in Bellevue is a bit of an amalgamation of 3 different bus routes. From South Bellevue to downtown Bellevue it will run on Bellevue way similar to existing Route 550 or future Route 554 (realigned to Bellevue instead of Seattle). From downtown Bellevue to Overlake Village it will travel on Bel-Red Road similar to existing Route 226. Finally from Overlake Village to Redmond, it will use SR-520 similar to existing Route 545.
Note, currently no other King County buses run between midnight to 4 am on the Eastside so this would be the Eastside’s first night bus service.
Bellevue Way
The East Express Night Bus will exit off I-90 to Bellevue way and stop at South Bellevue station. Then the bus will continue north up Bellevue way similar to the existing Route 550. The bus will skip East Main station.
It is unknown if the night bus will make any intermediate stops on Bellevue Way before reaching Bellevue Transit Center. Since night time ridership is relatively low, the bus could probably stop at many of them, though this is still a relatively long route. I recommended that the bus should at least stop at Bellevue Way NE & Main St (maps) and Bellevue Way SE & 108th Ave SE (maps) if forced to restrict the number of stops.
Bel-Red
Traveling east of downtown Bellevue, the East Express Night Bus will mirror Route 226. Sound Transit likely followed this alignment on Bel Red road because the stops are only around 800 feet away from the East Link stations, rather than a RapidRide B alignment on NE 8th Street around a half mile away from each station. The bus will likely stop at NE 12th St & 120th Ave NE (maps) for Spring District station and Bel-Red Rd & 132nd Ave NE (maps) for Bel-Red station.
Again it is unknown if the bus will make any more intermediate stops on the way east to Overlake Village, but it’s suggested that the bus should at least stop at NE Bel-Red Rd & 148th Ave NE (maps) for mile stop spacing.
SR-520 and Redmond
The last segment in Redmond is harder to interpret. Most likely the bus will turn north onto 156th Ave from Bel-Red Road. The bus will likely stop at 156th Ave NE & NE 28th St (maps) about a quarter mile from the Overlake Village station and then continue north to the Redmond Technology station bus bay.
From Redmond Technology (aka Microsoft) the East Express Night Bus will head north on SR-520 to and exit at Sammamish Parkway to reach Redmond. The bus will stop at NE 76th Street next to the Downtown Redmond station. Then the bus will head east on Redmond Way. The bus will stop near Marymoor Village though the closest spot possible would be Redmond Way & NE 76th St (maps) next to the SR 520 on ramp. Lastly the bus will terminate at Bear Creek P&R.
North Express Night Bus
The North Express Night Bus will travel from Seattle via Lynnwood to Everett. The stops are similar to the ST Express 510/512/513 buses before they were truncated to Lynnwood station. Some stops might require bringing back some freeway flyer stops to avoid circuitous routing.
Exiting Seattle and 45th Street
The bus will take the Olive Way ramp to reach I-5 north. Olive Way & Boren Ave will likely be the last stop before heading onto the freeway. It’s unlikely the bus will stop around Capitol Hill especially since the Olive Way bus island was removed.
(Normally the I-5 express lanes close between 11:00 PM and 5:00 AM, so it’s assumed the bus cannot use the Stewart St on-ramp onto the express lanes)
(Google Street View)
Once heading north on I-5, the proposal suggests stopping at the NE 45th Freeway Flyer station. Sound Transit will need to reinstall some bus shelters at the flyer stations that were formerly removed, but thankfully the northbound bus island still exists. While the bus stops are about a third of a mile from U District station, having any stop nearby is definitely a lot better than skipping the UW area completely.
Northgate and Shoreline South
The bus will skip Roosevelt station and then stop at Northgate. For Northgate it’s assumed the bus will enter Northgate Transit Center.
For Shoreline South, there used to be northbound and southbound freeway flyer stops. However, it’s unknown if Sound Transit will reuse those former freeway flyer stops. Most likely the agency will reuse the southbound one, but just place the northbound bus stop on 5th Ave NE.
Mountlake Terrace and Lynnwood
Continuing north on I-5 the North Express Night Bus will skip Shoreline North. The bus would then stop at the Mountlake Terrace median freeway station and then Lynnwood transit center via the center HOV direct access ramps.
South Everett and North Everett
Continuing north the North Express Night Bus will stop at Ash Way (P&R) with the HOV center direct access ramps. This is virtually the same as the ST Express 512.
Changes from 2025 proposal to 2026 Jan proposal
 2025 overnight proposal(Sound Transit) |  2026 Feb overnight proposal (Sound Transit) |
From 2025 Oct to the 2026 Feb, there have been a couple changes in the proposed night bus service. Above is the map of the 2025 proposal. Notably originally TIBS and Marymoor Village stations were skipped. On the opposite end, downtown Tacoma (10th & Commerce St) is now skipped.
In the just recently released 2026 Service Plan, Sound Transit has suggested prioritized staying on the freeway and skipping Pioneer Square, Stadium, SODO, Judkins Park, and Marymoor Village stations as well. The agency likely considers these stations overnight service already covered by existing routes with Stadium and SODO stations covered by Route 124 and Judkins Park covered by Route 7.
| 2025 Oct proposal | 2026 Feb proposal | 2026 (March?) service plan |
| serves Stadium, SODO skip Judkins Park skip TIBS skip Marymoor Village serves downtown Tacoma | serves Stadium, SODO serves Judkins Park serves TIBS serves Marymoor Village skip downtown Tacoma | skip Stadium, SODO skip Judkins Park serves TIBS skip Marymoor Village skip downtown Tacoma |
Note as previously mentioned, Sound Transit has not yet finalized the alignment.
Timetable
The initial service proposal from Seattle (Pine Street) to SeaTac states it will take 33 minutes according to most recent GTFS data. Link light rail takes 37 min, car traffic on i-5 takes 20~45 min. Hopefully the lack of traffic at midnight helps maintain such nice travel times.
| South Express Night Bus | East Express Night Bus | North Express Night Bus | |
| Start downtown | Westlake 0 min | Westlake 0 min | Chinatown 0 min |
| Leave downtown | Chinatown 6 min | Chinatown 6 min | Westlake 6 min |
| SODO 13 min | Mercer Island 16 min | Northgate 18~24 min | |
| Mid point (initial service proposal stops at SeaTac) | SeaTac 33 min | Bellevue 31* min | Lynnwood 35~41* min |
| Federal Way 58* min | Overlake Village 45* min | South Everett 48~54* min | |
| End | Tacoma Dome 69~75* min | Redmond 60* min | Everett 60~66* min |
| Routes used to estimate | initial service proposal, ST 574 | Route 550, Route 226, Route 545 | Route 41, CT 510, ST 512 |
The other numbers above are my best educated guess from combining related existing bus routes (Route 550 for I-90, Route 150 on SODO Busway). Note the travel times might be much faster than typical off-peak hours because it’s in the middle of the night.
Speed vs Access
For the North Express Night Bus, Sound Transit should definitely use the freeway flyer stops. While adding too many stops will slow down the express bus too much, it is still important to add important stops such as the NE 45th one near U District near lots of students and density. Fixing and reintroducing some previously used freeway flyer stops can help ensure the overnight buses are both fast and easy to access.
For the East Express Night Bus, it has many local segments (Bellevue Way, Bel-Red). The agency should neither add too many stops hampering frequency nor have too wide stop spacing. Implementing a half-mile to one-mile stop spacing would provide a solid middle ground, allowing overnight buses to stay fast without requiring excessive walking
For the South Express Night Bus, some coordination between King County for the missing Rainier Valley segment would help connect the region. An extension of the overnight Route 7 to TIBS or SeaTac would help bridge the gap.
Conclusion
Sound Transit Overnight express buses are quite exciting for the region. These will allow people throughout the Seattle metro area to continue to use transit even after midnight. Whether that would be heading back home after a late night flight or work, these Express Night Buses will be invaluable for transit riders.
The South Express should loop through the airport roadway and serve the bus stop at the south end of the terminal. (It can also serve the Link stop like the 560 does.)
Sure. That ought to be the terminus of the southern route. And the northern route. And maybe the eastern route.
Downtown is a dreadful place to have to wait for a transfer at 2:00 in the morning.
Shift workers will be the main ridership group, so the system ought to be organized around large 24-hour employment centers, like the airport.
I understand how we got to this point, but the fact that ST is planning on serving more Link stops in Bellevue than Seattle is ridiculous. Yes, Bellevue lacks general night coverage, but still. Is this bus for people to ride, or is it to fulfill a vaguely stated political obligation?
Skipping RV and Capitol Hill just doesn’t make sense. Does the bus really need to be super express speeds? If I flew home and missed the last Link train to Beacon Hill (now 1 hour earlier for basically no reason), I could take the ST 570 to an untimed transfer to the 36. I could also take the 124 to the 107, though that’s probably a worse transfer time-wise. Great, two competing options that are bad enough to be hardly usable.
Express buses are great when there’s actual other options. But this is a case where there isn’t really another option. If you’re coming from the South, going downtown to a local bus and riding it most of the way back is a pretty terrible trip. We shouldn’t accept that when there’s obviously better options.
It’s okay for the 570 to skip some stops that aren’t reasonably servable. Beacon Hill probably can’t support a permanent Link bus mirror. But routing the bus down MLK to Rainier, while slower, would serve the network so much better (it could even serve Judkins Park!). Plus it’s an obvious gap, since the 106 doesn’t have owl service (the 107 does). I don’t think extending a night owl 7 to TIBS is feasible or practical. Metro shouldn’t have to fill in the gaps ST leaves because it’s uninterested in serving riders.
The Downtown Seattle – SeaTac corridor is already served. The SeaTac – South End is not. Why add a second bus to the former before adding a first to the latter?
Exactly. The 570 should actually be an all day bus during the day. Not at night. The point is to skip the Link slowness and give people a faster trip to Seattle from the south.
At night, another route should duplicate Link exactly.
Eh, I think the 577 plays that role fine. For airport travelers, the consistency of Link is more important than the potential 10 minute time savings of an express bus, and it’s not clear to me how many airport or South County workers would really use it. And I don’t see a strong need to serve SODO or Stadium late at night. Beacon Hill is just difficult, and riders would at least be able to transfer to the 36 at Othello
An express can go to the terminal directly. I think people would use it.
Since SKR mentioned daytime express, I wonder if people are allowed to buy ticket for Flixbus or Dungeness Line just to travel between Seattle and SeaTac Airport?
> But routing the bus down MLK to Rainier, while slower, would serve the network so much better (it could even serve Judkins Park!).
It would take too long for the night bus to go on rainier Ave then tibs and then SeaTac and then still run all the way to Tacoma and lakewood. That might be a one and a half to maybe a three hour bus ride if there’s traffic
Late at night a bus could run on Rainier quite quickly. The bus would likely skip SoDo and Stadium stations, but the backtracking (from CID) is minimal compared to the stations in Rainier Valley.
It’s 10 to 15 minutes at 11:30 PM from the MLK exit to 4th and Jackson via I5, and 20 to 30 minutes via MLK. I think we can afford a 10 to 15 minute detour on a night owl bus to actually serve riders. It would not be an hour detour like you are implying. Even at the worst of times, the 106 schedule at rush hour is only ~30 minutes longer than the 101 off peak over a roughly comparable distance. If there’s a need for faster service between Pierce County and Seattle late night, just run the 594 later and have the 570 as an airport connection.
This bus is doing essentially everything wrong. It’s prioritizing speed at a time of day when connectivity is way more important, and it’s prioritizing low-ridership suburban areas over high-ridership urban areas.
> It would not be an hour detour like you are implying
the scheduled time from chinatown to rainier beach via route 106 is 23 minutes at midnight https://www.google.com/maps/dir/47.5993578,-122.3288684/47.5228839,-122.2778866/@47.5609861,-122.3398442,13z/am=t/data=!4m7!4m6!2m4!5e0!6e0!7e2!8j1775433600!3e3!5m1!1e2?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDQwMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
and probably another 5 minutes to reach i 5 from rainier beach so thats more like 15 minute difference.
it is fine if the bus is just going from downtown seattle to seatac. but if the bus then continues on to federal way and tacoma it’s precarious of a route then. The bigger problem is that if the bus does get stuck or even in moderate traffic this very long route will have cascading failures with headways.
Don’t you think that pulling off I-5 at KDM and Star Lake to several minutes each, Wesley? These are stations that have much lower daily ridership than any of the RV stations — and RapidRide A already has hourly service to a block from KDM.
Wesley,
That looks like a midday (noon) trip. The final trip of the day takes 23 minutes to go from C/ID to Rainier Beach. The 570 could make the run a little faster by using Dearborn instead of Jackson, and by having fewer stops (though that’s pretty marginal). I’m not very familiar with MLK past 1 AM, but I would be extremely surprised if traffic was a limiting factor for any trip ever.
Yes, going a slower route makes the bus a bit trickier to schedule. Maybe ST would have to bring another bus into service to maintain 30 minute headways. That’s totally fine. I’d rather pay slightly more for a service that’s more usable for more people.
I think it’s a bit disingenuous to imply that traffic issues on MLK in the wee hours of the morning will make scheduling a reliable bus between downtown, Rainier Valley, SeaTac, and Pierce County infeasible.
> I think it’s a bit disingenuous to imply that traffic issues on MLK in the wee hours of the morning will make scheduling a reliable bus between downtown, Rainier Valley, SeaTac, and Pierce County infeasible.
I mean it’s not impossible but sound transit would likely have to run double buses to maintain the same frequency. I think you guys are severely underestimating the time difference between running on 7 miles on an avenue versus on the freeway.
Wesley,
I think the consensus is that it’s likely to be 15 minutes slower. That is 100% worth it. Even if it’s somehow 30 minutes slower, that would still be worth it. There is not appreciable demand for super fast express service at 1 AM on any constituent corridor. If there is we should start with running existing ST Express routes later (in this case, the 594).
And service late night on MLK is more important for an agency interested in serving transit riders than late night service between Lakewood and Tacoma, or Tacoma and Seattle.
I am doubtful that somehow this would cause the need for buses to double, or the frequency to be cut in half. But in both cases, that is a preferable outcome. It makes no sense to run owl service to a bunch of places no one lives. I mean we aren’t even serving downtown Tacoma anymore. Who is this service even for? Who in Pierce County is going to take this bus to Tacoma Dome or Lakewood to be met with zero intercepting bus services? I guess some workers can park at Tacoma Dome instead of parking at the airport now. That’s a pretty fringe use case for a regional express bus.
On MLK, there’s significant residential density and practical connections. The fact that this is the pilot we got is very telling of ST as an agency. We have to serve the burbs first and Seattle second. It’s ridiculous, and it shouldn’t be tolerated by people who live in Seattle. Peak hour or even all day express service to the suburbs is very important. But this was a chance to make the owl network better and it somehow doesn’t even do that.
> Don’t you think that pulling off I-5 at KDM and Star Lake to several minutes each, Wesley? These are stations that have much lower daily ridership than any of the RV stations — and RapidRide A already has hourly service to a block from KDM.
it looks like they are just using the freeway flyer stops on the on/off ramps not detouring into the station. it will be pretty quick.
“Late at night a bus could run on Rainier quite quickly.”
I sometimes take a walk on Capitol Hill in the early morning when I can’t sleep, and one morning I ended up at 5:30am near St Mark’s cathedral and I saw the first 49 would come shortly. (Yaay for bus stop schedules.) There was also a crowd of people I hadn’t expected; I guess the church has a nighttime homeless shelter.
I rode the bus to downtown and decided to stay on as it turned into a 7 and continued to Rainier Beach, to see what it and Link are like at that hour. It got from Jackson Street to Henderson Street in twenty minutes! I was amazed in the daytime it had always taken me 30-40 minutes (which is why I usually take Link instead). In retrospect it makes sense that buses can go much faster at night when there’s no traffic.
The other people on the bus, around half the people got off at various stops on 3rd Avenue. A few got off on Jackson. Then nobody got off until Columbia City or so (I don’t remember exactly where). At Rainier Beach a couple others got off.
I had a similar experience with route 10. I used to pick up a weekly CSA (farm subscription) box at 16th & Aloha. One day it was after 5pm and I wanted to get to a Pike Place Market store before it closed at 6. I assumed the ride would take 30 minutes and it was questionable whether I’d make it on time. But the bus took an amazingly fast 5 minutes to Broadway, and 5 more minutes to 4th Avenue. 10 minutes from 15th & Aloha to 4th & Pine! I didn’t realize it could be so fast if there’s little traffic that day. I was used to it taking 8-10 minutes just to get from 4th Avenue to Broadway (which is why I usually take Link for that).
A bus that runs down MLK would serve Rainier Beach (cx 107), Othello (cx 36), Columbia City (cx ?), Mt. Baker (cx 48). After Mt. Baker, the bus could follow I-90 to Mercer Island and Bellevue. That routing would save eastside riders from having to go downtown to make a 3:00am connection. I’ll let others do the timetable math, but I think a one-seat ride at 3:00 is preferable to 2-seat rides.
“Who in Pierce County is going to take this bus to Tacoma Dome or Lakewood to be met with zero intercepting bus services?”
I have many times been standing on 2nd sweating whether I’d missed the last 594, and contemplating whether a hotel or a $200 Uber would make more sense.
I agree. The lack of service to Rainier Valley from the airport (or TIBS) is the obvious big weakness in the late night system. There are lots of people that ride Link south from Rainier Valley. Late at night, they have no good way of getting back.
I also understand why ST wants to have a complementary system. But strictly speaking, there is no late-nigh service at many of the Rainier Valley stations, let alone service connecting riders to the south. It is also worth noting that Seattle itself paid extra for that late night service. There was a concern from Seattle leaders that paying extra for service would lead Metro to simply shift service elsewhere (defeating the purpose of the funding). Yet that appears to be happening here. Seattle is getting less service from ST because Seattle actually has a late-night network.
There is an inconsistency here as well. The plan is to stop at Tukwila. Yet Tukwila is also served by the RapidRide A and 124. I’m not saying the bus should skip Tukwila but if it was being consistent it would. I feel like Seattle isn’t getting what it should from ST when it comes to late night service.
I personally still think a rethink of how 107 and 124 work is probably a more viable path for Rainier to Airport service, for example, how about moving the 124 south of georgetown into rainier valley? The owl bus is supposed to be for regional travel, and I feel like the rainier valley debate could potentially make the route attractive to neither local and regional travelers
its not a parity problem between cities. its a problem with stopping the train too early.
The pedestrian bridge between international blvd station and the airport is open 24/7 currently. There may be intermittent construction activity for the 2nd elevator but the bridge itself should remain open.
I was wondering about that, since the vacant lot in the north side of 176th is supposed to be a taxi pickup lot. You’d expect people to want to access that at all hours.
I think that ST still doesn’t fully get that the overnight service should not be intended as a new set of stand-alone routes, but should be instead a replacement service when Link isn’t running. In other words, it should be thought of as a “bus bridge” when Link isn’t running.
That should mean that the routes should have stops that are convenient from station entrances and well—signed from those entrances closed overnight. It should also stop at Capitol Hill as it’s the second busiest station and a big area for late night clubbing. But more than that, it should only be skipping stations that are really hard to serve like maybe Beacon Hill. Adding 10 minutes by running on MLK rather than I-5 is not terribly inconvenient late at night. Going places further out that Link doesn’t should not be happening.
Are the route planners at ST really that thoughtless? Do they not realize that this should primarily be a Link replacement service? Do they not realize that if Link needs to shut down an hour or two early some night that riders should be directed to use these buses?
It just seems to me that the objectives of this service have been forgotten.
It would probably take a minimum of an extra 15 minutes to run on mlk assuming no traffic. But probably more like 30 minutes extra.
If we’re just talking about the initial pilot service to SeaTac than that could still be achievable with one extended bus (like route 7 or some night route 106 to SeaTac)
However for the full length version there’s no way to make running on mlk/rainier combined with bus that runs to Tacoma make sense. It’d have to be a separate bus
It is a little tricky to estimate things via Google maps. That is because Google doesn’t estimate trips if you have multiple destinations (and you need multiple destinations to force it to go to CID via Rainier). But if you string together a few routes you can do it. So:
Via MLK: 21-30 minutes.
Via SoDo: 12-14 minutes.
So the savings is somewhere around 9-16 minutes (according to Google). To round it a bit, that means running down MLK would only cost you about 10 to 15 minutes. It is likely this is close to the travel time from SeaTac to downtown via Link. It seems like a small price to pay given there is no connection between Rainier Valley and SeaTac at night.
Capitol Hill is a different story. There are other options for a lot of the trips that a Capitol Hill riders would take. The 49 connects to the U-District and downtown. From there, riders can transfer to Beacon Hill, Rainier Valley, Roosevelt, Northgate or the UW Station (e. g. the hospital). The key is to minimize the waiting with those transfers. In the middle of the day this is very difficult but it shouldn’t be too hard late at night.
@ross
we have the scheduled time of route 106 at midnight. we don’t have to use google maps drive estimates
“@ross
we have the scheduled time of route 106 at midnight. we don’t have to use google maps drive estimates.”
The problem with using Route 106 travel times is that it’s a local route. The bus driver has to be vigilant in case someone is waiting at a local stop.
It also follows Jackson rather than Dearborn. Jackson is slower, even in the middle of the night.
It may not be as fast as I-5 but a bus with limited stops on MLK is going to be faster than Route 106 by a few minutes.
Yeah, what Al said. I should point out that I double checked my maps and I made a small mistake (I had the starting point in the wrong place which means that the car had to turn around). So here are my updated numbers:
From the freeway ramp to Mount Baker: 10-14 minutes. Note: I used “avoid highways”.
From Mount Baker to CID: 8-12 minutes
So it takes roughly 18 to 26 minutes to go via MLK. For the current pathway I also used Google Maps. Since I can’t go via SoDo busway (with a car) I went 4th:
I-5 to 4th Avenue South — 6 minutes.
4th & Spokane Street to 4th & MA — 3 minutes.
MA & 4th to Jackson — 3 minutes.
So 12 minutes. This is travel time, not counting the stops themselves. But you would only make two additional stops if you went MLK (since you wouldn’t stop at SoDo or Stadium). Let’s add a minute for that. So that means 18-26 versus 12. Or a difference of between 6 and 14. This is right in line with the 10 to 15 minutes I mentioned earlier — maybe better. The only thing that doesn’t look good is the variance. You would probably allow extra time so that you can time other buses. Thus it would take an extra fifteen minutes to get downtown from the airport (or places to the south). According to the schedule for the 570, it takes 27 minutes to get from the airport to Jackson. Thus it would take 42 minutes. According to the Link schedule it takes 34 minutes. So if they were conservative with the routing it would take about 8 minutes longer than Link.
Have you ever been on MLK between 1 and 5 am? The signals all default to green for MLK traffic. There’s almost no stopping at any signal. The most likely delay would be at the MLK and Rainier intersection. It wouldn’t add anywhere near 20 minutes, let alone 30.
Even a partial MLK and Columbian Way routing instead of I-5 that then uses the SODO busway could be useful.
Again, the primary intent of the service as I see it is to replace Link. It’s not to create speed to far away destinations. That’s being lost in these proposed routing details.
the scheduled time from chinatown to rainier beach via route 106 is 34 minutes at midnight https://www.google.com/maps/dir/47.5993578,-122.3288684/47.5228839,-122.2778866/@47.5609861,-122.3398442,13z/am=t/data=!4m7!4m6!2m4!5e0!6e0!7e2!8j1775433600!3e3!5m1!1e2?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDQwMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
and probably another 5 minutes to reach i 5 from rainier beach so thats more like 15 minute difference.
If it is just a short seattle to seatac bus i could see it working. but if it continues on to federal way/tacoma it is just too long to also go to rainier valley
You’re missing the bigger point if my original comment, Wesley. This should be approached as a Link overnight replacement service. Losing 10 minutes is not defeating this service’s primary intent; leaving someone stranded at a Link station for a few hours or not directing where a rider who just missed the last train is.
> Again, the primary intent of the service as I see it is to replace Link. It’s not to create speed to far away destinations. That’s being lost in these proposed routing details…. You’re missing the bigger point if my original comment, Wesley. This should be approached as a Link overnight replacement service.
it’s two separate questions.
1) is the overnight service mostly to serve lynnwood (everett)/federal way (tacoma)/redmond?
Sound transit does mostly see this initial pilot service to serve the farther places. either way this night bus will eventually be extended out to federal way.
2) if we were to serve rainier valley how would we do it.
I agree we should serve rainier valley. but I don’t agree that a combined bus that goes both to rainier valley and then continues on to federal way and tacoma makes sense. it should be two separate buses.
It’s not two separate questions as I see it, Wesley. It’s one basic question:
Is this primarily supposed to be overnight Link replacement service or not?
Every thing about the stop locations, branding and signage revolves around this singular question to me. It isn’t a Link replacement service unless it has the stops at high ridership stations and has the signage at station entrances explaining what to do.
ST pitched it initially as a Link overnight replacement service. It has even been touted as a replacement if Link trains had to shut down early for maintenance. Yet, the evolving service plan here is drifting away from this. That concerns me. It feels to me like a bait and switch on the part of ST.
I’m also not seeing ST put any thought into what to tell Link riders who just missed their midnight Cinderella train.
no one is going to use it. calling it a replacement is a disservice to the stranded people at seatac. they’ll have to give money to uber/lyft.
In other words, it should be thought of as a “bus bridge” when Link isn’t running.
Agreed.
That should mean that the routes should have stops that are convenient from station entrances and well—signed from those entrances closed overnight.
There should be good signage but the bus stop doesn’t have to be close to the train station. That is the nature of late night service. The bus I usually take isn’t running. I have to take another bus that might involve more walking. Thus you really want coverage from a broad standpoint. You also want to complement the rest of the late-night network. The only major area where these plans fall short is in Rainier Valley. Asking riders to take a bus all the way downtown and then back out to Rainier Valley makes the network unusable for a lot of potential riders. It takes over an hour despite being well timed: the bus (https://maps.app.goo.gl/miNjCoJ74R3yiUzYA). People working the late shift at SeaTac will just drive to Tukwila. This is a burden on Rainier Valley riders.
The rest of the network is not as bad. The 49 connects Capitol Hill, downtown and the U-District. So someone living in the dorms who wants to see their favorite band performing in Capitol Hill would take Link there and the 49 back. They will probably have a shorter walk to the bus stop than the Link station.
That isn’t true for the U-District stop but it is a reasonable compromise. You really aren’t far from the main part of the U-District with that stop. I think it should do the same thing with Roosevelt. Getting on and off the freeway only takes a couple minutes (https://maps.app.goo.gl/cgxjiMnFYeFJKLEr8). It appears longer to serve Northgate. That being said, serving Northgate is more important from a network standpoint as it connects to the 40, so I’m fine with the decision.
The main point is that it really shouldn’t mimic Link. It should only complement the existing late night service that so that you have something roughly equivalent to Link when Link isn’t running. Late night workers shouldn’t feel like they need a car just because Link isn’t operating at that hour. The same goes for people out and about at that hour. The only place it really falls short is in not connecting Rainier Beach to the places to the south.
Well put Ross. I do think it would be worth having the South service originate/terminate at Capitol Hill, since it’s both not far and would provide a missing through connection between the south end and Capitol Hill late at night. But I’m not sure how practical that would be, given that the service is clearly going to be run by PT.
Thanks for your general agreement, Ross.
I must say though that Capitol Hill Station has the second highest number of daily boardings among Link’s current 38 stations. As a “bus bridge” service, deserves to be served on that fact alone. And its popularity of late-night clubs just adds one more reason to serve it.
“There should be good signage but the bus stop doesn’t have to be close to the train station.”
Sign content is very important. I’m concerned that ST will simply put up a route sign number at a stop and call it a day.
I’d like to see ST create guidance for overnight service that is posted at each station. If a rider needs to walk to a stop even a few blocks away, I think that there should be instructions (maybe with diagrams) at every Link station entrance telling riders what to do.
It’s a replacement for both Link and regular ST Express. It follows ST Express’s typical service patterns. ST can say its responsibility is regional transit, and that means connecting regional centers. Capitol Hill is not a regional center; downtown is, or Capitol Hill is part of downtown’s center, which has a stop at Westlake for Capitol Hill.
FWIW, other regional centers are Northgate, Spring District, Federal Way, Lynnwood and Lakewood. So that explains why the owls have stops there, and why ST appears keen to keep their travel time to downtown Seattle to freeway speed. Link can maintain this speed while still serving Rainer Valley, Capitol Hill, and Roosevelt (although the logic breaks down somewhat south of downtown), but express buses can’t because they have to deal with stoplights and street turns and detours to get to the stops — as the northern express will do to get to Northgate and 45th stops (which are regional centers, so must-serve by ST).
“It’s a replacement for both Link and regular ST Express. It follows ST Express’s typical service patterns. ”
As of this month, Link Lines 1 and 2 combined will be carrying 3 times as many riders (300% more) as all of ST Express does during a typical day if not more!
Portraying serving both every 30 minutes overnight as of equal importance is just wrong.
If ST were interested in ridership-weighted logic, a lot of things would be different.
As a friend says to me about ST: Logic does not apply!
I think it’s notable how ST is willing to extend service to Everett and to Tacoma overnight but not Capitol Hill. Capitol Hill Station has about 18-20K daily station users (boardings times 2) while the entire STX 51x series and 59x series ridership each is under 3K per average weekday.
I get that Metro has service to Capitol Hill — but as a SE Seattle resident I pay just as much in ST taxes as someone from Everett does. Why should I not get overnight service from ST that they do?
Capitol Hill is not an incorporated city or in a suburban subarea.Those are the places with autonomous elected officials who can give ST a structural/political reason to serve their areas. Seattle is already served by Link and ST Express in downtown Seattle.
It seems like this is designed more as an airport express rather than an overnight overlay service. As others have said, on the Seattle side, aren’t too many stops are being skipped? Looping through Capitol Hill, U District, and/or Rainier Beach would take around 5 minutes each. At the very least U District and Capitol Hill are major destinations with a need for all-day service. It’s not an insignificant detour but they aren’t small destinations either.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/aR9NJpctnU5iLwih8
For people wanting Seattle service – we should be writing to city leaders to advocate for us, instead of directly petitioning ST right? (Given that we paid separately for our night buses and now ST is exclusively giving night service to other regions for free.) Who exactly in the city government is best positioned to convince ST?
Probably the people in the city government who are on the ST board, like Katie Wilson and councilmember Dan Strauss.
We’re paying for Metro night buses, not ST buses. The suburban subareas pay for ST Express. North King may pay a little bit for Lake Forest Park, but not for the Seattle parts of ST Express. They only stop in Seattle because the suburban subareas demand regional express service to downtown Seattle and UW.
Sound Transit is most influenced by city and county politicians, so trying to get Wilson and Strauss to take up the cause would be the most effective. You could also get a group of people to show up at an ST board meeting with matching shirts and/or signs, like suburban groups and now a West Seattle group do to keep Link out of or in their areas.
Adding the rainier valley segment is probably still possible for the initial service proposal going to seatac. but considering how long the scheduled time from chinatown to rainier beach via route 106 is 23 minutes at midnight it’ll probably add 15~20 minutes.
With the currently half-hourly travel time, they could use two buses going back and forth. Sound Transit could add the rainier valley segment by lowering the frequency down to hourly.
* initial service proposal on i-5 skips rainier valley 30 min frequency
*initial service proposal on mlk way/ rainier avenue 60 min frequency
or possibly they could say 45 minute frequency and hope it doesn’t get slowed down in rainier valley.
The 106 takes 23 minutes from C/ID to Rainier Beach late nights (https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/metro/routes-and-service/schedules-and-maps/106#weekday-b). It will add time, but it’s a small amount in the grand scheme of thing. Owl service is always limited and patchwork, but network connectivity is far more important than speed. It will cost more to run this service, but it will also serve riders much better. Skipping the entire south end should have never been considered in the first place.
And an hourly bus with riders is better than a half hourly bus without riders.
I agree that we need to serve rainier valley. I don’t agree that having one mega bus going from downtown seattle to rainier valley to seatac then federal way then tacoma makes sense in the long run.
The bus will have just too long of a travel time and the frequency headways will be impossible to maintain.
the freeway bus line will be like 35+ miles long. it fundamentally cannot have a 7 mile avenue segment along with that. the bus route would need way too much schedule padding that it’d be wasting a lot.
Yes, it’s a long bus. But by running time, it wouldn’t really be any longer than a rush hour 594. Not exactly the paragon of reliability, but it ST can manage cross-county, rush hour buses, they can manage late night ones too
> Yes, it’s a long bus. But by running time, it wouldn’t really be any longer than a rush hour 594. Not exactly the paragon of reliability, but it ST can manage cross-county, rush hour buses, they can manage late night ones too
no it’s not the same thing. if the bus gets stuck on rainier or i5 then it will cascade for all the next buses. there’s a reason why you don’t see bus routes with both long freeway sections and long avenue sections. they’ll choose one or the other.
the problem is you are focusing on the ‘best’ state. the bus operations will more have to assume like freeweay section takes 60 minutes best case but can become 80 minutes. for the avenue section if we add it is an additional 15 minutes but might take 30 minutes etc. so effectively it’ll have to be padded to be like 110 minutes.
its why the rapidride d and c were split etc…
“there’s a reason why you don’t see bus routes with both long freeway sections and long avenue sections. they’ll choose one or the other.”
The proposed overnight route to the Eastside is doing both long freeway and long arterial sections. It seems illogical that the Eastside route does both but not the other two overnight routes. And traffic overnight is not congested unless there is construction.
At its core, the proposed overnight service is a big middle finger to ST riders in Seattle. All these service design excuses are to me mere screens to hide the obvious internalized bias against Seattle ST taxpayers with this service concept.
Tons of ST Express buses operate as local-highway-local buses. Some even do local-highway-local-highway-local (the 556). This would be no different. And sure, there are scheduling constraints I’m not totally privy to, but also I think it’s fine to use google or other schedules as a stand in for a section, especially in the middle of the route. Adding 10 to 15 minutes in the middle of this route is a minor issue, one that could be fixed with more service hours, or with less frequent service.
And none of this matters anyways. The problem is the entire night owl plan is basically bypassing all of Seattle. It should be thrown out on those grounds alone. No politician in Seattle should just accept that their constituents are bypassed on a late night bus that is being pitched as a Link shadow. The stops not served by this bus in Seattle average over 30k combined boardings per day. Those riders deserve owl service, arguably more than suburban riders, but they get peanuts. It shouldn’t be an acceptable outcome. But of course, it shouldn’t be one or the other. It’s perfectly possible to come up with a reasonable Link shadow bus that serves both Seattle AND the burbs. This doesn’t, so we shouldn’t like it
> Tons of ST Express buses operate as local-highway-local buses. Some even do local-highway-local-highway-local (the 556).
its not even close. the problem is the scale. the 556 is only like 15 miles.
the seattle to federal way to tacoma to lakewood is a 35 mile long freeway route. the only reason why the fast time table for the seattle-tacoma-lakewood segment would even work is because its at the middle of the night. it cannot also have a 7 mile avenue running segment and be reliable.
> The proposed overnight route to the Eastside is doing both long freeway and long arterial sections. It seems illogical that the Eastside route does both but not the other two overnight routes.
the eastside route is only 15 miles total.
you guys are completely underestimating the distances of seattle to everett or seattle to tacoma bus. those are 30 miles. they cannot fit on a very long avenue segment without completely crashing reliability or cutting frequency in half or even to thirds
“it cannot also have a 7 mile avenue running segment and be reliable.”
There’s nothing between midnight and 5am to make it unreliable. There’s hardly any other cars, the traffic lights are timed for the speed limit, variations in how many traffic lights you get caught behind add up to only a few minutes, few passengers are getting on/off, and few are using the wheelchair lifts. The unreliability comes from daytime car congestion.
“the eastside route is only 15 miles total.”
If the Eastside route is so much shorter, why not extend it to Capitol Hill and UW? With the stop in Judkins Park, Route 7 can interface nicely with it. It still would suck for SeaTac trips to SE Seattle or Capitol Hill/ UW but it would at least could sync.
And if that’s a problem, the ST should add a fourth route from Northgate to UW to Capitol Hill to Downtown and on the Judkins Park and Rainier Beach and then maybe express to SeaTac. That’s the useful part at this time of night!
Almost no one will be riding between Lakewood and Tacoma Dome at 2 am. What would they connect to? The same is true for Everett to Lynnwood. The main reasons for these segments is car retrieval in parking lots.
ST should offer replacement Link service in Seattle before offering replacement ST Express service to extremities that generate significantly lots fewer riders during the day. A stop that gets less than 200 boardings a day gets regional service while a station that gets 10,000 boardings a day does not?
Wesley,
The current 556 has more non-freeway sections in Bellevue and Issaquah (5.3 miles + 3.8 miles = 9.1 miles) than the full proposed 570 would have (7.5 miles on MLK/Rainier/Dearborn), in both cases excluding the Seattle termini. I do not think it’s true that it’s not practical to run a bus with sections on local streets and highways, though I’m not personally familiar with the 556 as a rider.
A 15 minute detour on an arterial road after midnight will not triple service hours. It will add like 4 total service hours per day.
Yes, the bus will be long. It may even be prone to delays as a result. But those are easily fixable problems. Not serving the City of Seattle isn’t like that. It will destroy the ridership potential, and it will end up being a waste of resources (relative to what it could have been) as a result.
And again, this bus has been pitched as a Link shadow, but it bypasses somewhere between one third and one half of riders. Every suburban community gets served, but entire swaths of Seattle are left out. It’s an awful plan any way you cut it, and no amount of rationalization on “well it would make the bus too unreliable” lines will change that. Sure that may be true, but I’d rather have a less reliable bus serving riders than a super reliable bus with no one on it.
> And again, this bus has been pitched as a Link shadow, but it bypasses somewhere between one third and one half of riders. Every suburban community gets served, but entire swaths of Seattle are left out. It’s an awful plan any way you cut it, and no amount of rationalization on “well it would make the bus too unreliable” lines will change that.
Ive said it four times already that I agree rainier valley should be served with a bus as well. It is getting tiresome saying it the 5th time. the only part that I disagree with is insisting that we need an incredibly long bus from seattle to seatac to tacoma to etc… also be the same one to serve rainier valley.
> no amount of rationalization on “well it would make the bus too unreliable” lines will change that.
I mean they are splitting up the everett/lynnwood to seattle and seattle to federal way/tacoma section. are you going to say that is ‘rationalization’ as well?
> The current 556 has more non-freeway sections in Bellevue and Issaquah (5.3 miles + 3.8 miles = 9.1 miles) than the full proposed 570 would have (7.5 miles on MLK/Rainier/Dearborn), in both cases excluding the Seattle termini.
I’m not quite sure why you are having a hard time understand here. the 570 would have a nearly 30 mile freeway segment to still run after the 7 mile avenue segment to rainier beach. the 556 would only need to run 5 miles on the freeway after eastgate to reach issaquah.
Wesley,
Maybe I misunderstood that then. I assumed the reason you brought up traffic making the service unreliable and then needing more buses was because you were saying it wasn’t feasible to serve RV. And it still really isn’t that long of a bus in terms of running time, though I’m 100% agnostic if it should be split at SeaTac or not. It will absolutely be shorter running time than the 5/21 or the 28/132 or the 24/124. I don’t really see a big deal in running a bus that takes 95 minutes one way as opposed to 80, especially late at night when traffic issues will be basically minimal.
Reading back over the thread, I think I fixated more on the unreliability issue being framed as a reason to not serve RV, rather than a reason to split the bus at SeaTac (or elsewhere). The point of the 556 example is that ST runs buses which blend highway and local street segments elsewhere, in equal and greater portions of the routes. That alone is not a reason to assume the bus will be too long to operate reliably.
“the seattle to federal way to tacoma to lakewood is a 35 mile long freeway route. the only reason why the fast time table for the seattle-tacoma-lakewood segment would even work is because its at the middle of the night. it cannot also have a 7 mile avenue running segment and be reliable.”
Let’s have a frank discussion about the Lakewood to Tacoma Dome segment.
Will anyone even use it?
There’s very little to walk to from either Sounder station. There re no connecting PT buses at that time of night. If someone is driving already, Tacoma Dome is drivable. And there’s free parking at Federal Way.
So it’s more important to serve Lakewood than it is SE Seattle and/or Capitol Hill/ UW? And serving Lakewood’s likely single digit overnight ridership is why the dozens if not a few hundred of riders in Seattle can’t have this service?
the problem is you are focusing on the ‘best’ state.
I’m not. I’m assuming it will take an extra 15 minutes — at worst. So allocate an extra 15 minutes of travel time. Keep in mind the goal — SeaTac to Rainier Valley. Not one end of the valley to another. Not Rainier Valley to downtown. For both of those there is the 7. At best this would just complement it (awkwardly, since it is serving other stops). So again, the goal is SeaTac to Rainier Valley. Now assume that the bus is not as consistent on MLK. It may arrive at a bus stop at 2:37 am or 2:45 am. Where do you wait? Consider the choices:
Northbound: You could wait on Rainier Valley. But again, that isn’t what the goal here is. You might as well keep going to downtown, even if you arrive several minutes early. Thus the first choice is CID. This is your connection to anyone who is backtracking (via the 36 or 128). You also have the connection to the bus going further north. If you are there early, the bus will sit there a while and you can transfer when the other bus is ready to leave. The same is true if you are headed to the East Side. Everything can be timed for that stop and if a bus — any bus — arrives a bit early, so bit it. There is also the connection to Amtrak. It is also downtown and many of your riders will just walk to their home or hotel. You could keep going if you arrive early but I think I would go with this option.
Southbound: With all due respect to TIBS, you get there when you get there. Very few people will be going from TIBS to SeaTac at at that hour, and they can take the A Line. So when the bus keeps going it just waits at SeaTac. For travelers this is a bonus (they get to sit in a warm bus instead of on the street at that hour).
Yes, of course you could run a different bus. But that would cost more money. This would too, but a lot less than running a second route.
Oh the horror! Transit that actually tries to compete with cars.
Oh the horror! Transit that actually tries to compete with cars.
The bus runs ever half hour (which is actually good at that hour). But it means that it can’t compete with cars. Even with extra right of way, cars would win at that hour (given the lack of traffic).
“Almost no one will be riding between Lakewood and Tacoma Dome at 2 am. What would they connect to? ”
The last 594 is generally carrying quite a few people that get off at 10th and commerce, in my experience.
That’s where it should go, not Tacoma Dome. Adding 15-30 minutes to the trip won’t improve it.
If a south bound overnight bus would take 90 minutes to a currently unplanned stop in downtown Tacoma I would prefer two to three more 594s in both direction. Probably a lot to ask for but the last 594 in my experience is pretty heavily used. Unfortunately it isn’t s great option if you are not already downtown. I think a point a lot are missing is residents, to the extreme south are faced with a hotel or $120-200 Uber as stated above. We need more of a safety net and match with current late night service to Bellevue and Renton, a 1230/1am south bound trip out of downtown.
@ Cam and Brian:
I was wondering if it would make more sense to go to Downtown Tacoma rather than to Lakewood.
It’s not even going to Lakewood. It’s going to parking garages.
Though I did see some new apartments near the Lakewood Sounder Station. Maybe that’s what motivated them to move it from the Town Centre.
It’s not even going to Lakewood. It’s going to parking garages.
Yeah, and under normal conditions this would be an epic fail. But there is value in at least limiting the damage. Imagine someone from Lakewood takes a flight and ends up at SeaTac at 3:00 am. Right now, they have no other choice (that I know of) but to call a cab. This is really expensive. Now at least they get to Lakewood. Chances are, they still have to call cab. It isn’t cheap, but it is a lot cheaper.
If they work at SeaTac, they will need a car. But at least they only have to drive to the Lakewood station. They take a bus to SeaTac and a bus back. It still sucks that they need a car but it isn’t nearly as bad*. Ideally this would fit into a network of buses serving Lakewood but I’m guessing there is no late night network for Lakewood.
Which gets me to Tacoma. Is there a late night network for Tacoma? If not, then you lose a lot of the value in serving Downtown Tacoma. In the middle of the day, Downtown Tacoma is not only a major destination but it is a major transit hub. But late at night no one is visiting the offices, museums or university. It is no longer a transit hub. So I can understand why ST basically skipped downtown Tacoma. But what I think they forgot is the number of people that will live nearby. Imagine I live here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/jLgYv93Yg3jUSRpy9 and work at SeaTac. I work the night shift. Getting there is fine — I have a plethora of options. Getting back sucks. I have to have a car. But wait! What if the bus ran through Tacoma and stopped at Pacific & 9th. Now I walk up the hill: https://maps.app.goo.gl/uBoHWkf9Toc4cwid9. That is a grunt of a walk (after a long day, no less). But having been in a similar situation in Lynnwood, I would have loved a bus that got me that close. Instead I have this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/LsnaUjzinFKRSxN69. Now I’m sticking out my thumb and hoping someone gives me a ride. I’m in the same boat as the guy from Lakewood. I drive, but I don’t drive as much. This saves me some money, but not a lot.
It really isn’t about “Downtown” Tacoma, it is about all the people that live very close to Downtown Tacoma and just want that affordable connection to SeaTac (and the rest of region). Given the time it takes to run through Tacoma at that hour this seems like a very good value. The late night bus should definitely serve Downtown Tacoma on its way to Lakewood.
*Another option is a bike, of course. Electric bikes are much cheaper than cars. But they are also a lot more dangerous (especially at that hour).
That’s exactly right, Ross. I live up near the hospitals, and it takes me about 20 minutes to walk from 10th and commerce. Not great. But doable. And there a ton of fairly high density apt buildings 5 or 10 minutes walk from there.
But landing in Tacoma Dome Station takes that option away. I am one the the “hardy” souls (some say foolish) who is willing to bike into town after midnight from TDM station and up the hill, but I am certainly one the only ones so adventurous. And I am less and less likely to do that as I get older. So my dream of living car free is going the wrong way.
And it’s not just these late routes that only serve car storage. It’s also the 574 connection to link in Federal Way all day for the next 10 years at least.
The obvious solution is to split the buses at the airport.
Route 1: Lakewood, SR 512 P&R, Tacoma Dome, Federal Way, Star Lake flyer stop, K/DM flyer stop, Angle Lake, SeaTac Airport.
Route 2: SeaTac Airport, TIBS, Rainier Beach, Othello, Columbia City, Mount Baker, Judkins Park, CID, 3rd Ave stops.
Route 3: Contract with Metro to run a combined 67/49 with local stops.
Route 4: SODO, Stadium, 3rd Ave stops, Northgate, Shoreline South, MLT flyer stop, Lynnwood, Ash Way P&R, South Everett P&R, Everett.
Route 5: 3rd Ave stops, Mercer Island, all Eastside 2 Line stops with Downtown Redmond before Marymoor Village.
The only Link stops without service would be Shoreline North and Beacon Hill because they’re so awkward to serve.
*Combined 67/49 via University Bridge, skipping UW station. So three stations skipped in total.
It’s not a bad solution, Sunny.
I think it would be more straightforward to just extend the south route to Capitol Hill and end at UW Station/ Montlake as the layover point (driver restroom). And rather than bring the east route off at Rainier up to Westlake, bring it off at 4th Ave S and by CID before looping it southward to Judkins Park and down MLK to Rainier Beach (driver restrooms).
Make CID the transfer point — and have overnight security there! Maybe even try to time the bus arrivals!
This is just a Rainier Valley detour under another name and adding a forced transfer.
To do what ST wants and Seattle wants, have the Lakewood night owl go to downtown Seattle as planned, and add another ST Express night owl route from the airport to Rainier Valley and downtown. It could follow Link all the way as much as the roads allow and include Beacon Hill and SODO, or take Rainier/Dearborn to downtown.
Or … have two buses to the airport (not listing every station, just the overall routes)
North route – Everett -> Northgate -> Downtown -> Judkins Park -> Rainier Valley -> Seatac
South route – Downtown -> SODO -> TIBS -> Seatac -> Federal Way -> Tacoma -> Lakewood
East route – DT Redmond -> Bel-Red -> DT Bellevue -> MI -> Downtown -> Cap Hill -> UW -> UDist -> Roosevelt -> Northgate
North route is fairly long at 40 miles, but that’s just a long as the already proposed South route. And of course, reliability can still be okay because it’s the middle of the night.
I also combined the East route and your proposed CapHill/UDistrict route. While definitely a U-shaped route that’s not ideal, it’s still much shorter than the other two routes and is essentially a perfect shadow of the core of the 2 line, which is good for people to understand the system. At night the CapHill -> Northgate section will be slow but not unreliable either.
Obviously this is more service hours because it’s adding Seattle local service, but that could potentially be paid for by SDOT?
I don’t know about the other routes, but the Eastside route looks like too much to me. Demand is low here, and the longer the route takes, the more money it costs. I would cut it down and, outside Seattle, keep only the Mercer Island, Downtown Bellevue, Redmond Tech, and Downtown Redmond stops.
By the way, it’s not true that this would be the first service to the Eastside. I don’t remember when it was cancelled exactly, but about 25 years ago Metro did have a night owl route that went to Bellevue.
Yes, the 280, the “suburban night owl”. That was when Seattle’s night owls were a set of night-only routes, 81-85.
The 280 went from downtown to 520 (serving the Montlake, Evergreen Point, and Yarrow Point freeway stations), then south on Bellevue Way to downtown Bellevue (I don’t remember whether it detoured to the transit center) and on to South Bellevue P&R, then on 405 to Renton, then on arterials through the Duwamish industrial area back to Seattle. I rode it once in the early 80s.
The 280 disappeared with all Metro night owl service in the 2014 recession cuts. By that time the C, D, E, and 120 had replaced some of the 80-series routes, and at some point a few daytime routes became 24 hours to replace the rest of them (3, 11, 49, 65, 67).
With Delridge to White Center always having 24 hour service, but only day/evening service from there to Burien, Metro reported that a significant number of people rode the 85 to White Center and then walked a mile and a half to their homes south of there. When the 120 replaced the 20, 85, and 131/132 between downtown, Delridge, White Center, and Burien, the reason it got night owl all the way to Burien was all those people walking, proving there would be ridership. I don’t know if Burien and King County funded the segment south of Seattle.
So the Eastside had only one night owl on Bellevue Way, and it has not had any night owls since 2014.
For East Redmond, prioritizing Bear Creek P&R over Marymoor Village Station makes no sense. Even in the daytime, Bear Creek P&R has outlived its usefulness, which was a place to drive to to catch an express bus to downtown Seattle. The P&R should just close, with the land sold for development.
Nobody is taking the bus from SeaTac to a business meeting in downtown Seattle at 3 am. People are headed from SeaTac to home or a hotel.
Maybe Mt Baker should be the central transfer point, send the Everett bus to Capitol Hill and UW, have those going downtown take the 7, and have the Lakewood bus serve ML King.
Don’t overlook the possibility of airport workers taking a bus to the airport in the early hours. ST Route 574 schedules 5 trips arriving at SEA between 3-5am.
Exactly my point.
How many of those workers live in downtown Seattle along 3rd?
Other than the connections to other routes (and we have no guarantee how well timed ST to Metro night owl service will be) it doesn’t seem like downtown Seattle is sny more important than any other potential hub, and other than a few hotels quite a bit less of a destination than many at that hour.
I imagine there are very few airport workers living along 3rd Avenue, but with connections from the Night Owl network and hotel guests with early flights, there should be enough passengers to fill buses to the airport.
I haven’t looked at Metro’s late night network schedules, but with ST departures to the airport every 30 minutes, Metro and ST should be able to coordinate schedules to the airport.
How many of those workers live in downtown Seattle along 3rd?
Based on the census data, about 110 people commute from that part of downtown to SeaTac. Mount Baker has about half that amount. It is more that downtown is a central transit hub (and you have the hotels).
I think there is real value in having the nighttime bus network resemble the daytime bus network as much as possible. It makes for a more legible system and a smoother transition between nighttime service and daytime service. On the King County side, nighttime service switched a few years ago from special night-owl routes to night-owl trips on regular routes that run during the daytime, a change that I generally view as positive.
Of course, sometimes it is necessary to make an exception. For example, if Link cannot operate as a 24-hour service, it is not possible to exactly replicate the train with a bus without every trip taking twice as long. But, switching the main hub from downtown to Mt. Baker, I feel, is going too far. A better approach is to just offer timed night-owl connections downtown so people who do need to transfer there don’t have to wait too long.
I agree. Ideally the nighttime routes are just the regular routes. But backfilling for Link makes sense. Such a route (or routes) should not mimic Link. They should should just focus on the network. For example you don’t need a bus going from Mount Baker to downtown — the 7 does that. But there is no way to get from the East Side to Seattle late at night.
In general the ST nighttime bus is good. The biggest weakness is the lack of connection between Rainier Valley and SeaTac (forcing people to backtrack a long ways).
I agree in concept about having a central transfer point and it should be CID. It can give drivers a break spot and a security guard or two can be positioned there too. Because the frequency is not great, timed transfers are also very important.
And certainly it’s not logical to have an exact replacement overnight bus service for Link. However, I think most stations should have overnight service, especially if the daily boardings are higher than a certain threshold (like 4K or 5K average weekday ridership).
I’m surprised that the service is not branded differently than STX. Given its unique time of day, I would have suggested that it gets a unique label.
The metro 106 does NOT presently have night owl service. Is this coming this fall?
That may be a mistake in the article. We’re confirming what the author intended and if any future increase is planned. I don’t know of any.
I changed it to 107. The 107 works in the context of the sentence. It is really easy to confuse the 106 and 107 as well.
The 107 only has overnight service on Saturday and Sunday nights, not during the week. Seems kind of pointless to me.
How would a night owl Route 7 get from Rainier Beach to the airport? I’d presume I-5.
More difficult than you think, considering the night owl Route 7 buses (and Route 36 buses too) are trolleys!
Tired: electrified heavy railways
Inspired: electrified interstates
String wire over I-5!
Ha! But seriously, it is pretty routine for Metro to run a diesel bus on a trolley route. it would be trivial at that hour since most buses are not in service. They could probably run a smaller one as well (since it likely doesn’t get too crowded).
Anyway, yes, it would just go on the freeway and head to SeaTac (https://maps.app.goo.gl/3JJfjNgZSuzXMwCC8). It would take an extra fifteen minutes — similar to a detour of the ST line. So ideally ST would just pay Metro to extend the line at night (since it would cost them about the same).
Back when 44 was interlined with 48 during owl hours it uses diesel (maybe hybrid) buses. They will have to recut the runs and maybe address the noise concerns by having those trips with electric buses out of Tukwila base but other than that I think it can be done
I actually watched a YouTube video from someone claiming that the easiest technological pathway to electrifying trucking was, in fact, to put trolley wire over the interstates and attach trolley poles to all the semi trucks. The idea being that relatively small batteries could handle the driving off the highway. Needless to say, there are many practical reasons (too many to list here without veering too far off-topic) why I don’t expect to see this idea implemented anytime soon.
“Ha! But seriously, it is pretty routine for Metro to run a diesel bus on a trolley route. it would be trivial at that hour since most buses are not in service.”
It’s actually not as simple as it seems. Even if most buses are not in service, the physical act of swapping one bus for another still requires deadheading. Even if the downtown base is within a mile of route 7’s northern endpoint, that still means two extra slogs through downtown, which means, either the service cost increases, or the nighttime frequency decreases.
Of course, it is always possible to avoid the bus swapping by running every 2 or 3 #7 trips with diesel buses all day long. But, that seems to be moving things in the wrong direction.
Assuming 24-hour service on both Rainier and MLK is warranted, I think a better idea is to just do the airport extension with route 106, rather than route 7. Route 106 is already a diesel bus, so it avoids all of the trolley issues. And, attaching the extension to route 106 more closely fits the “link shadow” paradigm anyway.
“I actually watched a YouTube video from someone claiming that the easiest technological pathway to electrifying trucking was, in fact, to put trolley wire over the interstates and attach trolley poles to all the semi trucks”
Martin has shared some videos about that; there’s probably one in a Sunday Movie somewhere. In Germany there’s a test setup somewhere with a few miles of trolley wire on a highway, and trucks that can connect to it without slowing down to charge whenever they go under it. I don’t know if it’s in production yet.