The Seattle Transit Ridership dashboard has been updated to include 2025 ridership data for King County Metro routes and Sound Transit routes operated by Metro. In March 2025, Metro only updated a few routes, mostly with frequency adjustments from Seattle Transit Measure funding. In August 2025, Metro introduced four routes and adjusted various other routes on the Eastside as part of its East Link Connections restructure. Of the new routes (203, 222, 223, and 256), Route 223 had the highest ridership with about 1,000 passengers every weekday.
South King County
In South King County, Sound Transit opened the Federal Way Link Extension in December 2025. Metro has not implemented its corresponding South Link Connections restructure yet, those changes will be rolled out in Fall 2026. The FWLE opening was in the middle of the Fall 2025 service change, but it has already made an impact on the ridership patterns for some routes. On the A Line, ridership at stops near Link stations has dropped as some passengers have switched to Link. The A Line stop at 200th St (near Angle Lake station), used to see about 500 weekday boardings on outbound trips. Now about 300 people board outbound trips from this stop each weekday. Ridership patterns for the Federal Way Link Extension were discussed in a previous post.
In south and east King County, the 2025 ridership data represent a snapshot of a rapidly changing transit network. Ridership patterns for all Eastside routes have already changed significantly since the full 2 Line opening in March 2026. The ridership patterns on many more routes will change dramatically in the Fall when King County Metro and Sound Transit implement the rest of their Link restructure updates. We will update the Seattle Transit Ridership dashboard when new ridership data is available. Until then, share any surprising ridership patterns from the 2025 data in the comments below.
This is an open thread.
We will be covering the ridership patterns for a few Community Transit routes (and Sound Transit routes operated by CT) over the next couple of weeks. If you have any preference for which routes we dive into, let us know by replying to this comment. The data for all CT routes will be added to the dashboard soon. The ridership patterns for the Swift routes were discussed in a previous post.
I’d be interested in comparing the CT130 to the CT909 since they overlap a good amount.
“I’d be interested in comparing the CT130 to the CT909 since they overlap a good amount.”
The 909 isn’t really replacing the 416 (which was the old bus from Edmonds to Seattle), in my point of view it’s just an express version of the 130. If Community Transit really wanted it to be a 416 replacement bus they would send it to Shoreline North/185th but I don’t see that happening. I would rather have an ST express bus from Edmonds to UW Bothell via Edmonds Way, Mountlake Terrace (avoiding Ballinger Dr), Ballinger Way, Lake Forest Park, Kenmore, and Bothell Way.
Yeah I agree – I wonder how many people who took the 416 bother taking the 909. As an MLT resident I’m selfishly happy to have the 909 be the 130X though.
I’d love a 1 seat ride to Bothell but wouldn’t it make more sense to send the 331 to UW Bothell though? Wasn’t that originally the plan with the KC Metro Lynnwood Link Connections?
“I’d love a 1 seat ride to Bothell but wouldn’t it make more sense to send the 331 to UW Bothell though? Wasn’t that originally the plan with the KC Metro Lynnwood Link Connections?”
Yeah, but I think the 331 extension is kind of redundant. Sending the 522 to Shoreline South is very controversial and caused a lot of problems. It’s mainly because of Stride S3 but I can bet that if the project were cancelled because of the 34.5 billion dollar shortfall this truncation would not be necessary and can be reverted pre-2026.
Also I think the 111 should be extended to Canyon Park/UW Bothell to bridge the gap between the 111 and the 120 and get all-day service.
I had an idea of a route that goes from Edmonds Station to UW Bothell via Edmonds Way, Mountlake Terrace Station, Ballinger Way, Lake Forest Park, and Kenmore. Ross dislikes this idea though and prefers an ST route from Edmonds Station to Shoreline North/185th Station replacing Sounder North (which costs more to rent the BNSF tracks alone than buying the BNSF Nisqually corridor). I can see this route happening if the 522 were to go back to Roosevelt (which I’d love to see happen if ST were to cancel Stride S3 and replace it with improved local bus service).
“It’s mainly because of Stride S3 but I can bet that if the project were cancelled because of the 34.5 billion dollar shortfall this truncation would not be necessary and can be reverted pre-2026.”
But the Stride S3 alignment itself is based on ST’s belief that Northshore taxpayers primarily want the fastest way to downtown Seattle, and Shoreline South station is the fastest way. It wasn’t possible until Link reached there because buses would get caught in congestion on I-5 and 145th, and it’s being delayed further because of construction on 145th. Given how ST feels, the 522 would probably be rerouted to Shoreline South with or without S3.
ST doesn’t see Lake City as the 522’s responsibility even though it generates over half the ridership, because the people who are paying for it are LFP and East King, and they’ve told ST they want the fastest way to downtown and they don’t care about Lake City.
Mike,
LFP is in the North King subarea; the East subarea pays for Route 522. Yes, a better network design could have been executed. The issue that ST may not considered is the interest of Northshore riders to have access to Lake City.
“The issue that ST may not considered is the interest of Northshore riders to have access to Lake City.”
That’s what ST says the majority of them didn’t want.
I’m interested in how some of the new CT routes are doing since the Lynnwood restructure, like the new route 117 that connects the Mukilteo ferry to Lynnwood Station. Some of these routes serve previously underserved communities, and I’m curious what their ridership patterns are showing us.
Would love to see route 905. It predecessor was route 422 that only ran 3(?) times during the peak and had lackluster ridership. CT bizarrely turned it into an all-day route. This would be like Metro turning the 322 into an all-day route but with less destinations. I wonder if their investment generated new riders.
Are you going to do stop-by-stop data as well?
Yes, the CT data will be stop by stop as well.
“Would love to see route 905. It predecessor was route 422 that only ran 3(?) times during the peak and had lackluster ridership. CT bizarrely turned it into an all-day route. This would be like Metro turning the 322 into an all-day route but with less destinations. I wonder if their investment generated new riders.”
Wow, now I’m wondering why CT considered a 15 minute bus from Lynnwood to Stanwood in 2019.
I’m going to guess the motivation is less about Stanwood than about a faster way to get between Lynnwood and north Marysville (via the stops along I-5). Skipping all the local stops in Marysville, plus Everett, saves a lot of time.
CT111. I suspect usage is very low, but who knows…
“CT111. I suspect usage is very low, but who knows…”
From what I’ve seen, I’ve only seen an actual passenger on the 111 only twice. One time I rode it in the AM for the first time and I saw an empty 111 drive by while I was headed to Brier and the second trip to Mountlake Terrace I was the only person onboard. The second time I took it in the AM there was one person onboard when I got on at Brier P&R. The third time I took the 111 was when I filmed the 111 video and only one person was onboard but they got off at 48th Ave W and didn’t ride it all the way like I did.
I took the 111 as a meme with some friends are we were the only passengers on it. Fundamentally a silly service.
Your suspicion is correct. Route 111 has about 5 passengers per day.
I’d like to see the data for CT121.
It looks like it gets good use being a new connection between North Lynnwood and Bothell
Great work.
How about route 271? Does anybody actually ride the bus all teg way out to Gold Bar. Keep in mind that a bus ride from downtown Seattle to Gold Bar takes about the equivalent amount of a time as a drive from downtown Seattle all the way to at least Leavenworth, if not Wenatchee.
If nobody rides the bus in Sultan or Gold Bar, the 271 could be truncated at Monroe, which would both improve reliability and free up the service hours to run the 908 all day.
I’ve taken it from Snohomish to Gokd Bar. I don’t know that many go all the way from Everett to Gold Bar, but a fair number seem to go from Gold Bar to Monroe or Snohomish.
A fair number at least by CT standards. There weren’t too many on or off at Gold Bar, but more than I saw on the whole of the 109.
A surprising number got on or off at stops between Monroe and Gold Bar too.
CT used to do this for a while: have one version terminate in Monroe and the other go to Gold Bar. They should really revert back to this structure. Or replace the Monroe-Gold Bar section with alternative service, like the Snoqualmie Valley Shuttle or ZIP.
I rode the 271 to Sultan last weekend, and it was pretty well-ridden on a Sunday afternoon. Not a ton of riders east of Monroe, but at least 10 on my bus back to Everett from Sultan. Good amount of traffic to the grocery stores in Monroe, which seemed to be the major destinations for most riders. I’d say it’s a good bus, though punishingly slow through Monroe
Sunday afternoon is one of times when the reliability of the 271 is at its worst, as its gets stuck in all the traffic from people hiking and skiing in the mountains, or coming back from Leavenworth/Wenatchee. Traffic delays between Gold Bar and Sultan can range anywhere from 0 minutes to 45 minutes, depending on the individual day, and there is no route a bus can use to bypass any of it (if there were, Waze would quickly direct cars to use the same route, until it becomes backed up just as bad). I recall one day when I was hiking Lake Serene, and on the way home, the backup from Sultan had extended all the way out to the Lake Serene Trailhead, which is several miles past Gold Bar.
Truncating the bus at Monroe would improve reliability considerably, as most of the cars turn onto highway 522 towards Woodinville/Seattle, which gets them off of the bus route. But, then, you leave Sultan and Gold Bar with no service. Alternatively, splitting the route would at least improve reliability between Everett and Monroe, but the split would require additional service hours (or a service cut), plus force yet another connection to get between Sultan/Gold Bar and the rest of the Puget Sound region, making their trip even worse.
Oh yeah, I was absolutely stuck in hiker traffic. Maybe a 30 minute delay? But I think truncating the bus is a non-starter – both Gold Bar and Sultan are part of the taxing district and they need at least whatever they have now.
Ultimately, the issue of hiker traffic along Highway 2 is potentially outside the scope of anything CT can really do. But it’d be nice to have trailhead direct like service in Snohomish County too. Not sure on funding possibilities, but I’d definitely ride it
I’ve been wanting to visit Snohomish and Monroe. I’ve only been through them a couple times in a car years ago. Last year I took the 512 to Everett intending to transfer to the 271, but it had left a few minutes earlier so I’d have a 50 minute wait. And I was tired and hungry from a trip that had already taken a hour, so I couldn’t bear waiting an hour and then spending two more hours going to Monroe and back. So instead I took Swift and visited downtown Everett. I’d be more likely to visit them if the bus were more frequent.
You’re big problem is the 109 doesn’t go to anywhere on Link. I’m not convinced an hourly bus connecting downtown Snohomish to two highway park and ride lots is an especially useful route any more.
If that thing went all the way to Lynnwood, you’d not have to go all the way to Everett to get the 271. Downtown Snohomish isn’t an unpleasant place to wait out a connection.
I considered both the 271 and the 109 at one point, I don’t remember if it was that trip or another occasion I didn’t do. I was going to take the 271 to Monroe and stop in Snohomish on the way back, and then take either the 271 or 109 back to town. But the wait in Snohomish would have been almost an hour too. I don’t remember if the 109 had a worse connection schedule or I just thought the route would be less interesting.
Even when the connection in Everett works, it’s still too long. It’s not any one thing, it’s just a bunch of things adding up. The two connections. The out of the way travel. The stoplights in Everett and Snohomish. The grand tour of Monroe. The traffic delays around Sultan. Not to mention, of course, the local transportation in Seattle itself. It all adds up. And, by the time you add it all up, a bus ride from a random neighborhood in Seattle to Gold Bar takes about as long as a drive from the same starting point in Seattle to Mt. Rainier.
Planning for pitchforks and torches Ballard horde!
https://www.myballard.com/2026/04/30/community-meeting-planned-on-future-of-ballard-light-rail
Build an automated stub with three-car stations instead of the “follyonious” DSTT2, and you can have a “Light Metro” all the way to Ballard.
The new holding chamber demands that any crossing east of 24th has to be a bridge or a prohibitively deep tunnel. The only way to cross in a tunnel that can rise to a reasonable depth for stations is west of the holding tank/tunnel, which reaches 22nd NW, but then has a fairly shallow connection from the pumping facility to the northwest trunk along 28th.
If you demand shallow access to downtown Ballard, which can only be provided by a western tunnel or opening bridge that loops back with two Ballard stations you can make clear that you will use the system and understand how genuinely urban transit works.
One station would be in the core and one about 15th and 56th or 57th for bus intercept, allowing riders to transfer before their bus gets bogged down in CBD-type traffic.
It would obviously be more aesthetic to tunnel, but a stacked elevated could fit in the middle of Market.
A western crossing would allow a couple of stations along the eastern edge of Magnolia, which could be developed without stealing anyone’s views, except those of West Queen Anne and Balmer Yard. It could cross the rail ROW south of the yard throat
and run elevated behind the buildings on the north side of Elliott. This keeps construction off Elliott.
Put the maintenance facility in the big parking lot north of the west end of the Magnolia Bridge.
Beacon Hill station elevators should be programmed better. Out of 4 elevators, one should wait at the top and the rest should wait at the platform. It’s rare to need more than one at the street, while it’s typical to need more than one at the platform.
Who at sound transit can I contact about this?
20 years ago, I sat next to a rep from an elevator company. He said that they can program elevator banks to hold at different levels throughout the day. Like holding at the entry during the AM but at the top later in the afternoon. They can also program one at the top and one at the bottom for certain times.
I don’t know who at ST communicates with elevator system programming. But I thought knowing that this kind of time-of-day adjustment is possible will help frame your complaint!
We’ve heard that only one or two of the elevators are turned on, so that’s another issue.
I always email ST’s contact address and let them route it to the right group.
The Vertical Conveyance team
https://www.soundtransit.org/blog/platform/inside-sound-transit-keeping-passengers-moving
I would just ask Gemini. That’s prossibly what an ST customer service rep is going to do, and then reply to you with whatever AI told them. Gemini gives a very detailed answer about Beacon Hill Station, and why its elevators are programmed to stay at their last location. (To reduce empty trips, which helps reduce maintenance issues and breakdowns).
ST is having more audio announcements telling people with luggage or wheels to use the elevators instead of the stairs. That fails when the elevator is broken. The Capitol Hill southeast elevator has been broken for weeks. I tried out a walking stick today to help with my walking, and I was also carrying two grocery bags, so I didn’t want to go up the escalator not able to hold the handrail. I was hoping the southeast elevator would be open by now, but it wasn’t, so I made the trek to the other end of the platform to go up the north side and take the 11 instead of the 49 to get home. That’s probably a better way anyway, since the bus stop has a bench to sit on and a next-arrival display, so I’ll try to remember to take it in the future. Since both routes run every 20 minutes, there wait is likely equal.
Thanks for maintaining this! Ridership data is the backbone of describing transit outcomes.
I remain disappointed that ST has not updated their ridership data web page with newer data than December 2025. Advance versions of more current data were problematic but it’s been about 2 months since ST became aware of the problem.
One thing that I’m monitoring is the change in ridership on various ST services at Link extensions open. By finding 2026 Sounder data, it appears that the only seeming impact of Federal Way Link extension on lowering Sounder ridership is at Puyallup Station. That may be coming from some Milton-Edgewood area riders moving to Link.
The April 2026 data for Sat will be informative in many, many ways. I think we are all very curious to see these data!
It was always the weakest portion of the route, but very few people are riding the B north of 24th Street anymore. There was talk of splitting it at Crossroads, but it might be more appropriate to just truncate it at 24th (or perhaps Redmond Tech).
Perhaps truncate the B at Redmond Tech, or perhaps switch things so the B takes over the route of the 223 and the 223 either gets truncated or merged with the 225?
Also, reroute the 930 to take over the B’s stop by Bella Bottega.
The northern section of the B still deserves some service. I guess what I’d do is truncate the B at Redmond Tech, and have the 223 take that over the B’s route from 148th to Redmond Transit Center. That way, basically no one loses service.
The 223’s route on Old Redmond Road and Redmond Way would be losing service. The ridership data shows it’s got a few busy stops there – busier than most of the B’s stops north of Redmond Way.
I really like Metro’s 270-B concept (UD to Bellevue TC to Crossroads), though yeah I think it should end at Redmond Tech rather than Crossroads.
There are a lot of options to take over the northern half. The 226 could get split into two routes that both head to Redmond, for instance. The 223 or 245 could also get shifted around.
Extending the B to the U District would be cool. Rapid Ride to UW!
But that requires some “bold” action to improve the bus ROW in downtown Bellevue. Never gonna happen. The NIMBYs won’t give up a lane.
“But that requires some “bold” action to improve the bus ROW in downtown Bellevue. Never gonna happen. The NIMBYs won’t give up a lane.”
NIMBYs are usually single-family residents. There aren’t any of those in downtown Bellevue. When zoning was created, commercial or industrial areas were laid out every mile or so for shopping centers, apartments, car-repair shops, etc.
Downtown Bellevue is the least NIMBY area of the region. 45 years ago it was all strip malls and single family houses, the entire downtown has been transformed into mid rises and high rises in that time, including 2 600 ft towers, another 3 600 ft towers starting construction this Summer and about 8 400+ ft towers. The area around Bellevue library and just south of Bellevue City Hall were both single family residential neighborhoods 35 years ago. 110th Ave and NE 10th Street were built in the 1990s. There is a scale model of Downtown Bellevue in the 1990s on display in the lobby of Bellevue City Hall. There are few places, including SLU, that have seen this much transformation in such a short amount of time. People in Downtown Bellevue embrace change, its not 1970s Bellevue.
Yet they can’t give up a lane for buses. Bellevue Way and the major E-W roads there has 2-3 car lanes and always jammed. It takes 10-15 minutes to cut through downtown. All buses like 271, 240, 550, 556 get significantly delayed because of it.
There is still a QFC and parking lots in the middle of downtown. Even Renton Downtown and the Landing is more bus friendly somehow, with actual bus lanes.
The villainization of single family households is weird.
Oh the horror, people want to raise a family with multiple kids outside of an apartment in the richest country in the world.
NIMBYs are strictly car brained people who reject transit and development around their area. People who live in apartments can be NIMBYs too if they use street parking and surface parking with their cars. Bellevue is still heavily car centric if they don’t even try to improve things for buses with TSP and bus lanes in a downtown.
People living in single family households have voted for ST and many of those cities have took steps to improve things for buses.
The villainization of single family households is weird.
Who is doing that? Mike was simply explaining that a “NIMBY” is usually a single family resident. By the very definition of the term it means people who live there. Yes, these could be apartment/condo dwellers, but that seems like a big stretch in this case. Do you really think the people in the apartments and condos hate bus lanes? Please. If anything it is the opposite.
The people who will complain about the bus lane are generally people driving *through* the area. Maybe they are headed to work. Maybe they are going shopping. But chances are, they don’t live there. You are blaming NIMBYs. That isn’t the problem.
The City of Bellevue planned this downtown growth in the 1950s. When I grew up there in the 1970s and early 80s, I had no idea about that; I thought it would always remain 1-2 stories. Bellevue Square had a 3-story expansion during that time, but it was smaller than it is now, and Lincoln Square and its neighbors on the east side of Bellevue Way didn’t exist. In the 1990s I saw the towers starting to appear, but it was only in the late 2000s from STB that I understood that this had been the City of Bellevue’s vision since the 50s.
“Downtown Bellevue is the least NIMBY area of the region.”
True in a way, but it’s lopsided. Bellevue encourages growth in certain commercial/industrial zones: downtown, the Spring District, Overlake Village, and Factoria/Eastgate (whose trajectory is lagging by twenty years). But it’s not allowed to touch single-family zones. Surrey Downs is a glaring example. And west of 100th (there may be a row of condos; I’d have to look). And Wilburton (south of NE 8th Street).
It should gradually taper down if it there must be low-density areas, not just end abruptly within walking distance of the centers.
Crossroads would seem to be eligible for growth too, since there are no single-family houses along 156th north of NE 8th Street, but it has remained its two-story self. The city may be protecting it because it has the highest percent of lower-income residents.
“Oh the horror, people want to raise a family with multiple kids outside of an apartment in the richest country in the world.”
More than one American family has moved to The Netherlands to raise their children in a walkable area that has excellent transit connections and bike infrastructure and is safer than American cities.
If you insist on living in a detached house with a large yard, move five miles out from the city center and core urban villages; the inconvenience you suffer is your own problem. We’re trying to get better transit access from even those areas, and to build more infill housing so that the price premium of inner neighborhoods isn’t so stark. But a significant share of the people hindering it are in those own outer areas, complaining about taxes and losing lanes and parking lots.
By “commercial/industrial zones” I’m including areas where garden apartments existed in the 1970/80s.
For instance, my relative lived in a 2-story garden apartment just northeast of NE 8th Street & 124th. It’s inside the Spring District upzone area, but growth hasn’t reached south of 12th yet. Including it surprised me, but there are no single-family houses between 12th and 8th, just apartments and other uses.
The south side of 8th is a sharp contrast: it’s single-family only. (Doubtless with the relaxed 4-plex form recently mandated by the state, but whatever.) RapidRide B has a pair of stations there. One is adjacent to many multifamily residents. The other is adjacent to a few lucky single-family residents.
8th Street as a whole has more multifamily than I assumed. I used to call it “single-family” until I looked more closely and saw that practically the whole thing has apartments between 116th and Crossroads, with some gaps on the south side.
Suburbs are poorly designed. Ideally single family homes can exist but they need to surround some sort of “center of attention” with transit, retail, schools, and apartments. And really a lot of these single family homes are mass produced for cheap in a terrible layout. Yards should be smaller, and the layout should make it a 10 min walk from town. Issaquah Highlands and Totem Lake is a semi decent design because they actually invested in urban planning there.
And rural ish suburbs aren’t bad either. The density is so low that car traffic and parking requirements are pretty minimal. Each of them can get a small permit P&R with a semi frequent trunk feeder bus route.
The real problem is building miles long strip malls with 3 lanes on each side and no real housing. Check out places like Puyallup and South Hill. That’s the epitome of a suburban disaster.
Urbanized areas with retail and apartments need to be radial and compact to allow for buses to easily connect to nearby Link station or transit center.
In East Kent and Fairwood, there is essentially very little traffic except during school time (since we have terrible school bus systems and parents want to line up to drop their kid off personally). It takes 10-15 mins to travel 5 miles by car consistently here, except near the freeway entrances that get clogged (that’s why we’re anticipating Stride service). The local bus takes 30-40 minutes on the other hand.
Buses here are pretty much always on time when going away. But coming in they’re always late because of delays in Seattle, Bellevue, Kent, and Renton itself. So NIMBYs have nothing to block here because we don’t need bus lanes. If we do want to add anything it would be TSP. But, no one here is opposing bus service and if anything we want more options.
The problem is the NIMBYs in urban areas that suffer from traffic who are not pushing their city to build bus lanes and add TSP.
Even if it is the outsiders who are complaining, it’s not their city or freeway. Seattle and Bellevue can easily build bus lanes. If not, they are the NIMBYs. People who live away are concerned with their backyard. So I don’t get why we pull in NIMBYs from single family areas when the issue with transit / mobility reliability is solely in downtowns and dense areas.
I’m all for making parking paid/permitted at stations but we’re paying taxes for it, at least through ST.
I’m going to post a level upward to separate the two discussions of Downtown Bellevue and single family homes.
Downtown Bellevue has the density on paper to justify its urbanness. Its biggest limitation on density is that it’s quickly going to bump into adjacent lower density neighborhoods. Wilburton Station area is really the only large opportunity zone left. The Main and 112th development plans look great but that’s probably where the hard southern edge is.
More than that, , Downtown Bellevue is mostly sterile and boring. The park is great. The mall itself is vibrant. But walking the Grand Connection corridor has no allure. Vacant or inward focused storefronts. No unique places that draw people from other areas. Heck there isn’t an ice cream stand or cookie stand on it!
For a region that has such wonderful and vibrant hubs like Pike Place Market or Snoqualmie Falls or Seattle Center with its many destinations, one would think that Bellevue would make such a hub a priority. But they don’t.
Bellevue needs to put the work in with its building owners and developers to make Downtown more interesting. Just building the Grand Connection out is wonderful — but without vibrancy it’s just going to be a nice but boring walking path.
Seattle too. The waterfront is nice but still underwhelming.
“ Downtown Bellevue has the density on paper to justify its urbanness. ”
Yeah I feel this way. My read to the situation is that it has the density that houses people who don’t walk and bike to their destinations. It is theoretically feasible to live there car free, but in practice few people to choose that life style.
“My read to the situation is that it has the density that houses people who don’t walk and bike to their destinations. I”
I think a good analogy is a movie theater. People may live near one — but uninteresting movies will keep people from actually going. If a street is boring I think people are less likely to walk.
Al, the walk from SeaTac main terminal to the Link Station is very boring, and it’s a very popular walk.
SeaTac needs major improvement. Beyond just an airport it should be refreshed with an urban village with retail and such. The ugly parking lot is an excellent opportunity to build that.
So Link users get to walk through a much more exciting path. With travelators ideally.
And it will justify more transit to the airport if more people visit SeaTac for other reasons than flying.
Yeah Sam it’s boring. But it’s just part of a longer journey via Link. If the station wasn’t connecting there, few would walk that corridor
In Bellevue, someone living Downtown can complete an entire journey by just walking. Still some choose to drive.
As far as downtown Bellevue goes, I think what will help encourage more people to walk is … more people. As more multifamily residential development is built, more people will become pedestrians. There used to be a time it was rare to see people walking in Bellevue’s city center. That has changed, and there is still much more change to come.
It matters more to me if 270 runs every 10 minutes during peak. For convenience of Wilburton and Crossroads, Metro can just extend B to NE 10th at 100th like 532/535 do and stop looping through congested Bellevue TC because B has a transfer point at Wilburton.
It probably can do as much good as through-routing 270-B. The latter will make the service less reliable.
On the topic of single family density:
I just wanted to point out that yards were bigger before 1990. Most new “single family” developments have very modest lot setbacks. Yards with them are thus much smaller. They may be less dense than townhomes but they aren’t far from it.
The issue that I think seems to have not been addressed is instead the evilness of “secure” cul-de-sac design. These layouts remain long rat mazes that are really hard to serve by even bus transit. It is often overly circuitous to even walk to a bus stop. Then a bus rider must walk through a parking lot to get to any destination.
Highlighting small areas for dense urban villages is a good strategy. But more direct pedestrian access is a ubiquitous need that I think goes underrecognized no matter what the residential density is.
Any information about the announcement about Metro service increase that was mentioned during announcement of Denny Way bus lane last week?
It’s Seattle Transit Measure money. We’ll here more a week or two before it goes into effect in September. Wilson said it would have 12-minute daytime service, up from 15. I don’t remember whether that includes weekends, likely not. I’m not expecting evening service to increase from 20 minutes.
At night it is much more reliable, so frequency isn’t as critical as during the day. You don’t go out and stand in the rain for fifteen minutes because the bus you left for with three minutes to spare is late. At least, not most of the time.
The service may be more reliant night, but the ending of events cannot be timed to match a bus schedule. The 45 runs 15-minute evening service, there’s no reason the 8 can’t too, other than the low ridership MLK segment dragging down the route’s productivity numbers and it’s spot in the pecking order for service upgrades.
The part about 8 has already been spoiled, I am more interested in the part for other routes as part of this “increases in overall bus service” as Ross respond to the article last week.
I haven’t heard anything. It is strange because they did say there was announcement coming soon, so I don’t get it.
SDOT may not have decided this early which other routes to spend the service hours on.
Urbanist has a post about the permanent closure of the sodo buswayway for WSLE. Are they really going to somehow dump all that bus traffic on to an already very busy 4th Ave s.? Another piece of solid bus transit infrastructure lost in the name of link.
Seems like a waste…
It IS a big waste, and all for a train every ten minutes in each direction which will be almost empty except at rush hours.
They should just build a junction south of the new SoDo Station. The northbound merge can simply use the almost never used block of the bikeway between Lander and Forest.
The southbound diversion can either be engineered to be a turnout at the curve into Forest OR take the northbound lane of the busway for the block. Buses would use the southbound lane in a signal-controlled alternating one-way block. No bus would wait long.
In either case, Lander would be raised onto an overpass, but that’s already budgeted.
Holgate, too, is budgeted for an overpass, so this would be a HUGE saving as well as maintaining the busway.
Lower Royal Brougham would probably have to be closed between the tracks and busway because of the frequency of the trains.
Obviously this would mean three lines through the existing tunnel, so it would require investment in power distribution and passenger flow. But MUCH LESS than noring a new tunnel and two redundant stations.
Put a reversing-only center platform in Pioneer Square while you’re at it.
Addendum: Obviously a center-platform must meet ADA requirements for emergency egress.
They can be met with an elevator at one end that has no “down” button on the Mezzanine level and a stair with a one-way turnstile at the top so people don’t cluster on the platform.
Yes, a strategic mistake. First, the best course is to delay the WSLE while they decide what to do about the second DSTT. Then, bus use of the SODO busway could continue. Even is the WSLE is advanced, it will take a few years. The ST busway routes could be restructured in fall 2027; those oriented to the CBD could use the pathway of routes 577-578. Route 102 could be merged with Route 148 and oriented to Sounder at Tukwila. Routes 101 and 150 could shift to the south end pathway and 3rd Avenue. Routes 21, 131, and 132 could shift to 1st Avenue. Route 5 could be split from Route 21, be extended to Lake City via the Pinehurst Link station, and lay in 6th Avenue South. Is ST thinking they get FTA funds from the Trump FTA?
Deleting the 102 would be stupid. Renton is close enough to Seattle that connecting to Sounder will make the trip 15+ minutes slower. Sounder requires more transfers after you reach the station. The 906 already serves that exact purpose too.
Also I’m pretty sure the 102 has the best ridership out of any non-ST commuter route. It’s like 18 riders per platform hour which is actually more than the 101. Not bad for a chronically late route with under 10 trips during rush hour.
102/105/148/160 should be trunks that feed into the 101. Zero additional service hours needed. There isn’t much traffic in Renton to delay the routes significantly by doing this. Most of that traffic is in Seattle anyways.
If Metro doesn’t want to send the 102 to Seattle, it should at least be an all day express to S Renton like the 105.
Tukwila Station is also quite a ways west. Not as far as Tukwila Link, but far west that it’s simply inefficient to use that station for Renton.
No one would send someone from Renton Highlands to Sounder. Sending Fairwood doesn’t make sense either when Renton already has SR-900 as a much better ROW that connects onto I-5 and Seattle.
Also if you didn’t know… Renton borders Seattle. It’s not some far off foreign land that you have to go to a massive Sounder station just to get into the Seattle.
If the 148 goes directly to Tukwila, then it has to skip Renton which is important to serve Stride to Bellevue.
If 148 goes to Renton, then might as well continue as 101/102 to Seattle. Backtracking to Tukwila makes no sense.
So keep the 906 for Tukwila… Simple. Or even better… Don’t go to Tukwila and send it to SeaTac like the old 155/156. Many people here miss that route.
“Renton borders Seattle”
It’s close but doesn’t quite touch. Searching for a city in Google Maps shows the borders. Seattle is west of 69th and north of 112th except a small finger to 115th & Cornell (approx 74th). Renton is east of 70th and south of 130th. In between is Skyway, which is unincorporated King County.
Tukwila does appear to border Seattle after its annexations in the 2000s or so.
Before the pandemic, the 102 saw nearly 40 rides per platform hour. It was a very high performing route for a peak hour route.
Post pandemic it recovered to 23 but then dropped to 19 then 18 now. My guess is because of poor service reliability recently with extreme lateness.
About the border, yeah, I forgot Skyway is unincorporated. It’s still pretty close regardless.
It has been coming for quite awhile. ST has no problem messing up things for South King and Renton riders so that a few people in West Seattle can have their time consuming stub. SE Seattle is next when they sever the 1 Line spine and create new two levels of transferring and add several minutes to each trip.
I’ve long begged for people to demand for ST to rethink SODO station. Maybe now more will speak up. The South King and Pierce delegation on the Board as well as Renton should be questioning this move.
Does anyone remember how there were those asking for ST to run West Seattle Link tracks further west in SODO? ST put that out in the trash early on.
I’m all in favor of cancelling the West Seattle Link fiasco, but can’t the South King and Renton routes just skip SODO, and stay on I5 until Royal Brougham (or even further north)?
but are you sure staying on I-5 north of Spokane St will be faster than SoDo busway?
That makes transferring to Link worse. And more likely to get stuck on the traffic. The busway is pretty reliable though a bit confusing why it lacks basic TSP.
The SODO busway was created to get buses out of I-5 congestion I would have thought.
I just hope West Seattle gets canceled. It’s a useless vanity project. West Seattle already has exceptional bus and an awesome water taxi service. Why do they need a light rail?
Ballard to UW, and an automated Ballard to SLU/Westlake stub should be all we’re building in terms of light rail. Tacoma (and maybe Everett) might as well be added since we already made the mistake of running light rail along the freeway that far south instead of a proper semi HSR.
Issaquah is a nice to have but not really required. At this point the 2 Line screwed up the possibility for a semi HSR commuter rail option in the Eastside. Any new line built there has to interline with Link for maximum utility… And therefore be a slow light rail.
You clearly haven’t ridden a Downtown Seattle-West Seattle bus.
I get you and others here have a hate on for West Seattle Link, but it wasn’t proposed without merit. Go ask any West Seattle resident and they’ll gladly tell you why West Seattle Link would be a vast improvement from the current setup.
Some people frankly need to let go of their hate for the project. I’m sorry that we’re not getting Ballard to UW, Metro 8, Metro 48, or E Line subways, but at the end of the day complaining about West Seattle Link ain’t going to magically bring those projects back from the dead. People here and elsewhere had plenty of opportunities to push the other projects to the front of the line when they were planning ST3, they just unfortunately weren’t picked. Such is life.
This is why in person advocacy is important, its easy to complain that they aren’t doing it the way you want it. But you gotta carry the water irl to see the change you want to happen instead of just complaining about it here. This is why Transportation Choices Coalition, Seattle Subway, Tacoma On The Go, etc are actively working in advocacy at the local and state level to see change in how projects get built and financed. Because they do care about getting projects off the ground and seeing them come to fruition.
“People here and elsewhere had plenty of opportunities to push the other projects to the front of the line when they were planning ST3, they just unfortunately weren’t picked.”
Dow Constantine put his thumb on the scale and chose West Seattle. It wasn’t based on any evaluation of its merits; Dow overrode all that. He was King County Executive and thus had the most influential position on the ST Board, and he lived in West Seattle.
“Go ask any West Seattle resident and they’ll gladly tell you why West Seattle Link would be a vast improvement from the current setup.”
You tell us. You never mentioned any reasons in your comment.
“You clearly haven’t ridden a Downtown Seattle-West Seattle bus.”
I have though. The C and H seem fine. The C is faster and more frequent than its predecessors (I rode those too); the 120 is at least more frequent than its predecessors. The 125 is similarly fast but frequency-challenged, and the layout of South Seattle College forces it to do a big detour. The 21 seems to have gotten the short end of the stick since it was the route chosen for 1st Ave S instead of 99, but some route had to serve 1st.
Martin Pagel, one of STB’s editors, has direct ties to the area around Delridge Station and goes there a lot.
Like all the other ST3 projects, West Seattle Link was a line on the map.
The current plan now puts West Seattle Link in a deep tunnel, resulting in a situation much like UW station: a time consuming
transfer for a large number of people.
Yes, the traffic on the West Seattle bridge is frustratingly slow. However, the current plan appears to make transit slower than the existing buses.
$12 billion should buy more than that.
Used the DART bus and water taxi. It’s pretty quick into Seattle, and not too far of a walk to Link after that.
The C also seems useful as well.
There are some ideas floating around to upgrade 4th Ave S with bus lanes and sidewalks. It’s in the potential RapidRide 150 project if the SODO Busway is eliminated for Link, and SDOT is thinking about doing it anyway for the other routes that would be displaced from the busway. An issue they’ve raised is money, whether SDOT would be enough money for the upgrade. Otherwise it would just move the buses to 4th without changes.
You have to understand, VIP politicians live in West Seattle, not Renton. Giving the West Seattle line grade-separation in SODO that the Rainier Valley line doesn’t have sounds good to those West Seattle interests.
I know the current hand wringing is about ST being able to afford to build ST2.
How about operating costs though?
I’m looking at the ≈$300 million operating cost of Link in 2024, then doubling that for full ST3 buildout, then add what? $200 million for Stride station maintenance and all the operators to maintain decent frequency, then add the remaining ST express routes that continue after ST3.
I’m winding up with half hourly service on the Everett, West Seattle, Tacoma Dome, and Issaquah-Kirkland sections at night, sort of how MAX Orange and green lines have become due to low ridership and lack of operating money.
* ST3 in first sentence. For some reason autocorrect on my phone refuses to recognize ST3 as a thing.
Hopefully automation comes into the picture sooner. I imagine running many automated single units is feasible for off-hours
Absolutely every train operating between CID and Mariner after ST3 gets there should run under automated control. Full stop. Line 2 can continue to South Main as well.
Drivers can board and alight somewhere in DSTT1 north of CID and at Lynnwood.
Headways can be shorter when the TCS has immediate control of the trains. The computer can set an exact speed, rather than relying on the standard of three speeds and stop that signals provide.
Automation does require platform doors to work best, and at very busy stations locking turnstile that engage when a train arrives can help control surges.
But when trains come every couple of minutes and only a small fraction of those boarding at a given station are riding beyond the shared service zone, being blocked from the platform for a headway shouldn’t matter to most folks.
That said, I doubt that Line 1 south of CID will ever be automated. Too much can impinge on the ROW on Martin Luther King.
Yeah.
It’s rarely mentioned that the halfway time point between Westlake and Downtown Everett would be Lynnwood City Center and the halfway time point between CID and Tacoma Dome would be KDM.
Because the Seattle segments will be carrying 75%+ of these segments, the outer segment will get reductions on service in some future year without unforeseen station area land use changes including suburban paid parking.
And didn’t ST assume a 30 percent farebox recovery in the future rather than the 12 it’s getting — before these outer segments open (as well as Federal Way)?
Automation is really the only way to bring down costs generally.
Of course, the current Board seems to think that it’s so flush with operating funds that they can keep running parallel bus service in addition to Link. It’s quite dystopian.
ST estimates operating and maintenance and fleet replacement costs are a third of line construction costs. Even if that’s an understimate, ST has plenty of resources for operations and can still roll back taxes by at least half when construction is done and the bonds are substantially paid down.
The same thing that led to increased construction costs will also mean increased station maintenance. Eg: the deep Westlake station means a hell of a lot of escalators they plan to install there. West Seattle now requires tunnel maintenance.
The increased spares ratio they want to maintain means more light rail cars to maintain for the service they want. So, they don’t just need more cars and more OMB space, but more operating and replacement budget – probably more than they originally planned.
So, my confidence in their operating cost estimate isn’t very high.
Here is math to ponder:
If a rider must use 8 escalators and each one operates 95 percent of the time (ST’s standard), there would be one escalator out of service a third of the time or 1 trip out of three.
0.95^8 = .663 (or all in service 66.3% of the time)
The interactive plots feature on Seattle Transit Ridership seems to be much improved with the latest update. Thanks to the people who are building and maintaining and improving the website.
I see The Netherlands mentioned often enough here, that I would like to recommend two books by the same author. Russell Shorto is the author. The first book is The Island at the Center of the World: The Epic Story of Dutch Manhattan and the Forgotten Colony That Shaped America. The audiobook is excellent, and read by the author. The second book is Amsterdam: A History of the World’s Most Liberal City. The audiobook also read by the author. Some books should be read, not listened to. These books aren’t in that category. Both books I can’t recommend highly enough. They were captivating from beginning to end.