King County Metro will run two free shuttles in downtown Seattle this summer. The Waterfront Shuttle will operate everyday between May 21 and September 7. Buses will arrive every 15 minutes from 10am to 10pm.

This route travels between the Chinatown/ International District and Seattle Center, via Pioneer Square, the waterfront (Alaskan Way), and Belltown.

Waterfront Shuttle Map (Metro)
Match Day Shuttle Map (Metro)

On days with a FIFA World Cup match, Metro will also run a Match Day Shuttle. The Match Day shuttle will run every 3-7 minutes on the dates listed below. This route runs between Seattle Stadium (Lumen Field) and Seattle Center, via 3rd Ave.

The Match Day shuttle operates on:

  • Monday, June 15th: 9:00 am to 5:00 pm
  • Friday, June 19th: 9:00 am to 5:00 pm
  • Wednesday, June 24th: 9:00 am to 5:00 pm
  • Friday, June 26th: 5:00 pm to 1:00 am
  • Wednesday, July 1st: 10:00 am to 6:00 pm
  • Monday, July 6th: 2:00 pm to 10:00 pm

Both shuttle routes are free and will use ADA accessible buses. Everyone is welcome onboard, not just those attending the World Cup matches.

This is an open thread.

61 Replies to “Friday Roundtable: Free Summer Shuttles”

  1. I’m surprised the waterfront shuttle doesn’t serve the waterfront between Pine Street and Broad Street. But that’s the third phase of the waterfront renovation so there may be construction there this summer.

    1. This also avoids the shuttle getting delayed by trains at the Broad Street crossing.

      They’re also avoiding going directly into King Street Station this year, which I think is a good move. Having all that traffic going into a dead-end street makes a mess.

      1. This also avoids the shuttle getting delayed by trains at the Broad Street crossing.

        Yes, and that’s huge. This idea came up when folks were discussing more year-round service on the waterfront. This is the solution and I think it will work really well. It isn’t intuitive if you are on the waterfront north of the overlook but most people are south of there. I think the key will be good signage. Folks staying at the Edgewater will no doubt be told where to catch the shuttle but if you are walking along the waterfront you might get confused. They are running the bus every fifteen minutes, which is great. But someone walking north along the waterfront may wonder where the bus went. I think that is a small price to pay for a bus that is reliable and frequent (and likely wouldn’t be either if it wasn’t for this change). I’m generally pretty unimpressed with buses like this but I think this one is outstanding. Well done.

  2. This will be the first time KCM runs the Waterfront Shuttle, after last year a contractor did it and I believe in previous years, too. I believe they will be using the KCM branded buses that they use for DART, Trailhead Connect, and the 773/5. This will hopefully help visitors get familiar and comfortable with the Metro system. At least the buses will look like the other buses.

    I shared this on Bsky but interested to hear people’s thoughts on other shuttle uses for the DART style buses beyond the waterfront shuttle. Especially for expanding access to Seattle’s premier parks. Golden Gardens for example could benefit from a shuttle from the 44 stop at the Ballard Locks, up through the park, then to the 45/17 stops on Sunset Hill. In the summers, this would make getting to the beach a LOT easier and spread the parking demand, and also business spending, out a bit more throughout the neighborhood. A magnoilia loop connecting LQA and/or Interbay with the bluff and Discovery Park could be cool too, but probably more expensive per rider to operate by a lot.

    1. It’s not a bad idea but it’s really expensive per rider. I think the Seattle area does fairly okay in providing transit to parks. Of course it could be better but we have a lot of options, there are plenty of regular bus routes that pass by parks (like the 45 and Golden Gardens, or the 50 and many great parks), and over the summer there are at least:
      – Discovery park shuttle
      – Waterfront park shuttle
      – Trailhead direct shuttles
      – Hurricane ridge shuttle

      A lot of access issues within the city could get solved with more service or rearranging routes. For example improving service on the 50 would make it much easier to access a whole lot of parks, and untangling some of the service in Magnolia would probably make it easier to access Discovery Park

      1. Hurricane ridge is an interesting one. You can piece it together right now if you are patient. It is what I would recommend to Seattle visitors if they don’t want to rent a car (or hitch a ride) to get to the mountains. It gets you a ferry ride as well. I think the best option is:

        1) Ferry to Bainbridge
        2) Straight Shot (route 123 Clallam Transit) to Port Angeles.
        3) Hurricane Ridge Shuttle.

        I’m sure timing is tricky. My guess is it takes up the whole day, even if you take a relatively short hike, like the one up Hurricane Hill. But the waiting areas are nice. There are bars and restaurants near the ferry dock. Port Angeles is also really nice and of course the view from Hurricane Ridge is outstanding. They ferry itself serves food and very good beer. Sounds like a fun outing to me, especially if the rest of the trip you are just walking around Seattle.

    2. Metro has tried routes to Golden Gardens and loop shuttles in northwest Seattle and elsewhere, but they always fail in a few years due to low ridership. A route needs to go somewhere substantial and be more than three miles to get used. All these neighborhood shuttle routes are inevitably infrequent and have a limited span, so that dampens ridership even more. People see they have a half-hour wait and think, “If I walk I’ll get there sooner”, or they drive or forego the trip. A lot of trips don’t happen because it’s too much overhead to coordinate with the shuttle for such a short distance and with few destinations on it.

      However, all the Golden Gardens routes I’ve seen came from the south. I don’t know if any connected Golden Gardens to NW 85th Street at the north end. So that may be an untried market. You could possibly have a route from Ballard to Golden Gardens and Aurora (for a RapidRide E transfer). Ideally it would go to a Link station, but such a long overlap with the 45 may be too much. At the same time, terminating at 24th NW (40, 45) or Greenwood (5, 45, 61) may not be enough to generate enough ridership, because if you’re on a regional route like Link or the E, you still have to get to Greenwood or north Ballard to transfer, and that’s a 3-seat ride.

      1. Golden Gardens service is almost infeasible with the current infrastructure. Golden Gardens Drive is curvy; the BNSFRR bridge is low. The old Route 46 turned in the trailer lot; that lot is often blocked by trailers or overflow parking; if the bus cannot turn around, it is stuck.

        Route 46 provided two-way peak service for several years ending in fall 2012.

        1. Yeah, I think the only way to do it is from the waterfront (via an extended 44). Turning around is an issue but it shouldn’t be too hard to fix. It is mainly just a parking enforcement issue. A lot of red paint and explicit “Your-ass-gonna-be-towed-if-you-park-here” signs should do it.

        2. I route the 46 extension when I had a conference at the yacht club south of Golden Gardens. One year it existed. Another year it didn’t, so I walked from the 44’s terminus.

      2. Earlier this year, I read some news saying park department will fund a Golden Garden shuttle the similar way how they fund Discovery Park shuttle which is not run by Metro, but couldn’t find any information about that anymore.

        1. I haven’t seen that, but it would be good news. The King County Parks Department was one of the contributors to Trailhead Direct, and may still be. It’s partly because the trailhead parking lots are full, and to avoid expanding the parking lots.

        3. The Seattle Parks pilot will have the turnaround issue I mentioned above. I wrote a note about during the budget. The times when demand for the shuttle is highest is also the time when the trailer is most full and most difficult to turn around in. Let’s watch what they do. During Covid, when their other facilities were closed, Parks had employees help with parking issues at Golden Gardens.

          SDOT and Parks have restricted parking, but have implemented paid parking except at the trailer lot. There has been no enforcement that I have seen. I did see a park ranger in a vehicle. There is also long term vehicle parking on Seaview Avenue NW; there are no time limits or enforcement.

    3. Discovery Park has bus service on two ends. They just need to run the buses more often. It would also be nice if one of the UW/Fremont/SPU buses went there but serving Magnolia is more complicated than it looks. It reminds me of this puzzle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Bridges_of_K%C3%B6nigsberg. It looks pretty easy but it turns out it can’t be solved. Anyway, if you are patient you can catch a bus to Discovery Park. There is also a shuttle that operates within the park on summer weekends. I believe it is run by the parks department and funded in large part via donations. I’ve ridden it (and chipped in) — it is handy if someone in your crew needs a ride (or just gets too tired).

      Golden Gardens is a whole different matter. The closest bus is the 45, but that is quite a ways above it. There is a scenic pathway if you don’t mind the grunt but a lot of people have no interest. Carrying a cooler up the hill would be a big pain. The obvious solution there is to extend a few 44 buses. There is some density along there as well. It is similar to the waterfront. Sure, it is mostly used by tourists but my guess is a lot of people who live in the area will use it as well (since it will run every fifteen minutes until 10 pm).

      1. Oh, and then there is the fact that the 44 is usually a trolley. If this only ran the bus to Golden Gardens on weekends then it probably wouldn’t matter, since it is common to run diesel buses then. But even if it ran off-wire the distance is fairly short and flat. There are bathrooms at the park, so that isn’t an issue. The bus could also just do an out-and-back loop before heading towards Ballard.

        1. At least 44 is not trolleybus on most of the weekends, but making Golden Gardens Park service shuttle probably is best of Metro’s interest so they don’t need mess with 44’s schedule. Perhaps they could use those DART fleet to shuttle between 44 and 45’s last stops via Golden Gardens Park.

        2. It is a lot cheaper to just add a longer tail than it is to run a new route. You also have a lot more one-seat rides. You are bound to have overlap with a shuttle. You could start at the locks I suppose (where the 44 ends) but that means the vast majority of people have to transfer from the 44. Now you are trying to time it with the 44 and that is messy and/or more expensive. I think a shuttle from Old Ballard would make more sense but I have no idea where to find layover around there.

        3. It makes sense to extend an existing route for the benefit you cited, but I think there are other complications which make a standalone shuttle more doable (not necessarily better for who ride them).
          For one, maybe they can find cheaper charter bus company to do this job than Metro.

          Yes this doesn’t consider schedule of 44 which is not ideal and that’s exactly what happen to Discover Park shuttle. There is not even clear schedule information about that shuttle. You just have to wait.

          I would argue that 44 is not that on time after traveling all the way from U-District. It is generally not a problem for 44 itself because it runs relatively frequently, but if not every 44 goes to Golden Gardens, some people not coming from 44 stops may have to wait, too.
          A standalone shuttle can avoid traffic impact east of Ballard and operate reliably with simpler schedule. This can also make thing cheaper.

        4. Re HZ: Exactly the DART fleet is what I was imagining. This makes the issue with getting up the hill to the 45 much easier too.

          RB: I imagine this GG shuttle would pick up a lot of non-transit origin riders. Parking is often a big issue at GG, and a shuttle would make hauling a cooler or a big bag or the kid from the car parked as far away as the locks or the top of Sunset Hill a lot less difficult. With stops at the business districts, could encourage some hop on hop off trips too. Maybe I am too optimistic but if they could do 15min service on summer weekends, it could be a hit. Overall, just hoping KCM can learn what’s working downtown this summer with the dart fleet shuttles and get creative with it elsewhere in the system.

        5. The BNSFRR mainline is less than 10 feet above the street connecting with Seaview Avenue NW.

      2. “ but serving Magnolia is more complicated than it looks.”

        From map, Magnolia looks like big chunk of area that can have a grid, but many of those east-west streets are very steep. If it was not like West Seattle which each bigger north-south streets can have its own service out, what they set up for 24/33 is not the worst idea with limited resource. Ideally, they need at least two different routes to serve 28th Ave And 34th Ave, 24 does the job for three different north-south corridors.

        I think it is similar to what you mention about West Seattle is better off with a bus network.

        1. Yeah, a grid for Magnolia would be challenging. The east-west streets are steep and many don’t go through. It doesn’t really change things, either. Even if you could magically serve the east-west corridors you still need to serve the north-south ones. There are four north-south corridors that have bus service. (You could also have a bus on Magnolia Boulevard but that is overkill.) The four routes converge on the north and south. If they were all independent routes coming from the south (via the Magnolia Bridge) it would be expensive, assuming you have 15-minute headways on each corridor. You would have a big spine along Elliott, with 16 buses an hour (not counting the RapidRide D). That is huge waste of service for Elliott, given what is there. Meanwhile, you haven’t provided service connecting riders to the UW. I’ve worked on a lot of restructures in Seattle and I know Magnolia well but I’ve never come up with a solution that looks great. Just different options that might be better.

          For example this: https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1c1iLKTPbrBAlIYyt9vsqOSelxh3bpTs&usp=sharing. I would try and bump up the frequency of the 24 to every fifteen minutes (midday). The 31 and 32 would run every half hour (like they do today). But it lends itself to increased frequency. Running buses on the Interbay/SPU/Fremont/UW corridor every ten minutes or even every 7.5 is quite reasonable. Even with current headways a trip along that corridor to Magnolia Bridge is much better. You just take whatever 31/32 comes first. So even though each bus only runs every half hour, the effective frequency is 15 minutes (to that destination). The same is true for getting to Discovery Park. You just end up at a different end of the park. But it isn’t all cookies and cream. Downtown to Magnolia Village involves a transfer. So do a lot of other trips from Magnolia to downtown. The assumption here is that the RapidRide D is running often enough to compensate. You lose some coverage next to Fisherman’s Terminal (it isn’t that bad of a walk).

          This also assumes a functioning Magnolia Bridge, which is going away. Things get even messier when all the buses have to go over Dravus (or something nearby). It can be done but I think you end up with more overlap and backtracking. It is not an easy puzzle to solve (and I’m not sure it can be solved to my satisfaction).

        2. I like where your 32 goes. It solves a problem I see today. There is no better two-seat ride route from most part of Magnolia to Ballard or most part of north Seattle. One of the hotspot destination in Ballard is probably Ballard High School.
          Nowadays, those who going to Ballard High and living in part of Magnolia not served by 31 will need to make transfer at Elliot & Prospect, a transfer that involves crossing Elliot Ave. Setting aside the crossing street part, which I think young adults should be able to do just fine, a D-24/33 trip between Ballard High and Magnolia is massive waste of time. Your 31/32 provides better 2-seat rides from north to expanded area of Magnolia than what 31 serves today. And by entering Magnolia via Dravus, people can actually make transfer between 31 and D more easily.

          ” I would try and bump up the frequency of the 24 to every fifteen minutes (midday). ”

          Just wanna mention that 24 is still all-day 30-min now. I am very looking forward to seeing if the service restoration being talked about recently will include restoring those peak hour trips in/out of Magnolia. A couple 24 trips out of Magnolia in the morning has been standing room, so I think it is time to have those trips back.
          Adding to your comment about 15-min midday frequency, if 24 is something Seattle would invest 15-min headway during the day (AM/Mid-day/PM) and they would also restore 19 during the peak, I think they should consider a different service patterns for peak periods and off-peak. During the peak period, 24 should run as two different patterns (24A/24B) to loop around 28th and 34th. For example, after crossing the bridge, Magnolia-bound 24A should directly go to Magnolia Village and 34th and ends at W Government Way & 34th Ave W where 33 late night trip layovers. On its way back, it should take 28th Ave W as it does today to leave Magnolia. And 24B would do the counterclockwise loop.
          My reason is that during those hours and for a neighborhood like Magnolia, faster travel time to Downtown is a better selling point than bumping headway from 30 to 15. During mid-day, people travel more simultaneously, so 24’s current route that serves everyone every 15-min is probably ok.

          “This also assumes a functioning Magnolia Bridge”

          Before Magnolia Bridge’s end date didn’t concern me because I believed by that time Ballard Link is running, but this has changed.

        3. I like the 31/32 crossing Dravus concept, it’s a much better crossing than Emerson. Maybe a 15-minute 24 should take a busier corridor though, perhaps directly through Magnolia Village? The major ridership generators seem to be Magnolia Village, Magnolia Manor, and 22nd. 34th/Government has some promise as well

          Maybe something like the below? Though that does leave something to be desired, it’s quite winding and breaks the connection to Discovery Park..

          https://imgur.com/a/RB2om9U

        4. Maybe a 15-minute 24 should take a busier corridor though, perhaps directly through Magnolia Village?

          The corridor I proposed for the 24 is pretty busy. Ridership in Magnolia is fairly spread out. There aren’t big peaks anywhere, really. From what I can tell, the highest ridership stop is at 28th & Blaine (served by both the 24 and 33). I think it is a de-facto park and ride. Ridership at Magnolia Village on the 24 is good but not great. It doesn’t stand out. The stop by Discovery Park (at the end of the line) has more riders. Go figure.

          Some corridors are a bit stronger than others but again, the difference isn’t huge. The combination I sketched out for the 24 gets about 250 riders. That is a bit lower than the 33 (which gets about 300 riders in Magnolia). The most productive section in Magnolia looks to be along 22nd, but it doesn’t really make sense to serve that with the bus from the Magnolia Bridge (not when you can serve it via Interbay).

          I also want to retain coverage everywhere. The 28th does OK on both ends and in the middle. Daybreak Star (inside Discovery Park) should be covered. It gets decent ridership (for Magnolia) given how quickly it can be served.

          I also wanted to avoid new pathways. With the exception of Dravus (from 20th to 22nd) this uses existing streets. That is a flat part of Dravus. In contrast, if you go up to 28th, you have to deal with the steep part of Dravus. I’m not saying the bus can’t do that but it would put a lot of wear and tear on the buses if nothing else.

          Given the ridership, I am more focused on the overall geography. The bus routes still curve around but they are much wider curves. This provides a lot more value. Right now the 24 bus serves 28th and 34th. My guess is very few people take the bus for trips between there — it is faster to just walk. In contrast, 22nd and 34th are a long way apart. For example, this trip would take about ten minutes by bus. Even if you have to wait ten minutes to catch the bus it would be worth it. The same is true for the 31. Every stop combination is plausible.

          At the same time, you do connect the two dense “urban centers*” in the area: Interbay and the Magnolia Village. Going from Interbay it is ideal. You have the combined frequency of the 31/32 (currently every fifteen minutes but hopefully every ten in the near future). Going the other way it is a bit out of balance. Not only do you have to choose a different bus stop, but the 31 is probably a bit faster between the two locations. But it is still pretty close which means the buses would be timed fairly well.

          Ideally you would give riders in Magnolia Village a one-seat ride to downtown. This is definitely a weakness. But it isn’t crazy to transfer. It also isn’t that far of a walk. More to the point, I think you have to pick your poison when it comes to Magnolia. I think this is the best option even though it is clearly flawed. If we really felt like we needed to serve Magnolia Village then I would just detour to serve it, like so. This shares some existing bus stops and while I would favor a straighter route, it doesn’t look that bad.

          *I have no idea if either one is officially an “urban center” but it is the same idea.

        5. “Right now the 24 bus serves 28th and 34th. My guess is very few people take the bus for trips between there — it is faster to just walk.”

          Whenever I’ve ridden the 24 or 33 to Discovery Park, I’ve been surprised at how much of the Magnolia ridership is going from one part of Magnolia to another. 28th to 34th is “just 6 blocks” but it’s a very steep hill. People don’t go straight across per se but they go from one part of 28th to another part of 34th,

          They’re really three routes in one. Half the riders only take it from downtown to Interbay, especially peak commuters. They’re what turbocharge the ridership and make the routes perform higher than they would otherwise, saving them from cuts. The middle part is the Magnola workhorse, connecting the houses to the commercial destintions and each other. The third part is Discovery Park. I’ve never seen anybody get on/off Viewmont Way, and often I’m the only passenger in that segment. The 33 has a shorter bit of nothingness to get to the park, so I’m not sure if it’s really an entire third part, but it would be a long winding way to walk.

    4. Seattle is missing out by having most of its parks at the edge with infrequent transit to them. They should be positioned as essential health services and important tourist destinations, with a route every 15 minutes daytime and early evening, including weekends. We don’t need separate shuttles in most cases, just increase frequency on the 50 (which really needs it anyway), and 24 or 33, or figure out some way for a U-District route to go to Discovery Park.

      For Golden Gardens, find some route to extend or create. The 45 or 61 on 85th could be extended. The 45 is closest but is probably out because it’s already so long, and the switchback hill may slow it down too much. The 61 is short but terminates in Greenwood due to limited service hours available, but it could be extended. That new route I outlined from Ballard to Seaview Ave, Golden Gardens, and NW 85th could then go down to NW 65th — another area that needs bus service. It could terminate at 65th & Linden for a RapidRide E transfer, if it’s physically feasible to get there. I wouldn’t send it back to Ballard because loop routes haven’t succeeded. At the same time, that gives no major destinations in the northern part of the route, so it would be weak there. That’s the typical problem that trying to serve Golden Gardens and/or NW 65th Street keeps hitting against. A land-use change could increase density and commercial destinations in the northern neighborhoods this route covers, but that depends on something the City Council hasn’t agreed to or considered.

      1. Yeah, having Discover Park as last stop really helps 33’s ridership on weekend.
        If they would ever consider a U-District route to Discover Park, they should send the route to Commodore Way to connect south access of Ballard Lock and then take Discovery Park Blvd (rather than Texas Way 33 serves), 34th Ave, and terminated at Magnolia Village. The problem is it will be very similar to 31 except for the part inside Magnolia.

      2. So is this equipment standard no stairs Metro or does ir rely on a lift to make it ada compliant?

        1. Metro buses haven’t had wheelchair lifts for over a decade. They have a ramp that swings out, and a low-floor interior.

          I encountered an ancient ST Express bus in the past couple years with stairs inside the door like an old Greyhound bus, and I was stunned because I thought those had all been scrapped a decade ago. But some ST Express buses on some routes are very old. That’s the only stair one I’ve encountered in the 2020s, but some are the next generation after that. I don’t encounter them on the 550; they seem to be Pierce County routes, so maybe Pierce Transit with its much lower budget has been holding onto ancient buses to avoid the cost of replacing them.

    5. It’s not easily remedied, but I see that the underlying challenge is that too many great parks don’t abut interesting commercial districts.

      Green Lake is popular for meeting partly because coffee and food are right across the street, for example.

      Had our zoning encouraged better commercial districts next to parks, providing bus service to them would also have an easier time penciling out because it would help demand. As a result of our current land uses near several parks, we are left to seeking special recreational shuttles — and that’s always going to have limitations on frequency and days/ times it can run.

      1. Yeah, the problem is the zoning. Some of the nicest parks are close to areas that have very restrictive zoning. It makes it difficult to justify more frequent service. Magnolia is a classic example. West Magnolia is basically a low-density suburb. To be fair, at least the minimum lots sizes aren’t that big. But it is all just houses, with no shops or apartments for a really long ways. From what I can tell, there is basically nothing but houses west of 34th and north of McGraw, all the way to the ship canal. There are jobs and activities within the park (e. g. Daybreak Star) but overall it is striking how big an area has nothing in terms of stores, restaurants or any other retail.

        It is only as you go east of 35th that you have that. There is plenty of retail along Government Way, not too far from the park. Likewise, there is a Metropolitan Market on 34th, again, not too far from the park. It isn’t like the 33 only serves the park. For most of its route it is close to apartments or retail. The tail is also fairly fast (as there are no traffic lights getting into or traveling through the park). The 24 spends more time in West Magnolia but that part is clearly designed for coverage. And that is after it has served the other areas. Again, serving the coverage section is quick which means it is cheap (as an add-on).

        The general problem in the city is that only a tiny portion of the land is zoned for anything but single-family homes. The 24 and 33 may run on urban corridors most of the way, but walk a few blocks over and it resembles West Magnolia. This is true all over. Consider Phinney Ridge. If you are on the ridge itself it seems like a very urban neighborhood. Lots of apartments, a bunch of shops and a seemingly endless array of pizza parlors. But a couple blocks over and it is nothing but houses. You can walk on North 60th from Aurora to 15th NW and see nothing but houses (other than right on Phinney). It is only as you cross 15th and get closer to the heart of Ballard that you enter a more typical urban environment. There are houses to be sure. But also apartments, shops, rowhouses — the type of mix that make a city interesting and make serving it with transit so much easier.

        Seattle really needs to liberalize its zoning. Areas like Magnolia (and Phinney Ridge) need to evolve to be more urban. This doesn’t mean six story buildings, necessarily — three stories will do. But there should be more density and a lot more retail. That will not only make it more affordable to live and work in the city but it would make it much easier to fund transit.

        1. While higher density residential is certainly laudable and helps transit ridership, my more specific point here is that parks could be more enticing destinations throughout the year if they had thriving, adjacent commercial districts.

          A nearby example: I enjoy having Seward Park within 2 miles immensely! But it doesn’t have the adjacent neighborhood commercial that could make it be a more complete destination. If it had that, Route 50 could better serve it and would gain lots more riders on that bus route segment.

          Of course, there’s no way nearby single-family residents would accept this. So it remains an amazing park that gets little use by anyone other than those that drive to it.

        2. I am once again asking the world to restore Route 37 so that Seattleites who find themselves downtown on a summer weekday afternoon can enjoy a fast one-seat ride to Alki Beach, one of our few great parks that does a good job blending pleasant outdoor natural areas with abundant dining/drinking options.

          Yes that can technically be done by the 56 right now, but that has only 4 afternoon runs, with an 80-minute gap from 4 to 5:20; the 37 could boost that frequency. The other ways there are opaque and circuitous (Link->50 followed by a long winding hilly ride); or expensive (water taxi -> shuttle bus). Plus the 37 used to serve the northeastern reaches of Alki, which stretches about half a mile NE from the 50/56 stop near the arcade.

          Finally, a reborn 37 could serve the other waterfront parks along Beach Drive below Alki Point: Constellation Park, Cormorant Cove, Me-Kwa-Mooks, and the seawall below Jacobsen Rd.

      2. It goes back to the Olmstead vision of a “necklace of pearls” of peripheral parks. The periphery is usually away from the villages, which are in the middle core. You can see that by comparing that there’s nothing west of Greenwood or California Ave, or east of Rainier. There are occasional outposts like an isolated Fred Meyer, Trader Joe’s, or Safeway/high school, but not much that would draw people from outside the neighborhood (if they don’t have to go to the high school), and not right outside the park entrances.

        Then there’s zoning restrictions that prevented the neighborhoods from growing organically, so they remained like Seattle was a small town or they were semi-rural areas even as the population grew, so that you have small islnds of villages in a vast sea of low-density residential-only areas, and the park entrances for the most part are deep in the low-density areas.

        We can either get a more even balance of middle housing and retail to all that sea (ideal), or run frequent transit to the edges even though they remain low-density residential-only. Instead we do neither one, and let people suffer with inadequate non-car access to the peripheral parks. Then they don’t use the parks as much because they’re hard to get to.

        1. Olmstead’s plan was developed right after 1900 (1903). At that time, the planned parks had direct streetcar service to Downtown. There were no bridges across Lake Washington. Very few people had cars (Model T production began in 1908).

          Along with that, there was not yet a related cultural norm of single-family-only zoning for several blocks. People in that era relied heavily on corner stores (no home refrigerators but only iceboxes), and corner stores were not banned in zoning codes and maps. Seattle’s first zoning map was adopted in 1923, two decades after the Olmstead Plan was published.

          Olmstead did envision connecting parkways, but didn’t insist and likely didn’t expect the adjacent blocks to become single-family-residential only. Note that Olmstead’s plan included Green Lake.

  3. Does the waterfront shuttle have enough demand to be a regular route? I could see it attached to a route approaching Seattle from the south. Perhaps one of the 4th Ave routes like the 101? Though there would maybe need to be a better transfer situation to CID station. Or maybe even a Jackson St route like the 106.

    1. Do people want to get from one part of the watefront to another? Yes. The Waterfront Streetcar (20-minute frequency) didn’t end due to lack of ridership; it ended because of non-transit factors (the Sculpture Park displaced its base and King County promised to replace it with another base but never did). Since the waterfront transit has been nonexistent, infrequent, summer-only, stopping at hotels but no good transit transfer points, and people had to look up where this incarnation stopped.

      A 15-minute shuttle would attract people, as would one that really stops at CID station, and one in familiar Metro livery that looks like it may have some long-term staying power. This one is all three, unlike the previous routes for the past several years. The waterfront renovation plan included an Alaskan Way shuttle; it’s just that Seattle has never identified permanent funding for it. It’s not in Metro Connects so it’s Seattle’s responsibility to either fund it or tell Metro to prioritize it.

      This route is close to the one originally envisoned in the waterfront plan. The vision was CID station to Alaskan Way to the Sculpture Park, with an optional extension to Seattle Center. This one does 80% of that, and is at least close to the Sculpture Park. It also gives service along the steep Broad Street hill, which has been a transit hole for decades. It’s been hard to get to/from the Sculpture Park or Myrtle Edwards Park or Pier 70, since the closest bus stops are several blocks away up a steep hill (8, 3rd Avenue routes).

    2. The waterfront shuttle may succeed where other shuttles have failed (e.g., Golden Gardens), because the Waterfront is such a primary tourist attraction and has walk-ups from Pike Place Market and downtown — but people may want to walk one way and ride the shuttle the other way, or maybe they can’t walk at all, or they don’t want to do such an arduous walk to get to the waterfront.

    3. Does the waterfront shuttle have enough demand to be a regular route?

      Yes, it is a similar idea to service on First Avenue. It wouldn’t be that expensive — it might even be free if it involves a bus “detouring”. I think First Avenue is a higher priority. But I could easily see both, given that we have more than enough buses on Third. Sending a few of them to First (or the waterfront) wouldn’t really hurt the spine on Third. You would still be able to walk and catch a bus along the corridor within seconds.

    4. The real question is do they want to charge people for Waterfront Shuttle? Otherwise, it pretty much functions as a regular route.

      1. This year it’s free, but it may not always be. This is the first summer after the waterfront park fully opened, so the city wants to showcase it, partly to World Cup visitors. If it eventually becomes a regular Metro route or STM-funded Metro route, then it may charge a fare like other Metro routes.

  4. Since we’ll have a waterfront shuttle, and it terminates at Seattle Center, and Seattle Center is close to Magnolia, then… it could be extended to Discovery Park to do double duty. It could probably find some promising intermediate stops in Magnolia and Interbay to generate even more ridership that’s not going to the parks per se.

    1. It is not that close. It would overlap one of the Magnolia routes, like the 33. That means the 33 is running every half hour but we have a bus running every fifteen minutes as well. That is not efficient. You are better off just running the 33 more often.

    2. Maybe we don’t need the 33 if we attach eastern Magnolia to another route. It could also be a Route 8 extension.

    1. Chinese HSR hub stations like this function more like an airport.
      They’ve been recently trying more and more TOD due to the influence from Japan, but most just don’t work. What the station serves is longer distance trip than daily commute. Most people get on subway soon as they arrive. So, it doesn’t attract much of retail foot traffic and no one has a strong preference to live nearby because of the station.

  6. re waterfront service. Close may be good enough. Bus service should not cross the BNSFRR main line on Broad Street.

    The south end pathway service is on Columbia Street to/from the south. Lines C and H are frequent. Route 125 has not had a through route partner since fall 2012. The one-way routes are either already suspended or weak. All could be restructured to be two-way and meet Link at SODO via the South Lander Street overcrossing.

    A 1st Avenue service might layover on Elliott Avenue south of Broad Street. It would be within walking distance of Pier 70, POS, the Edgewater and the Clipper terminal. It would serve north Belltown.

  7. All-in-all, these seem like clear, well-designed maps, especially in their very parallel design. But this raises some questions about why they don’t each include relevant information from the other:
    • The waterfront shuttle map should probably include the match-day route, maybe dashed (or thinner line-weight?), with clear explanation (in the legend and along the route) that it runs only on WC match days.
    • The match-day map should include the waterfront shuttle route, since any day that the match-day shuttle is running, the waterfront shuttle would be as well. (*Perhaps* with less detail?)
    • Each map should have an obvious link to the other map.

    Some general improvements:
    • Waterfront map should clearly list the dates, frequency and hours of operation.
    • Match-day map should list the match dates, frequency and hours of operation. Also indicate that waterfront shuttle runs from [date] to [date].
    • Seems like King Street station should be included.
    • Neither indicates that these shuttles are FREE; should also then indicate that fare is required on the other services shown.

    1. There’s no reason for the waterfront shuttle map to indicate a special service for 6 days. World Cup visitors will doubtless know about the game day shuttle from other sources, probably FIFA or their hotel, they won’t need to learn about it from the waterfront map. The waterfront shuttle will be a background service available on those days like other days, so they can learn about it that way, the same way they learn about the Monorail and Link. And I don’t think they need a combined game day/waterfront shuttle map; they can get the two separately.

  8. The newest 14 km Montreal REM automated train branch opens on Monday (just 3 days away):

    https://rem.info/en/news/may-18-2026-scheduled-opening-date-anse-lorme-branch

    The extension tracks generally follow the Trans Canada Highway (freeway) for several miles in the far western Montreal suburbs. The new stations appear to be more suburban than Federal Way Link stations are so its usefulness will depend on parking and maybe remote feeder buses. Three directly abut the freeway or its adjacent service road.

    On the heels of the D Line extension that just opened in LA and of course our crosslake 2 Line opening, 2026 is a notable year for new rail lines.

    Now what will be the resulting ridership? We should monitor when the data gets posted.

  9. I was curious what old Metro system maps would show regarding bus service to Golden Gardens.

    The 1977 system map showed a Laurelhurst to Ballard route 30 having regular service along Seaview Ave NW, and would terminate at Shilshole Bay Marina. But then in summer months, would continue about 1/2 of a mile further to Golden Gardens Park.

    The 1988 system map shows the route 30 gone, and replaced by the 43 and 46, with regular service going no further than 35th Ave NW, just like today, but the 43 and 46 did go further down Seaview Ave NW during on a limited service basis. The limited service on both routes ended at the marina, and didn’t go to Golden Gardens, not even the summer.

    So we’ve gone from the Shilshole area having great bus service in 1977, to mediocre service in 1988, to no service in 2026.

    1. The old 46 (which was deleted in September 2012) ran between Golden Gardens and U District (15th/43rd) via Market, 40th, and Pacific. The 46’s best analogy right now is probably the 43 except the 46 at least had some unique parts (like the only Metro bus to serve Golden Gardens).

      Maybe we can extend the 44 to Golden Gardens? Though the only problem I see with that is that the trolley wires don’t go to Golden Gardens.

      The 45 extended to Golden Gardens would definitely reduce the long walk from Loyal Heights down to the beach (which I’ve walked and is a pain) but would need to squeeze through those narrow streets and that limited clearence overpass near the park. The roads on the extension are probably not fit for bus service.

      Well, I don’t see front door service to Shilshole happening anytime soon unless we do something with those trolley wires. The 44 ends in the middle of nowhere in Ballard currently.

      Any ideas?

      1. Right this is where the DART bus fleet might be useful. I am a total beginner on fully wrapping my head around the operational details but a short bus running the short loop between the 45 and 44 terminuses (10min each way w/o stops or traffic according to Google Maps) might be able to get up and down the hill while providing hop on hop off service and ferrying folks who are willing to park and ride. I imagine the businesses on both ends and along the way would be happy to have folks ferried to the beach and back. Sunset Hill I imagine would benefit a ton if people knew they had a reliable ride back up the hill if they are ok hiking (or biking) down. Pure transit riders transferring from the 44/45 are just one rider type served by this concept.

        Overall I 100% agree this is a density issue by the parks first and foremost. But Rome wasn’t built in a day and standing up a shuttle is a lot quicker than rebuilding a whole neighborhood.

    3. You may have meant 32nd Avenue NW rather than 35th.

      Even worse, 32nd Avenue NW lacks two-way all-day local service; it lost Route 17 in fall 2012; it lost shuttle Route 61 in fall 2014 during the reductions. The fall 2021 project did not fill the holes created by the reductions (e.g., 32nd Avenue NW and evening span on Route 331).

    5. If anyone can find a 2006 map, or at least a 2000s pre-Link map, it would help for a future article.

      1. The NKC restructure was in fall 2003.
        Route 522 was implemented in fall 2002; routes 41 and 372 improved; Route 307 deleted.
        In 2005, Route 7 was split; Route 49 formed; Route 9 became diesel express.
        The DSTT was closed between fall 2005 and fall 2007 for LRT retrofit; the DSTT bus service was on the surface streets.

  10. I feel like the shuttles should be every 10 mins (5 mins during “peak” times such as match start/end times) and use articulated buses instead.

    Tiny DART buses every 3-7 mins seem like it could get quite crowded.

Comments are closed.