A battery bus served Kitsap Transit’s Route 220 in early July (Zack Heistand). Kitsap Transit is steadily electrifying its bus fleet.

This is an Open Thread.

99 Replies to “Midweek Roundup: go it alone”

  1. I’ll be interested to see how Metro’s “go it alone” approach on the R works out. From the RapidRide and RapidRide-esque projects elsewhere I’ve followed, it always seems like the inclusion of massive amounts of federal funds are framed as necessary for the project, but that the project itself is usually at least a bit bloated as a result. I have no doubts that the water and sewer mains in and around Eastlake needed to be replaced, but it’s not clear to me why a Federal transit grant should be the reason to do that (other than “we can”).

    My preference would be that transit money stays in the buckets of use that are directly related to transit capital or service. I would assume that the R will be closer to that without an FTA grant, but I wonder if lack of funds will cause issues to delivering a good project.

    1. The design challenges I see with RR-R are the pathway in and out of downtown and the difficult interfaces with Link stations. It frequently takes the 7 at least 30 minutes to get from downtown to Judkins Park while the 2 Line needs only 10 minutes. How can Metro make that section more “Rapid”? Then, the Mt. Baker Station node needs to be redesigned, rebuilt and repurposed into something more accessible, useful and convenient for the community. I’m waiting to see how the community reacts to the 3R planning process.

      1. Bus lanes on Jackson would help but we won’t get that as long as the streetcar runs on the inside lanes.

        1. One potential solution to that is RR G-style buses with doors on both sides so they can run on the inside lanes and share stops with the streetcar. I assume that a new bus order is going to be part of the project…

        2. Al,

          Metro was not able to procure trolleybuses with doors on both sides during the G Line project, so I presume they would still struggle with that (unless NFI would be willing to do a custom order that would work out better with more buses to buy). I would not support de-electrifying the 7 just to accommodate the poorly-conceived streetcar design on Jackson. And in general, I think building infra that relies on special buses that we don’t have as many of is bad for the future flexibility of the system at large. The G is great, but there is no specific reason that a center-running right of way needs to have center platforms that necessitate* buses with doors on both sides.

          *necessitate is a bit strong. If we really wanted to, we could do contraflow transit-only lanes in the center of Jackson that allow for normal side boarding buses with center platforms. That would be a bit silly though.

        3. @blumdrew: IIRC the issue with RR G wasn’t just getting articulated trolleybuses with doors on both sides, it was doing that with the capability of handling the grades and break angles we have on Madison.

          I absolutely agree that everything you mention is a concern — even if everything went perfect and we could get ambidextrous articulated trolleys for it, making the fleet more fragmented would be bad. I don’t like building the wider bus network around the scoodily streetcar but… I doubt it’s going anywhere. So we might have to make the best of it.

    2. It seems easier to show benefit when an entire corridor gets a RapidRide makeover versus having a series of incremental improvements. Keep in mind that Rainier has had multiple little projects on the corridor already. The benefits already created may be too far along to show any further meaningful benefit in a benefits study for a grant.

      That said, Metro should next hone in on what they should do in Rainier Beach and north of Judkins Park. The Rainier/ Henderson layover works fine but it sure would be nice to end at a Link station.

      The long segment in between needs faster boarding as the bus ride today can be slow — despite having the bus lanes.

      1. I’m sort of split on if the Rainier Beach Station terminus actually makes sense. The core of the neighborhood is really the Henderson/Rainier/Seward Park Ave loop, and serving the station does mean cutting service to a dense node. Obviously Rainier Beach Station offers a better network – particularly for folks in Seward Park/Brighton/Hillman City looking to go south on Link. But it’ll be interesting to see how common that pattern actually is and if the tradeoff is worth it for Rainier Beach locals (who already have good options to the station via the 106/107). I wonder if the 106 and/or 107 could be rerouted via 62nd/Waters on the Prentice loop to preserve better local access to downtown Rainier Beach once the 7 becomes the R.

        1. People in Rainier Beach itself aren’t the only beneficiaries of a connection to Rainier Beach Station; what about people all along Rainier Avenue who want to go to the airport or south on Link?

        2. My quibble with Rainier Beach Station as a terminus is that there isn’t anything there, and there won’t be anything there in 2032 either. RBS is the definition of a forced transfer location. Othello Station would be much better. There’s a real neighborhood at Othello that can grow and feed transit services. But, if the terminal is moved to Othello, there needs to be robust transit to replace the 7/R in Rainier Beach. There are schools, medical facilities, housing and businesses that need to be connected to light rail and Rapid Ride.

          The Prentice loop should become a separate route from the 7 that runs to either RBS or Othello. The P-loop used to generate decent ridership, but now it’s an hour-plus to get to downtown directly or 2 buses plus Link. Useless.

        3. I imagine the one-way loop makes it a bit painful to ride, since most riders will have to deboard at the high school and walk to their destination. But yeah riders are likely used to it since the route has been running for such a long time, and a decent number (couple hundred) riders will have a longer walk to board toward Seattle.

          I’d like to see the 106 split at Rainier Beach, with the Renton segment through-routed somewhere (with the 105 or 148?) and the Seattle segment taking over the Henderson/Prentice loop. That’s not really a direct replacement since I think most riders of the R would be headed to a destination on Rainier, but would add a new/better connection to Link/MLK

        4. I think the R to Othello is interesting to consider, which would make extending the 36 to the terminus of the 7 the logical choice. The 36 is a 3 to 5 minutes faster to get down to Othello than the 7 is, so it may be a service-hour neutral change to remove the Rainier Beach tail of the 7 and replace it with the 36. The obvious downside is that splitting routes on a very busy corridor like Rainier is bad for a lot of riders, but without rider-specific data it’s hard to say how bad.

        5. @blumdrew, I remember hearing it was prohibitively difficult for trolleybuses to cross the Link wires, which would prohibit the 36 from crossing MLK; is that no longer the case?

        6. If is prohibitively difficult to run trolley wire that crosses Link tracks, but there is nothing to stop trolley buses from crossing Link tracks off-wire, using their batteries. Nothing except Metro’s reluctance to rely on their batteries when designing bus routes.

        7. William C.,

          Yes, I imagine it is not possible since the trolleybus OTC and Link OTC have vastly different voltages. The streetcar and trolleybuses also have different voltages (750 V and 700 V respectively), but Link is 1500 V. Of the other cities with trolleybuses that cross electrified rail of some kind that I could think of (San Francisco Milan, Zurich, Geneva, Bern, Rome, and Bologna), all had voltages equal or within ~50V of each other (except Bologna, which maybe has ~100V difference). But it would be possible to run the 36 off-wire for one block.

        8. The return line on a trolley bus is ground, so even if the power lines are the same voltage, you still need isolators between rail overhead and trolleybus systems where they cross.

          You’d want isolators anyway, since they almost always have different substations.

          So, I really don’t see why crossing the two is a problem. It’s been done. I would expect this would be far more common I the past with more trolleybus lines and more electrified railroads, historically.

          Portland at one time had the electrified section of Southern Pacific (1,500 volt dc) running on 2nd Avenue, and extensive streetcar lines (600 volts dc) and trolleybus lines as well crossing them. There must be thousands of places worldwide where railway electrical systems of different voltages cross. I find it difficult to believe there are 0 places in current operation where mainline electrification crosses a trolleybus lines.

          However, even in places where the voltages are similar, you’d need to isolate the 0 voltage trolley bus wire.

          But it’s also true off-wire trolleybuses should eliminate the need for any that.

      2. The Prentice loop issue is that the loop is only made by about a third of the Route 7 buses at about a 30 minute headway. A typical RapidRide route runs the full length of the route every time at a high frequency like 10 minutes.

        There also is no current electric trolleybus RapidRide route either.

        The non-loop runs stop at Rainier and Henderson southbound. This corner would still have stops if the buses turned and terminated at Rainier Beach Link.

        The non-loop stops lost in moving the route to the Rainier and MLK area are the inbound ones near Lake Washington Apartments and the RB Safeway area.

        Some route restructuring appears required. That opens a new set of challenges and options that must be vetted first. Metro needs to get serious and start vetting different ideas. They’ve known this conundrum for a long time but have yet to create a consensus around one solution.

        1. Rainier Beach High School is also undergoing a major renovation that should increase enrollment and make that area more transit dependent. If more housing is built and more businesses more into the area between RBS and Lake Washington, the Rainier Beach neighborhood could develop into a nice, walkable community that supports great transit service. But the development potential in the immediate area around RBS is always going to be constrained.

        2. “There also is no current electric trolleybus RapidRide route either.”

          There will be when RapidRide J is finished.

        3. A network answer is Route 7P, a one standard ETB serving the Prentice loop and South Henderson Street. The R Line would serve Rainier Avenue South and South Henderson Street. My hope is that Metro and SDOT consider a different structure for the line; it should NOT be Route 7 redux. Routes 7 and 36 use too many scarce minutes, hours, and operators with their Virginia Street turnaround loops. A better R Line might not even serve downtown. Link and its several stations can carry the radial load. The R Line could use the Route 9 pathway and serve First Hill and Capitol Hill.
          Metro Connects included the seven Seattle RR lines recommended by the Kubly SDOT is about 2015. This was a top down decision. Both Link and RR implementation have been delayed. The transit world is different. Why should the Kubly R Line be used?

        4. I agree, Jack. RapidRide R should emulate Route 9. I’ve said that several times here.

          Some other possible adjustments with this scenario…

          Connect Prentice Loop as an extension of Route 4. That not only reduces the duplication distance and run time, it provides the missing connection between the Rainier corridor and Cherry Hill. Both routes would connect RV to Harborview. An extended Route 4 would probably need to stay on 23rd past Judkins Park using Plum (southbound) or Walker (northbound) so wires connecting the route to Mt Baker TC would be needed on 23rd between Dearborn and Plum on 23rd and MLK between Walker and the Mt Baker TC.
          Consider a nicer layover spot at Rainier Beach Link. There are already restrooms there in the station. The drivers just need a bigger spot to take breaks and park more buses.
          Determine if It’s ok to run RapidRide R with battery electric buses. There could be occasional bunching with it still on wires.
          Consider either dropping the FHSC or running this new RapidRide segment on Boren to Seneca before jogging back to Broadway at Union.
          Buy out the gas station at 10th Ave and Roy for the north layover.

          Anyway, the concepts needs several rounds of vetting in the community. But certainly it could really address several connectivity challenges by doing this.

      3. “Keep in mind that Rainier has had multiple little projects on the corridor already.”

        Many of those were toward the RapidRide vision even they weren’t part of the project and not funded by Metro. It’s like how DSTT was built in the 1980s as a down payment on future rail: otherwise they’d have to be part of the RapidRide budget and that would make it harder to get the RapidRide project approved or finished.

      4. There are certainly many ways to adjust the network. Just some other options that could work…

        Extend Route 50 to cover the Prentice loop. It may not be on a wire, but the configuration would offer direct connectivity. It probably would work better if Route 50 was split at SODO station.6
        Keep running Route 7 Prentice Loop only as an infrequent coverage route (use 1/3 of the buses or maybe 1/2) and overlay the RapidRide R following the Route 9X path. To save bus hours, maybe it could operate as an extension of Route 14 (and drop the Hunter Blvd tail) so that the only duplication is between McClellan and Henderson.
        Swap out Route 106 to Renton and run that as the Prentice Loop. Then convert the Rainier Beach to Renton segment of Route 106 to RapidRide I (or another local Renton route) as a northern extension that connects Rainier Beach Link to Renton and points beyond..

        Of course, any of these or any other alternative should be developed with community leaders and local riders . .

  2. Multi-Use Paths article: One thing I’ve noticed in my visits to other parts of the US is that they seem more acceptable in more suburban and conservative areas than sidewalks do. It’s better than nothing! It also is easier to buffer from road noise. For higher speed roads, I would think that they provide much better safety than bicycle lanes do — if maintained.

    However there is one unmentioned negative — locating bus stops. Sidewalks double as easy bus stop refuges for both directions of travel where multi-use paths are usually only on one side. The paths also tend to be placed further from the street where the buses would stop. It makes moving or adding a bus stop considerably more complicated and expensive. And it’s almost impossible to flag down a bus driver or even see an approaching bus from a multi-use trail. Putting a bus route on a street with only a multi-use trail requires more of a commitment in prep time and money. Sidewalks on the other hand can become bus stop locations cheaply and quickly.

    There’s also the issue of asphalt versus concrete. Sidewalks tend to be concrete while multi-use paths tend to be asphalt. Concrete lasts longer. Both can be disrupted by tree roots. Ongoing maintenance and rehab has to be done more often with asphalt.

    There is also the high speed road crossing issue. I’ve seen paths that meet a busy, high speed road with crossing treatments that seem almost invisible. Some places do separate the path with prefab culverts (like a huge water main) that function as underpasses but those can be a maintenance and maybe a security challenge.

    Which one is better seems to be a function of adjacent land use and traffic speed/ noise. But a community shouldn’t summarily ignore the tradeoffs when choosing one.

    1. One good example of the situation you’re talking about is the Cedar River Trail. Without the trail, SR-169 is completely inhospitable to anybody not in a car. It is the presence of the trail that makes it a comfortable (albeit, noisy) bike route to Maple Valley.

      From a standpoint of trying to ride a bike to Maple Valley, a trail on one side of the street with decent width and setback from the road is orders of magnitude better than a 3-foot sidewalk on both sides of the road, right up against speeding traffic. The tradeoff, of course, is that the trail isn’t sufficient to provide access to bus stops. But, the bus service there is so skeletal, it barely matters.

      Another example, up north, would be where the Burke Gilman Trail follows SR-522. There, they have both sidewalks and a trail, so people riding bikes a long distance can use the trail, while people accessing bus stops can use the sidewalk. That configuration is clearly better, but of course, more expensive.

      1. Certainly those stretches of SR 169 and SR 522 are good examples of those trails being appropriate over just sidewalks. That traffic moves fast!

        There are places that have neither, and traffic is not moving as fast plus they have businesses that face the street. There are segments of SR99 like that.

        The issue is that some places elsewhere are putting in trails rather than sidewalks just because it’s cheaper — and doing that can make it harder to add a bus route on it. These are places where traffic also has slower speed limits too.

        Of course, having nothing is the worst!

        1. SR 169 is full of traffic these days, during rush hour. It’s a bit obnoxious even. It needs to be upgraded to freeway infrastructure with exits at the most congested intersections. The main issue is traffic signals, more so than the actual amount of vehicles. Of course induced demand exists which is why transit must be there as well.

        2. The era of freeway expansion is almost over. Every freeway project gets significant pushback over its environmental impact and cost. It just depends on whether the pro side manages to just get it over the top in a legislative session after years of trying. The 509 extension stagnated for years before finally going through. So a Maple Valley freeway is unlikely.

        3. I know..but it should be if we had the energy to build our transit and mass transportation for vehicles. It gets heavy trucking traffic.

        4. The solution is to repurpose lanes for transit and freight. This would speed up buses both on freeways and local streets, and make buses reliable. This is what politicians are extremely reluctant to do, because the majority of voters are SOV drivers and don’t want to lose GP lanes or street parking. This has happened countless times: a government entity proposes transit-priority lanes, but they get watered down by SOV pushback or cycletrack priority, or the government doesn’t propose them at all because it doesn’t want to confront the opposition. When the lanes come, they’re twenty years later than they could have been, or they’re not continuous for several miles, but only a half mile here and a queue jump there. This is why we don’t have a bus network like other countries, why your buses come late, and why the service hours per bus run keep increasing.

        5. The solution to better transit is either to spend more operating money, or to vastly increase the transit priority lanes. Or some of both. We are doing some of both but only a little but, not enough to bend the curve definitively.

        6. Build the freeway and toll it for the $ balance that isn’t covered by the gas tax burned by the users of said limited access roadway.

    2. Well, it’s a highway that should become a freeway at some point. Not sure what you expect.

      1. The HCT corridor runs adjacent to the highway. Bicycle commuting is the next step in High Capacity Transit, so just use that!
        If you’re feeling nostalgic for the old fashioned style of HCT where you can socialize, there’s always – the Bar Bike.

  3. Who’s excited for Sound Transit routes 547 and 597 to begin? The 547 will travel between Redmond and Seattle via Bellevue and the 597 will travel between Lakewood and Seattle via SeaTac nights only. The 570 is planned to go away as part of this plan, and the 517 will start in 2027 (sadly not 2026) and run between Seattle and Everett via U District.

    They might get more service hours as part of the 2027 Service Plan but we’ll see what happens then. Meanwhile, the 517 will be the “odd one out”.

    1. Mr. Doo, can you provide more details about Route 597? I can’t find anything at ST’s website or in the STB archives (service span, frequency, routing).

      1. You can read Sound Transit’s 2026-2031 Transit Development Plan which is available for review. That’s where I got this information from.

        1. The TDP doesn’t have any details. I guess we’ll wait for the ST service change announcements before getting excited.

        1. The route 556 that replaces the route 550, do those little blue circles on the route map signify bus stops? If so, it’s hard to believe there are no stops between the Bellevue Transit Center and Yarrow Point.

        2. The 566 won’t go to Yarrow Point. What map are you looking at?

          The 566 will go from Issaquah Highlands P&R to City Hall, the Gilman Blvd stops the 208 currently serves, Issaquah TC, the Eastgate freeway station, South Bellevue station, the Bellevue Way and NE 4th Street stops the 556/550 currently serve, to Bellevue TC. It won’t go further to the U-District. It will run every 15 minutes daytime, and probably 30 minutes evening.

        4. Mike, I didn’t say route 566, I said route 556, and I was responding to Delphoxy’s comment and link. In the link, under route 550, it says route eliminated. Beneath that, under alternative options, it says 2 Line, and route 556. The route 556 goes from Issaquah to U Dist via Bellevue. When one clicks on “show map,” there is apparently a large gap in service (stops), between the Bellevue TC and Yarrow Point.

          https://www.soundtransit.org/ride-with-us/routes-schedules/556?direction=0&at=1785394800000&view=table&route_tab=schedule&stops_0=1_64561%2C1_11352&stops_1=1_10912%2C1_64566

        5. @Sam, that map’s showing the current 556 service, not future service.

          I’m suspecting that they’re intentionally not serving stops on 112th to give drivers the flexibility to take other routes depending on traffic? But if that’s not the case, then yes, they should’ve stopped a few places there.

        6. I meant 556. It’s easy to transpose a digit when ST uses such similar numbers. Route 556 is currently Issquah Highlands-UDistrict, but next month it will be Issaquah Highlands-Bellevue TC only. There will be no ST service between Bellevue TC, Yarrow Point, and the U-District. Even if there were, it’s an express route that gets on 405 between Bellevue TC and Yarrow Point, so of course it doesn’t have any stops in between. The route with in-between stops will be the 270 on north Bellevue Way. The route title in the Transit Times app says U-District, but that just means ST hasn’t updated the title hasn’t been updated yet. When a final service plan says that part of the route is deleted, and the previous proposals had that, and the map has that, then the route title is the odd man out, and since it’s the thing that’s unchanged, it probably means it’s out of date.

        7. “I’m suspecting that they’re intentionally not serving stops on 112th to give drivers the flexibility to take other routes depending on traffic?”

          It’s backfilling service on south Bellevue Way that the 550 currently provides. The NE 4th Street stop gets a third of the passengers because it’s the Bellevue Square stop, and ST needs to fill the gap between Bellevue TC and Bellevue Square because Link doesn’t. Main Street is also a popular stop with Old Bellevue, and SE 3rd Street is Bellevue High School. The other stops on Bellevue Way serve a continuous row of apartments. 112th doesn’t have anything comparable.

          If ST doesn’t serve south Bellevue Way, then that would leave a hole because Metro won’t because ST had said it would.

    2. No interest at all. If I were still a teenager or young adult living in Bellevue, I’d take the 547 occasionally.

      I took the 280 once as a teenager when I watched the Rocky Horror Picture Show at the Neptune. I then walked an hour from its stop in downtown Bellevue to east Bellevue. With the 547 I could take it to Overlake Village and lose 3/4 of the walk.

      I’ve occasionally gone to shows in downtown Everett, so the 517 would make it possible to get back without a car. I lived in the U-District, Ballard, and Capitol Hill/First Hill during that era, so I’d have to make my way from one of the 517 stops to there.

      With Pierce County I would despair. I have gone to shows on 6th Avenue, but again always riding in a car if it weren’t an afternoon show. How would I get from a show on 6th Avenue to Tacoma Dome station (the closest 597 stop) when PT isn’t running? If I lived in Pierce County, how would I get from the P&Rs it stops at to home, when it doesn’t stop in multifamily areas and PT isn’t running? I’d just feel frustrated that ST’s night owl doesn’t work for people in Pierce without a car.

    3. I am almost always asleep when these night buses will be running. When I was younger I might have used it… but when I was younger, I lived in First Hill and Chinatown anyway, so I just walked home when I was out late.

    4. There are also airline passengers and airport workers. Passengers have 6am flights, or their arriving flight is late and they get out of the gate after midnight. Airport workers arrive in the wee hours for those 6am flights. The airport night owl pilot is already running (and Metro’s 124 night extension also serves it). The north and east night owls will allow people to get to/from the airport from the Eastside or Snohomish County, although they may have to wait half an hour downtown for a transfer, but maybe not depending on how the night owls are scheduled.

  4. Seattle Bike Blog’s ORCA “skin” stickers are really fun, and apparently have already almost sold out: https://www.seattlebikeblog.com/shop/

    It got me thinking about transit-oriented merch. I know Sound Transit sells merch via https://soundtransitshop.com/; Wayfind Designs sells maps and apparel for multiple transit systems, but is based in Seattle: https://wayfinddesigns.square.site/.

    The unofficial “Seattle Department of Design” (https://www.instagram.com/seattledepartmentofdesign/) had some really good stuff a few years ago but seems to have closed up shop.

    People love to buy stuff that shows off what they care about, and our region loves transit. The problem is a lot of the official merchandise is poorly designed. When good stuff comes out (like the WSF toy boat), it sells super quickly! We could get a lot of inspiration from TriMet’s shop: https://store.trimet.org/

    Every time I see one of the Seattle Department of Design’s retro Metro sweaters (https://www.instagram.com/p/Ck_TmKYpYkj/?hl=en&img_index=1), I regret that they’re no longer available. I have a generic Bus Lane scarf from The Overhead Wire that I love: https://theoverheadwire.com/2025/02/new-scarves-for-sale/

    … what if STB opened a store that sold merch at-cost? I’m thinking screen-printed apparel that’s locally produced, stickers, that sort of stuff, based on public-domain designs.

  5. If West Seattle Link really starts construction next year, what happens to Route 50? ST will need to close the busway from Spokane Street to Holgate Street, and then Lander will also be closed for a long time to build the viaduct.

    Does this mean that Route 50 should be split? Should the route meet Link at Stadium (using First or Fourth and Sixth)? Or should it just stay on the viaduct and only meet Link at Columbia City?

    It’s just one more issue about how West Seattle Link construction would create a multitude of new bus operations challenges.

    1. ST has said nothing about impacts to the 50 that I’ve heard. I assumed it would be unaffected.

      One approach would be to run nonstop between West Seattle and southeast Seattle. That would fulfill a longstanding request by some transit fans by making a long trip significantly shorter, and we’d see whether it would gain or lose riders.

      Another approach would be that the 50 would detour however it can to reach SODO station. This could make it take significantly longer. Metro thinks the SODO stop is important and significantly used, so that would probably be its default position. But if it’s just not feasible because the area is totally torn up, and Stadium station is likewise torn up so that’s not feasible either, then it would have to give up on a south-central Seattle stop.

      1. The West Seattle construction isn’t supposed to extend beyond Holgate. I don’t think SODO interests would tolerate closure of both Lander and Holgate at the Link tracks simultaneously.

        Of course, extending Route 50 to Holgate still doesn’t get it to Stadium Station. It would need to go further.

        I could even see a scenario where the busway remains open between Holgate and E Martinez so that several bus routes could jog by Stadium Station.

  6. Will King County Metro ever consider extending the 222 to Woodinville P&R? I mean it currently lays over there when it’s out of service, not to mention it could be done easily (possibly even in the Fall 2026 restructure). Redmond to Woodinville trips currently take way too much time outside of peak and since the 251 won’t be starting the next service change I guess we could do this 222 extension.

    How much would this extension cost? Technically NOTHING, and they would gain money rather than losing it. Since the 251 is entirely new service and budget might be why it won’t start the next service change (adding new service costs extra) we could just extend the 222 to Woodinville.

    Would this be redundant with the 931? I don’t think so given that the 931 barely operates.

    Another good reason to have this extension is that one time I was riding the 222 up Avondale Rd and I missed the 931 to UW Bothell so I got stuck at NE Woodinville Duvall Rd and Avondale Rd NE. The 931 was scheduled to come in 30 minutes but it came later than that.

    1. The first thing to do would be to find out why the 251 isn’t opening with the others. I assume there’s a logistical issue that’s taking more time and would prevent a 222 extension too. Or maybe Metro decided to cancel the route, or it doesn’t have enough operating funds for it, but in that case Metro should tell us.

      1. Equal service and equity during the plan. Never during execution. That’s how ST and Metro operates.

        1. That’s hijacking a thread about the 251 for a generic agency accusation (unfounded in my view), and I’d moderate it if I were at home.

      2. Even if the 222 did extend to Woodinville, the route between Woodinville and Redmond would be too roundabout to be useful. Such an extension would be useful for people living along the 222, as it would allow access to more destinations with fewer connections, but it would be really painful to ride all the way, end to end.

        The problem is, the population density of the 222 service area outside of DT Redmond is not very high, and most of those people have cars. The trips where somebody with a car might have any chance of riding the bus, all involve light rail connections at downtown Redmond.

        Essentially, the coverage area of the 222 has enough people to warrant some service, but not enough to warrant service to multiple hubs, or service more often than every half hour. You don’t like it, you can either buy a car, ride Uber, or go live somewhere else (e.g. downtown Redmond) where transit can serve .ore efficiently.

        And, no, an extension of route 222 is not free. If it requires an additional bus to run the route at it’s current frequency, that bus costs money, around $250/hour to operate. Transit isn’t cheap.

        1. “And, no, an extension of route 222 is not free. If it requires an additional bus to run the route at it’s current frequency, that bus costs money, around $250/hour to operate.”

          You’re not really extending it in general. You’re just extending the passenger runs of the 222 to Woodinville from Cottage Lake since it ends in Cottage Lake but lays over in Woodinville and that’s probably the most expensive layover in the entirety of Metro.

          Then if you oppose a 222 extension to Woodinville, then why not just find a closer place to lay over to get this over with? Like turn around at the entrance of Bear Creek Elementary.

        2. Ah, I didn’t realize the 222 deadheads to Woodinville anyway to layover and turn around. In that case, I agree with you, if the bus is driving that way anyway, there is no good reason not to allow passengers to ride it.

          The only reason I can think of is to allow Metro the flexibility to change the 222’s layover in the future (for example, after building a bus driver restroom family), without taking away somebody’s bus service.

    2. since the 251 won’t be starting the next service change

      was this announced somewhere?

        1. Since the 251 is basically just an ice cream topping to the East Link Connections project, Metro might not have money for full new service right now.

          Yeah I know that other buses used to operate on it’s path (e.g: 931), but currently there’s no buses that run through the tourist district.

        2. If it was not really postponed, a logical explanation would be that it is taking Metro extra time to survey and create GTFS stop data for this routes because many stops 251 serve is not currently in its GTFS database.

    3. I don’t understand how it could cost nothing. You have to put in bus stop signs, pay for more driver hours, fuel, vehicle maintenance, et cetera.

      1. “I don’t understand how it could cost nothing. You have to put in bus stop signs, pay for more driver hours, fuel, vehicle maintenance, et cetera.”

        First of all, you’d add no bus stops.

        Second of all, those operating expenses are already paid when the 222 deadheads to Woodinville P&R. So basically you’re paying nothing to extend 222 passenger service to Woodinville.

        1. I don’t know. The demand for that kind of trip is probably close to nonexistent, and the deadheading might be temporary anyway, until they find a better layover location.

    4. I find it hard to believe that the route 222’s layover is a few miles away from its last stop.

  7. On Sunday, I saw a lot of workers on the East Channel Bridge installing hand rails on top of a barrier next to the tracks. Today I noticed they are only a third of the way done. More Link closures to install the rest?

  8. “Metro Set to Go It Alone on RapidRide R Line”

    I still have the same question that what’s left to be done or does it matter whether 7 becomes RapidRide R?
    They can always just build all the transit priority stuff without re-branding the bus. 7 has more transit priority infrastructure than many RapidRide service today.

    1. At this point, it’s time for the land use to catch up with the transit service. There’s been development around Judkins Park/Massachusetts St., but there still are so many vacant lots and underdeveloped sites next to Rainier Ave. that need to see some building.

      Demolition work has begun on the parcels immediately west of Mt. Baker Station and construction is scheduled to begin this fall on a new set of living spaces. But a trip on the 7 from 5th & Jackson to Rainier Beach passes so many empty, adjacent spaces that are caught in the Seattle redevelopment doom loop.

      1. Judkins development lag extends up the hill into the neighborhood. On a walk last weekend I counted 4 large vacant parcels within 1/2 mile of the station. It’s going to take years to build what readers of this blog would consider minimally acceptable urban density.

    2. Honestly the RR branding should be going to express bus service on the freeway. Like the 255 or 270.

      By default, every local bus should have transit priority. That shouldn’t be a “Rapid Ride” thing.

      1. “Honestly the RR branding should be going to express bus service on the freeway. Like the 255 or 270.”

        The 150 is a RapidRide candidate in the next tier after the I, J, K, and R. The 270 is in the second tier after that, and is part of the reason why the 270 and that Lake Hills Connector route are being created now, to prefigure the RapidRide on north Bellevue Way, and RapidRide K on the Connector. The 270 RapidRide would also absorb NE 8th Street from the B.

      2. The RapidRide branding is meaningless. What is the point? To attract riders who would otherwise never use your buses? If so, doesn’t that say something about the rest of your system? Oh, yeah, our buses are generally crap except for these over here. They’re special.

        So yeah, it is silly to convert the 7 into RapidRide*. The only significant change is the routing. It will turn on Henderson and go to Rainier Beach Station. That in turn will likely result in other changes (to backfill service to the south). It is basically a small restructure and that’s it.

        *But then most American BRT projects are silly (https://marcochitti.substack.com/p/down-with-the-brt-long-live-the-bus). They could do the same work without the fanfare. It is largely about matching federal money. If you run a bus twice as often and add some red paint you won’t get any money from the feds. If you call it BRT you will. Of course that comes with a price (in the form of filling out the proper paperwork and waiting for the approval process). It is yet another example of the dysfunctional system that exists in this (and a few other) countries.

  9. “Everett Transit’s 2027 Transit Development Plan is available for review (Everett Transit)”

    The link seems to go to 2026 Transit Development Plan.

  10. 556 arrivals at Bellevue Transit Center

    Now: 25 minutes late
    Now: 5 minutes early

    Can’t be the operators fault according to people on this blog. Always traffic and cars blocking the way!

    1. This recent comment of yours proves that you don’t know what you are talking about …

      “South King Resident
      JULY 24, 2026 AT 8:49 AM
      Another advantage of buses coming extremely late (10 mins or longer) is that there will be fewer riders, and therefore there are a lot of cases they can blow past stops or even end their trip early.”

      The opposite of what you said is true. The later a bus is, the more riders it will get.

      1. No, people notice the pattern with one operator, and take the bus at a different time instead. Or flat out go back to their cars.

        1. And I’m talking about low frequency routes. You are right about high frequency routes, the late one will get more riders if they’re late enough to absorb the riders for the next bus

      2. I rarely see the same bus driver twice, yet the delays are persistent on certain routes and time periods.

        1. Maybe it’s more a thing with commuter routes. Usually the same driver is around for months, and the ones who are late are always late

          However I used to ride other local routes too. If you take it at the exact same time, often it’s the same driver. But they change them out every 3-4 months or so.

        2. I have always observed bus bunching with the same two drivers as well. This was when I rode a few routes in the Eastside. There was traffic causing both buses to be a little late, but the bus that left first always came several minutes late to the terminal and drove extremely slow, while the one 10 mins after that always came on time and drove at speed limit.

          So I learned to wait for the second bus. It was always empty and I got a seat while everyone stuffed onto the first bus. Sometimes my second bus even zipped past the first one, getting me where I needed to go even earlier.

        3. But then once the operators switched, then it was the other way around. The first bus was on time and the second one started coming late. So I had adapt again.

        4. Have you complained to Metro about the driver? They’d want to know what day and time the run was scheduled.

        5. I have submitted complaints when it happened. They eventually switched the driver out. But then a few months later comes another one.

        6. A couple of them are new bus drivers so can’t blame them. I don’t mind 5-10 mins late even though it’s annoying.

          What really was annoying was when it happened on the 102 and the same operator was 10-20 mins late regularly, and if there was traffic good luck they show up after the next scheduled bus 30 mins later.

          Since the 102 is so infrequent, waiting for the next bus doesn’t make sense. Drove many people to quit riding the bus including myself. Metro never fixed it after 5+ complaints. I still check OneBusAway and it still happens to today for the exact same trip. Oh, and there’s two of them now. One is “kinda late” (10-15 per day), and another is even crazier (20-30 on average).

          To see if it was just a 102 problem, I analyzed other routes and it seems to be a common experience throughout many routes. It just shines more on peak routes since there’s oh so few trips.

        7. If only people could live on their own schedule when working a 9-5, and pick the bus that’s on time. That doesn’t work.

  11. The 255’s 108th segment will be absorbed into RapidRide K (Totem Lake-Eastgate). Metro Connects 2050 says the only 520 route will be ST 542. That would imply Kirkland will no longer have a direct connection to Seattle. I can’t even think of how you’d get to Seattle since there would be nothing to transfer to at South Kirkland P&R, you can’t get onto the 542 on 520, and the closest other option would be K to Bellevue TC + Link or 270, which would take longer. Metro Connects isn’t definite: it has already been superceded by Metro keeping the 545, which at this point looks to be permanent. And I imagine the City of Kirkland would complain a lot about losing access to UW. But then, didn’t it complain earlier? Or was it so excited about RapidRide to Bellevue that it forgot about access to Seattle? That issue will surely come up in the RapidRide K restructure, if Metro proposes to have no Kirkland-Seattle route, and Sound Transit doesn’t offer to revive the 540 (former Kirkland-UDistrict-Greenlake/Northgate(?)).

    1. One solution one could imagine could be for the 542 to add a detour to South Kirkland P&R. That would maintain the connection between Kirkland and UW, with at least a two seat ride, but is pretty awful for everyone, including route 542 riders. I don’t see this happening.

      As someone who lives in Kirkland, my personal opinion is that RapidRide K doesn’t make a lot of sense, in general. It’s mostly change, for change’s sake, and doesn’t really make things better. In fact, if both the 250 and 255 were replaced with just RapidRide K, the net effect to Kirkland would be a pretty severe service cut. I’d rather see them just run the numbered bus routes they are have more often, rather than plan a new RapidRide route, which is a random mixture of two existing routes.

    2. It seems to me the best solution would be to add a freeway station at 116th.

      1. And scrap the Evergreen Point and Hunts Point stations, while we’re at it… those areas received an exemption from the state TOD bill, so why bother?

      2. It has always been ironic that these two low-density neighborhoods get extraordinary express service to downtown, the U-District, and Redmond, that no similar neighborhood gets. But it’s because they’re on the way, and they do have the disadvantage of living next to ugly, loud, polluting 520, so it’s not all roses and peaches for them.

        And there’s apparently a homeless encampment near Yarrow Point Station. That’s what a couple people said when I mentioned the surprising number of working-class people getting on/off the 545 there. That must please the neighbors.

    3. “the only 520 route will be ST 542”

      That omits RapidRide 270, so there must be a technical mistake in the map or the persnickety user interface. So maybe the lack of a Kirkland-Seattle route is another mistake.

      I tried looking at the route on Lake Washington Blvd (1501), the one that will replace the 250 when the K starts. Maybe it goes to the U-District. My oh my, it goes south instead. It goes to north Bellevue Way, Bellevue TC, south Bellevue Way, South Bellevue station, and Factoria. Well, that’s incompatible with both RapidRide 270 on north Bellevue Way and route 556 on south Bellevue Way, and whatever other route would be in Factoria. So that may be a non-starter.

      One thing I do like about that route though is it would restore the continuity between north Bellevue Way, Lake Washington Blvd, and downtown Kirkland. That’s what the 235 did when I lived on north Bellevue Way (29th), and I took it to Kirkland. If I still lived there I’d likely miss it.

    4. Ridiculous… SR 520 is such an amazing freeway and one of the best for buses to take advantage of.

      The freeway stations are perfect for transfers to high frequency express service.

  12. I come across this while browsing the latest King County Metro GTFS feed with perhaps all the Fall 2026 service change clue. Apparently, another shuttle is coming although this one doesn’t have the kind of headway we had with other seasonal shuttle.
    Easy Loop: A free downtown shuttle

    1. This is the free shuttle that connects downtown social service locations together. It has been running ever since the Ride Free Area ended in 2012, although it may have a new name and operator. Some call it the “homeless shuttle”, although anybody can ride it.

Comments are closed.