The eastern half of Bellevue Transit Center is closed for Stride S1 and S2 construction, so several bus stops are relocated to adjacent streets. The current phase will last until October. Then the western half of the transit center will close until January. Currently three temporary bus stops have been established on adjacent streets:
- Westbound 520 routes: 271, 556. On NE 6th St east of 110th Ave NE, in front of Meydenbauer Center.
- Southbound/eastbound I-90 and local routes: 271, 550, 556, 560, 566. On 110th Ave NE south of NE 6th St. Also arrivals on the 532, 535, and 908 at the end of their route.
- Nortbound 405 and local routes: 249, 532, 535, 908. On 110th Ave NE south of NE 6th Street, in front of the Link station. Also arrivals on the 550 near the end of its route (it makes one more stop at the Bellevue Library).
Sound Transit has a map of the bus stops and routes.
I’m surprised such a major closure at the Eastside’s biggest transit hub hasn’t gotten more publicity and hasn’t been mentioned in the STB comments. People may have encountered it and assumed everyone else knew about it.
I discovered the closure last week when I went to Bellevue Square for the first time since Crosslake Link opened. I intended to transfer from Link to the 550 or 271 if they were coming in a few minutes. But the eastern half of the transit center was fenced off and those stops were relocated. Rather than looking for them and possibly finding they weren’t coming anyway, I walked to the Square. That wouldn’t have been an option if I’d been going several more miles or had only a couple minutes to transfer, so anyone who will be in that situation should determine their temporary stop beforehand or leave several minutes to find it.
The NE 6th Street walkway looks more pleasant than the last time I used it between 108th and 106th, so it seems to have been renovated. After my shopping trip I decided not to walk to the transit center or take the 550 eastbound. Instead I went to the 550 westbound stop at NE 4th & Bellevue Way, which has a shelter to wait at. I took the 550 to South Bellevue station and transferred to Link. In the restructure later this month, the 556 will replace the 550 in that role.
One wonders why Stride 1 and 2 need special bus stops. How many more riders will be attracted by the branding and special fare collection? Will fare processors be on the platform or on the coaches? This could be asked about the Stride3 stops now under construction on SR-522 and SR-523.
Stride 1 and 2 will use double tall BEB. https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/stride-s1-folio.pdf
In a few weeks, routes 271 and 550 will be deleted; Route 556 will no longer extend to/from the U District. Routes 220 and 270 will replace Route 271; Route 556 will replace the arterial segment of Route 550. So, a new set of reroutes will be required.
For several years, I have suggested to the agencies (e.g., ST, Metro, and Bellevue) that a new pair of stops be added to NE 6th Street just west of 112th Avenue NE near the east entrance of the downtown Bellevue 2 Line station. This implies that the new stop pair will not be added and the riders transferring between Stride and Link will have a longer walk. Transfer walks are where our transit trips really slow down. NE 6th Street has a hill and a long signal cycle. Transfer walks are a seam in transit.
addendum: the new stop pair I suggested could have been a branded Stride 1 and 2 pair and disruption to the existing BTC could have been minimized.
Its a shame Stride misses so many spots that it passes near on I-405, namely Factoria, Downtown Renton, Tukwila Station, South Center, SeaTac Airport. This could otherwise be a great service to cover the I-405 corridor but now its just largely an express between Bellevue and TIBS or Lynnwood.
It also could have been set up as an open busway with a bundle of overlapping routes where some branch off leaving I-405 to directly serve some of these locations and/or rejoin it later.
It also misses many longer transit trunk routes like Sounder South, STX buses on I-90 and I-5 South, and many Metro routes including Route 150.
I get that every added stop could be very expensive to create. But it’s even harder to create a stop once the route is fixed in place.
Finally, added costs don’t have to be absorbed by ST. There are many places around the US that use toll revenue to subsidize transit projects and service.
It also could have been set up as an open busway with a bundle of overlapping routes where some branch off leaving I-405 to directly serve some of these locations and/or rejoin it later.
That is exactly how it should have been designed. This is a basic problem with Stride 1 and 2. They treat 405 as if it is a destination. It isn’t. It is just a way to get there. You can’t serve it with one route. Otherwise you either:
1) Leave the freeway to serve the neighborhood. This is great for serving that area but means that longer trips are much slower than just driving.
2) You skip the neighborhood entirely.
With Renton they tried to split the difference. It will be slower for riders from SeaTac or Burien heading to Bellevue. Yet it won’t serve much of Renton. The answer is simple: have multiple routes. Instead they spent money on special buses, a special depot and a lot of frou-frou.
You can still add multi-line BRT later when the cities come to their senses. With this infrastructure already built and ridership sure to increase with the frequency, at some point demand will reach critical mass to reach the populated neighborhoods that have been mentioned without crippling the full-length route with time-consuming detours.
Once Renton sees its transit center move, it might realize it wants the rest of downtown service back.
If 167 BRT is pursued, one of the multi-BRT lines could be Bellevue-Auburn or Bellevue-Puyallup.
the open busway concept could still be implemented; it is a question of service subsidy. The service concept on the ST3 ballot was Stride1-Stride2; one of the good planning choices since 2016 was to split the lines.
Consider the NE 85th Street triple stack interchange. The Stride2 line will serve a station in the middle of I-405. Intending riders will have to walk or transfer to reach it. Instead, a route could serve the KTC and enter the I-405 HOT lanes at NE 85th Street and reach BTC via the NE 6th Street center access ramp. In emails to ST, I suggest it could be Route 555 between Highlands and KTC via Issaquah, Eastgate, Richards Road, BTC, NE 6th Street, HOT lanes. It would do the work of the 4 Line faster and better. Route 555 served some of that pathway is about 2011.
ST chose to place its Stride2 bus stop north of NE 85th Street. It would have been better to place it south of NE 85th Street so the same stop could have served both a Stride2 and a KTC route. They chose to impact general purpose traffic less.
the open busway concept could still be implemented
You can still add multi-line BRT later when the cities come to their senses.
Yes and yes. But my point is that this will be a lot less likely because they spent a fortune on bullsh**. To be clear, I’m not talking about roadway improvements (that were mostly paid for by WSDOT). I’m talking the monumentalism. A brand new, electric fleet along with a brand new bus depot. Who knows what other highly expensive, largely meaningless crap is also part of these projects. By the way, this is a classic example of the kind of wasteful spending that the IFP folks were referring to in their report (https://ifp.org/transit-abundance-playbook/). Check out the section on bus spending. It is labeled “Reduce Needless Bus Customization”. Sound familiar? These are custom buses. That is the problem. A custom bus with a custom bus depot and now a bunch of custom bus stops — no wonder it costs so much. All to justify the “BRT” moniker I might add. That is the monumentalism. They get to brag about building “BRT” instead of just running buses more often or sending them where they should go.
Oh, and it just shows how the term has lost all meaning. In the grand scheme of things these routes won’t be special. Two of them are nothing more than regional express routes and thus very similar to all of the other buses the agency runs. Stride 3 will cost a fortune and be worse for a lot of riders than the existing 522.
This is why I keep telling people it isn’t about mode. You can screw up bus infrastructure just as much as you can screw up light rail, especially when you are focused on image, rather that substance. That is what all of these projects have in common. They look great on a map. They can brag about how places now have something they didn’t before (Light rail! Bus Rapid Transit!) but it isn’t nearly as useful as just running the same boring buses more often, let alone building a good high-frequency network.
“this will be a lot less likely because they spent a fortune on bullsh**”
The mobility need doesn’t go away just because a tactic fails to address it. It will still need to be addressed. There will be increasing demand for that.
I used to think online inc0me was fake, but then I gave this a chance. Now I’m earning $180+ daily (USD) and my friend recently hit $15k in one month with it. It’s simple and flexible…..
The site is TEB NOW on my pr0file name”
“How many more riders will be attracted by the branding and special fare collection?”
More will be attracted by frequent and and faster service. This is the primary advantage of S1 and S2: the corridors will finally be somewhat usable. So people who want to take them now but it’s infeasible for their timeframe will finally be able to.
You are correct; the improved waits and speed will help; I asked how important the branded stops will be.
The stop pattern of Stride1 will be different along I-405. I presume routes 560 and 566 will be deleted; Route 114 is gone. Will there be no service at the Newport Hills P&R?
“Will there be no service at the Newport Hills P&R?”
Short term: 111
Long-term: S1 can add a stop there. I don’t see why it can’t.
HZ: yes, Route 111. ST does not list it as a Stride1 stop.
https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/stride-s1-folio.pdf
Jack,
Correct that S1 won’t stop there based on official information from Sound Transit.
There is no physical constraint for S1 to stop at Newport P&R.
However, when ST3 was announced and approved, nobody knew whether there would be express lane access at Newport Hill P&R to warrant a Stride stop.
The decision of having direct access ramp at 112th Ave SE was made after 2019 when Renton-to-Bellevue express lane contract was awarded.
What I don’t know is whether Sound Transit has revisited this change and stood by their earlier decision or ST simply hasn’t realized Newport Hill can be a Stride stop now.
I imagine if Bellevue/Newcastle is really asking for that stop now, they might be getting that stop.
Route 111 bothers me. Why is an all-day express going to the edge of Renton when 90% of the passengers are going to central Renton or transferring to the F, I/160, or another route. Why can’t people in the periphery of Renton go to downtown Renton and transfer to the S1/560? The hours could go into any variety of alternatives serving Renton or another underserved part of the Eastside.
Newport Hills P&R was not part of the 2016 Sound Transit Plan. But WSDOT is building direct access ramps and an expanded parking area anyway within the scope of their I-405 expansion plan. There seems some confusion whether Sound Transit S1 will serve that stop though I can’t see why not.
Mike Orr: yes, Route 111 bothers me as well. In the south end, it would have made sense to extend Route 105 to the 2 Line; it was the most productive route in the area; it would have downtown Renton as a south anchor; the current Route 111 has a weak anchor, a loopy, near rural terminal. In the north end, it is oriented to the South Bellevue Link station and will face severe congestion, at least in the afternoons, on the east to south ramps. I wonder if would have been better to serve another market, Factoria Boulevard.
“There is no physical constraint for S1 to stop at Newport P&R.” No, S1 will be running in the center lanes, whereas the Newport P&R is in an exit ramp. The 111 does not use the HOT lanes.
112th is getting a HOT direct access ramp, there’s no reason S1 couldn’t serve it.
While it’s true that frequency matters, S1 only has 4 other stops and S2 only has 6 other stops. All other stops are mostly either for park and ride or for making transit transfers. The other stops do have some higher density residential or commercial nearby, but it’s not huge .
In other words it’s a commuter bus route design with planned all-day frequent buses. I’m rather dubious that it will be popular except for commutes to Downtown Bellevue in the morning and away from Downtown Bellevue in the afternoon. If it supposed to run at a high frequency all day, it should be stopping at all-day destinations like Alderwood, Factoria and Southcenter.
Like other projects, it was a route developed by car-minded elected officials.
Sadly, buses cannot make a U-turn at BTC. There will be 5-10 minutes lost in non-revenue mode just to turn buses around.
” it should be stopping at all-day destinations like Alderwood, Factoria and Southcenter.”
That’s good concept to boost demand for all-day service, but who will go there by transit from 7-10 miles away?
Alderwood/Southcenter are the destinations you really would go from Bellevue if you plan to drive. If I am transit-dependent and I live in Bellevue, I am just not gonna go to Alderwood/Southcenter that much.
“While it’s true that frequency matters, S1 only has 4 other stops and S2 only has 6 other stops. All other stops are mostly either for park and ride or for making transit transfers. The other stops do have some higher density residential or commercial nearby, but it’s not huge .
In other words it’s a commuter bus route design with planned all-day frequent buses. I’m rather dubious that it will be popular except for commutes to Downtown Bellevue in the morning and away from Downtown Bellevue in the afternoon. If it supposed to run at a high frequency all day, it should be stopping at all-day destinations like Alderwood, Factoria and Southcenter.”
That’s the fault of those localities, not Stride. The 405 corridor is away from population centers and is designed for cars to turn off at any exit. Still, people need to get from Bellevue to Kirkland, Totem Lake, Bothell, and Renton quickly without a car. Stride does what it can in a substandard environment. It’s better than not having a frequent express transit route. At least you can get from Bellevue to Kirkland in less than half an hour, or from Bellevue to Bothell in less than an hour, as you would have to on local buses.
In order to get to Factoria or Southcenter, Stride would have to get off the freeway and wander around local streets. That would make its travel time longer for people going through those stops.
One of Stride’s alternatives was a multi-corridor design. One route would have been like Stride 2, another would have gone from downtown Bellevue to downtown Kirkland, another might have gone from Woodinville to downtown Kirkland or Bellevue. That would have served those areas like Factoria and Southcenter you’re concerned about. ST didn’t choose that alternative because it would have cost more. You’d have to make all these routes frequent to keep the network usable. ST made a bad decision to have just one northern and southern route with only freeway stops, and we’re going to live with the consequences.
But again, that’s just one small part of the mistakes the Eastside made over the past seventy years that got us to this point. It was built assuming cars would solve everything and walkability didn’t matter.
The problem that Jack and Al are alluding to (or clearly stating) involves monumentalism. Just the branding surrounding the project is a dead giveaway. They are called “BRT” even though they are clearly regional express buses (like the rest of Sound Transit’s routes). They are called “lines” as if they are rail. There is a clear focus on making a distinction between the rest of Sound Transit’s buses just so that these can stand out. This seems trivial but the cost isn’t. These are special (expensive) buses that will have a special (very expensive) depot along with the (needlessly expensive) bus stops. From a rider perspective, none of this really matters. To be fair, this will come with practical improvements as well (more frequent service, less congestion on the freeway) but a lot of the money is being spent on things that won’t help the riders much at all. I assume there will be off-board payment. This is great but this is a poor choice for it. Dwell time is critical if you have a stop every quarter mile. But in this case it is the opposite. Not only that, but you have double decker buses, which have slower boarding and alighting. I want to emphasize that I’m not against double-decker buses for routes like this (maybe you need the extra seating). I’m just saying that you will get very little from off-board payment given the nature of this route.
Besides being a waste of money, this approach also leads to limited flexibility. One of the main advantages of buses is that they can go just about anywhere. But these don’t. That’s because they are treating the bus stops as if they are subway stops. Every stop is special, you can’t just reuse a Metro (or even ST express) bus stop. In theory this could have value — like Madison in Seattle. It is an independent corridor with density close to each stop. But that isn’t the case with Stride 1 and 2. The main corridors are freeways which there is very little development within walking distance to a stop (Totem Lake being the obvious exception). Thus you have a bad combination. The agency is treating I-405 as if it is a fundamentally strong corridor (like Aurora or Madison) but it isn’t. It is a means to an end. Kudos for all involved in adding all of these freeway stops but they are no substitute for serving dense neighborhoods. To do that requires leaving the freeway envelope. Ideally you do that at the tails. That way riders in the middle aren’t delayed. Since you are trying to serve multiple neighborhoods, this would mean multiple routes. This is a model that we should all be familiar with. It has existed for decades on various expressways in our region. The 41, 71, 72, 73 (and many other buses) got on I-5 in the express lanes and quickly carried riders to downtown. The same thing happened with 520 and I-90. In the case of 520, there are also freeway stops (like this will have). This serves primarily park and ride users but it means that riders can transfer between buses. Thus someone can take an express to downtown, only to switch to a bus that runs through the U-District. This is precisely the pattern that Sound Transit should have adopted. Instead of focusing so much on style they should have focused on substance. Instead of fancy buses and bus stops there should be a lot more routes. This is how Metro does it and it is how Brisbane does it (and they have real BRT). It is Open BRT, which is quite appropriate given the only closed section is a freeway.
That is another (much shorter) way of putting it. Sound Transit should have focused on Open BRT instead of closed BRT. No special buses; a handful of freeway stations but otherwise no special stops; multiple routes that start and end in the neighborhoods (on regular streets). This would have been much better for riders. It probably would have cost less.
“Sound Transit should have focused on Open BRT instead of closed BRT. ”
This is an astute observation that is ironic. That’s because the idea of using Express Lanes is an “open” choice for vehicles generically. ST could utilize these lanes for more routes. However the high frequency will mean that ST will be hesitant to do that.
Multi-line BRT would have to be frequent too or it wouldn’t be BRT. Multi-line BRT would have more service hours, not just redistributing the same service hours to a few more routes. That’s why ST didn’t choose it. because it was so hot on getting high-budget Issaquah Link into ST3 (which could have been a fourth Stride line). But in the future there could be sufficient demand to convert it to multi-line and increase the service hours, in ST4 or otherwise. At least most of the capital work would be done and it could just leverage the then-existing infrastructure.
Those other routes could be Metro, to avoid the issue of ST3 being financially strained and an ST4 being doubtful.
“ That’s why ST didn’t choose it. because it was so hot on getting high-budget Issaquah Link into ST3 (which could have been a fourth Stride line).”
Yeah like I often say, ST3 was designed to get yes votes rather than to optimize transit capital dollars for ridership and better travel times.
Case in point: If the Downtown Bellevue to Eastgate Link segment was an open busway rather than a pair of rail tracks, both an Issaquah Stride line and a Burien astride line could use it. And it could have connected with South Bellevue Station. It could have circulated in Issaquah. It could have had a transfer stop next to Factoria to change to many types of bus services. And the Renton TC could have been shifted a bit and better integrated with the Express Lanes.
But light rail was what got the votes because it was mostly a hope across the region then. That was especially true in 2016 when service only just opened to Capitol Hill and UW and ended at just-opened Angle Lake. And Issaquah Link got to South Kirkland so it could attract more Kirkland votes.
The more years that go by with the current system and riders depend on it daily, the less fantastic it will appear to voters. It’s going to be instead about the daily rider experience on transit vehicles, walking through stations and accessing stations.
ST cannot sell the region’s voters on pipe dreams anymore . 2016 was a one-time shot. And intuitively electeds knew that which is why it’s sunset year is as long as it is (and keeps getting longer).
What??? ST is not financially strained. They are literally spending billions on just three bus routes. The bus base itself costs half a billion! The reason it costs so much is because they aren’t focused on frequency. They are focused on running unique buses to unique bus stops and this costs a fortune. If they had simply focused on adding more service they could pay for a lot more routes running a lot more often. This would be a lot more useful for riders (whether you want to call it BRT or not).
Ideally you’d have say a bundle of 4 overlapping lines that make up S-1; perhaps S-1A, S-1B, S-1C, S-1D.
S-1A could be as proposed: all in-line stations from Bellevue to Burien pretty much exclusively on I-405. S-1B could be all stations but a detour to hit Tukwila Station and Southcenter. S-1C could be all stations but detour to hit Downtown Renton. S-1D could be a Bellevue -SeaTac Airport Express. Combined they provide duplicative overlapping service in the corridor with frequent headways.
A similar concept could be applied to S-2. Such as a S-2A that runs Bellevue to Downtown Kirkland via I-405 (except for the fact they built a $300M bus station interchange outside of town in the middle of the freeway). S-2B could serve Downtown Bothell direct, etc.
yes. Note that the design of routes 532 and 535 may be superior to that of Stride2. Bothell is a serious deviation. The made up terminal beneath I-405 for Stride3 is a terrible concept.
The made up terminal beneath I-405 for Stride3 is a terrible concept.
We’ll see. I don’t think it is that bad. Students are generally pretty tolerant of long walks (which is how campuses often get away with sprawling). Stride 1 (if not other buses) will also provide a good two-seat ride. It will be a fairly quick stop for those heading from Lynnwood to Bellevue (which make up a large portion of the ridership of the 535).
Will you be able to walk anywhere to/from the I-405/SR522 interchange? It’s in the middle of two freeways. They’d have to build a bridge with ADA access to cross one or the lanes or SR522; presumable WB. And then you still have 405/522 on/off ramps to deal with before you get anywhere (wetlands or North Creek Buisness Park. That’s got to be at least a 20 minute walk so few if anyone but a handfull of students would ever use it and it sure won’t be cheap. I would think the school would maintain a shuttle based on class times.
@Bernie. You are wrong. Both Stride lines will serve the transit center. Here is a rendering of the transit center. It is not in the middle of two freeways. It is just north of SR-522 and west of 405. There will be a pedestrian pathway connecting to the existing North Creek Trail. It looks to be about five minutes to the connection, then maybe another five minutes to the campus. Again, some people will just transfer.
“line” vs “route” is a meaningful difference and is not specific to rail.
https://humantransit.org/2011/02/watching-our-words-route-or-line.html
@Ross, I was responding to this comment:
I had forgotten that in addition to the cost is no object bus stop at the 405/522 interchange there is (maybe?) also going to be a stop a mile or less earlier at Beardsley. I’d commented before that I don’t see how in the hell a bus is going to get back on at Beardsley and cross three lanes of 405 to get off at 522. It’s going to be like the SR520 WB to Mercer suicide squeeze. Maybe the plans have changed to provide transit only access from Beardsley? That would be expensive and make the stupid expensive “terminal beneath I-405” a redundant waste of time and money; Direct 522 to TC would have been “relatively” cheap and better. But the real reason for the whole project was to create a new bridge so there could be three GP lanes and 2 HOT lanes each direction all the way to I-5 eventually.
The WSDOT rendering Ross linked to is very confusing. From what I can gather looking at this, Stride will stay in the HOV lanes and exit at the “terminal beneath I-405” and not go to the transit center inside the 405 SB exit to 522. They are going to construct a pedestrian walk from the “terminal beneath I-405″ under the SB lanes of 405. From there you have to hike all the way to something called the ” Existing North Creek Trail”. Then use that to get back to the college. I think I walked the ” Existing North Creek Trail” shortly after it was constructed. It’s long long hike from Stride to get to the UW Bothell. At a brisk clip I’d guess around 30 minutes. If Stride did divert to the transit center it would still be a 20 minute walk but I don’t think that’s even possible.
Looking at this closer it looks like the “transit center is for WB SR522
buses and SB 405 buses that are headed for Bothell Way. This would make for a long walk for a WB 522 transfer to a Stride 405 SB bus. Not a clue for EB 522 buses. The rendering cuts off through the middle of “terminal beneath I-405”. All it shows are platforms for 405 buses. My recollection is there is going to be a traffic light here on SR522 so pedestrians can cross and access EB 522.
@Bernie
there’s a separate Stride 3 BRT from the freeway transit hub via uw bothell to shoreline. it will take freeway on/off ramps to ne 195th and to uw bothell. and then travel on sr522 to the ne 145th street station.
You can see the path in more detail in this picture:
https://oohsr522brt2020.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/images/2020_0626_SR522BRT_RefinedProjectMap__ZoomedIn_Bothell_v7.pdf
Yeah the north/south freeway brt the Stride 2 that goes from Bellevue to Lynnwood will stay in the center hov lanes. it’s only the SR522 “avenue running” BRT Stride 3 that will go the transit center.
So for students from Bellevue to UW Bothell they will take the freeway bus Stride 2 from Bellevue to that center hov bus station. Then walk over to the transit center and then take the BRT Stride 3. alternatively they can walk up the new pedestrian path
@WL, thanks I’d forgotten about S3. Looking at your link it seems clear this “transit center in a cloverleaf” is just plain dumb. S3 from the diagram you linked to doesn’t go the “TC”. It tries to get on 405 SB and access the “terminal beneath I-405”. Look at the two “maps” and note the extremely acute angle the bus would have to make to turn onto the 405 SB to 522 WB ramp. And it would be entering the ramp with cars exiting 405 at 60mph. From what I see the plan is for S3 to use the roundabout and/or light (not clear on this configuration) to make a U turn and return back to Shoreline. So at least the S1 to S3 connection is OK assuming you can play Frogger and get from the SB to NB “platforms” under 405. In theory that won’t be much worse than the Totem Lake flyer stop; just it’s above 405 instead of under it.
It seems clear from the linked “maps” that SB on 405 you either exit at Beardsley (aka 195) and go past UW/Cascadia OR you take the 405 SB exit ramp to get to the “transit center”. From the “transit center” in looks like you can access 522 EB or WB. If you go WB then you can get on 405 SB via the new hill climb to Brickyard. In Ross’ link it shows the current 405 bridges as both being converted to SB only. I assume the current SB bridge will revert to 3 GP lanes as it was originally. Actually I think it was originally built as 2 lanes with shoulders and a breakdown lane but lanes were narrowed from 12′ to 10′ and the shoulders were eliminated to squeeze in three lanes (standard WSDOT practice). What’s now the NB 405 bridge will be I’m guessing HOV transit only; guessing 2 lanes and merges only. The new whopping wide bridge under construction must be the new NB 405 GP lanes and HOT/Transit lanes (guessing 2+3 with the future option of re-striping to 2+4).
Still clear as mud.
OK, this visualization of the future improvements to the SR 522 interchange area shows the various options to/from the TC and 405 inline stops. It shows the only way in and out of the TC is the signalized intersection on 522 west of 405.
SB 405 traffic in the GP lanes can take the first 522 exit which bypasses everything. It appears to be unchanged from the current design. The second SB exit from 405 will replace the cloverleaf merge to 522 EB with a signalized intersection across 522 from the TC. Unclear what turn options and transit only options will be available at this intersection. I assume entrance to the TC will be transit only unless it’s also going to be a kiss and ride area.
SB 405 traffic in the HOT lanes can exit to the 405 BRT platforms. Appears HOT lane private vehicles will have to use this exit to access 522 in either direction. So count on a long backup at the light on 522 during peak hours. How long are these light cycles going to be? Seems this would be a prime location for a roundabout. There is a disclaimer in the captions, “Please note, this is a conceptual design, and details are subject to change.”
NB 405 GP lanes access to 522 is similar to current conditions except to 522 WB you’ll have a signalized intersection instead of the flyover ramp. From the HOT lanes its the same as SB where the only access to 522 is the signalized intersection south of the BRT planforms. The only option for buses on 522 EB or WB is to pull off and make the loop through the “transit center”. The pedestrian stroll along the freeway interchange is the only way passengers can transfer from 405 buses to 522 buses. If they’d used a roundabout design both 405 and 522 transit could access the exact same bus bays under 405. And buses from any direction would be able to reverse (U-turn). Dunno but seems like that would have been no more, perhaps less expensive, provided a good transfer and probably better traffic flow overall. It could all be done at surface level but the deluxe treatment would have been what they are doing at 85th with the triple decker interchange. The expense would have made sense here rather than 85th where it’s a huge waste.
“This implies that the new stop pair will not be added and the riders transferring between Stride and Link will have a longer walk.”
I am not sure if transfer walk time will be shorter if there is a pair of bus stop west of 112th St NE.
There is no mid-block entrance to Bellevue Downtown Station, so you still will need to walk to 112th St to enter light rail station. NE 6th at 110th St NE has all-way walk intersection and in my experience the ped waiting time at that signal is pretty decent.
True, it is slightly shorter walk from the stop you suggest, but adding a stop there add travel time to the rest of people whose journey ends in Downtown Bellevue.
I think majority of S1/S2 riders’ destination is Bellevue (most likely somewhere west of 110th St NE) not somewhere else along Link.
Just four stops on the S1? And one of them is the completely useless “station” at NE 44th. There is no “there” there and never will be, because the interchange is going to be grotesque. It’s a half mile to Kennydale!, home of the Professional Transit Haters Hall of Fame. On the other side of the freeway from Kennydale! is — wait for it — a couple of mid-sized apartment blocks, McDonald’s for the famished BRT-rider, and another half-mile walk to sloburbia.
There isn’t even a decent opportunity to interface the 240. To get over to 44th from Coal Creek Parkway requires using 76th or May Creek Park Drive.
Is this supposed to be some way for riders to change among freeway express buses? The thing is, they all go to and from Bellevue! so why would someone transfer? Wow, what a waste of money.
So far as the Newport Hills P&R stop, can a bus running in the HOT lanes stop there? It seems like it would have to cross over all lanes to exit, stop, enter and then cross-over all lanes. Both directions, with a long walk between the P&R and the southbound stop.
Wow, I had no idea that this project is SO bad.
Again, what would you do instead? Delete that stop? Not have an express bus between Bellevue and Renton? Change the land use at 44th? This is a problem that goes back to the time I lived on the Eastside in the 1980s and took the 340. I was glad there was an express bus between Bellevue and Renton as an alternative to the 240. The stops along 405 were rather silly, and weren’t ideally close to Factoria or downtown Kirkland, and I stroggled to see anything in Kennydale. But still I used the Coal Creek Parkway stop when I went to the Factoria area or when I lived on Somerset for a few months, and to the NE 70th stop because it was the closest to central Kirkland and some friend’s houses and faster than the 235, and I took it when I went to Renton or SeaTac. I wished there were a stop at 85th — that seemed more sensible than 70th — but 70th was the best we had.
Skipping those stops or not having an express would be worse. Changing the land uses around Kennydale, Newport Hills, Factoria, or south Kirkland is beyond Sound Transit’s authority: only the cities can do that. I wished the 340 were more frequent, but that’s how all Eastside transit was. Now we’re finally making it frequent, forty years late. You’re blaming transit for what’s a larger issue. It would be best to have good land use with good transit. If we can’t have good land use, it’s better to have good transit than not to. At least Stride is less expensive than light rail, which might also have run along 405 and made the same stops, and been just as far from Factoria. When people talk about “Stride is a bad project” on the Eastside, it raises fears in me of doing nothing, and having nothing better than the 560 or 535 forever. It took this long just to get something. This is what could get the political consensus. And it’s what the cities and the East King subarea wanted. Again it comes back to them. They’re the ones in ultimate control of transit and land use.
Al and Tom made good points about Stride. Some also apply to Link. Freeways are to pedestrians as dams are fish. Transit serves pedestrians. It is difficult to get pedestrians to/from transit service that is in the middle of I-405. Look at the grand cost of North Creek, NE 85th Street, NE 44th Street, the new South Renton P&R, and the deviation to TIBS. Per Tom, I-405 BRT is the compromise of political battles between rail transit advocates and freeway advocates. Political compromise can be awkward; see SR-520; a six-lane freeway was selected after a fight between those wanting four v. those wanting eight; a better compromise would have been six lanes east of Montlake and four lanes west of Montlake; taking six lanes through Montlake and over Portage Bay will be very costly and disruptive and I-5 has not yet been tolled. Both Stride and Link will require good local bus networks; but the local networks are not well planned or funded.
Good thing the existing rail line was ripped out, wouldn’t want transit on a dedicated right of way out of the I-405 mess!
There is nothing inherently wrong with the freeway station at 44th, except maybe the cost. It still adds value. It is still worth serving as doing so involves very little time. The problem is that the routing. It is trying to perform an impossible task: run a single route along 405 that somehow manages to connect to all the significant neighborhoods close to 405. You just can’t do it. It works fine for Burien and Bellevue because those are end points. If anything, the bus should continue past Bellevue Transit Center and serve more of Downtown Bellevue (as others have noted). The same is true of Burien (why not?). It works OK for TIBS because that station is so close to the freeway. TIBS is mostly a connection to Link and this will (eventually) provide that connection without delaying riders who are headed from Burien to Bellevue. But it fails miserably in Renton. Because again, there is no way to do it. You can’t serve the main part of Renton without delaying riders that are trying to go from Burien or TIBS to Bellevue. So they ended up serving a second-rate part of Renton while still delaying through-riders (just not as much as they do with the current routing). But again, the problem is assuming that this can only be solved with one route.
Imagine if they took that approach with some of the classic Metro routes. Take the 41 for example. It had very good ridership and great ridership per hour of service (especially for an express). It connected Lake City, Pinehurst and Northgate with each other and downtown. Yet it skipped the second biggest destination in the region (the UW). They could have had it go on the main line to serve 45th. This would have served the edge of the U-District while significantly delaying riders of the 41. It would have sucked. So instead they did the sensible thing and just ran a different bus from Northgate to the U-District. ST should have done that with Renton. There should be multiple routes, given the high cost of the project.
One reason for the Bellevue Transit Center reconstruction is that the west‑end roof canopy near 108th Ave NE doesn’t provide enough clearance for the double‑deck coaches.
But 532/535 have been accessing TC from 108th Ave NE today. Has there been some issues all this time?
If they take the curb lane, it will hit the roof, which is why there are delineators there.
Yes — the BTC was never engineered for double‑deck coaches.
The C‑curbs in the eastbound lane by Bay 3 are there specifically to warn operators, because the overhead clearance at the end bays is too low for double‑deckers. Only the center bays have sufficient vertical clearance, which is why the 532/535. coaches have been using Bays 4 and 8.
I always take Link to Downtown Bellevue now, but back when I regularly took the 249 or the B there, they moved around the bus stops pretty often due to construction in the vicinity. So it doesn’t seem so unusual to me.
The distance to Bellevue Square is short enough that I’m actually surprised anyone would take a bus that distance. I would assume that on average, it would take longer. I don’t trust the bus countdown clocks or the online tracker. I have been burned by them too many times.
I have arthritis in my hips that has limited the amount of walking I can do per day since 2023. So if a bus is coming in less than five minutes, I can save that walking capacity for later. Since 2023 my walking has been 50% slower, or 100% if I’ve been walking a lot (where “a lot” varies by day). I’m not going to install a BelHop app and set up an account just for a few times a year. The new shuttle might be useful.
The 550 eastbound stop changed several times over the past few years due to surrounding building construction or events. But that was just one route. What surprised me was seeing half the stations closed. It’s the first time I’ve been to Bellevue TC since the 226 was extended to South Bellevue station a year or so ago.
from Metro service advisory pages:
Multi-route Reroute
ongoing
Route 271, ST 550, ST 556 and ST 566 will be rerouted around Bellevue Transit Center from Mon Jul 27 through Fri Aug 28 due to construction.
View next departures
Hide details
Affected stops:
Stop #68005 Bellevue Transit Center – Bay 5 (Eastbound)
Stop #68007 Bellevue Transit Center Bay 12 (Northbound)
Stop #67652 Bellevue Transit Center – Bay 9 (Westbound)
Stop #68006 Bellevue Transit Center – Bay 6
Get on/off at:
For Route 271 and ST 556 to University District:
The temporary stop on NE 6th Street, just east of 110th Avenue NE (Westbound)
For Route 271 to Eastgate P&R:
Stop #73049 NE 8th Street & 106th Avenue NE (Eastbound)
The temporary stop on 110th Avenue NE, just south of NE 6th Street (Southbound)
For Route 556 to Issaquah and Route 566 to Auburn:
The temporary stop on 110th Avenue NE, just south of NE 6th Street (Southbound)
For Route 550 to Seattle:
The temporary stop on 110th Avenue NE, just south of NE 6th Street (Southbound)
Stop #85640 NE 4th Street & 108th Avenue NE (Westbound)
For Route 550 to Bellevue:
Stop #68042 NE 4th Street & 105th Avenue NE (Eastbound)
The temporary stop on 110th Avenue NE, just north of NE 6th Street (Northbound)
Cause: construction
Effective Dates: 7/27/2026 to 8/29/2026
“I’m surprised such a major closure at the Eastside’s biggest transit hub hasn’t gotten more publicity and hasn’t been mentioned in the STB comments.”
That’s because it hasn’t been the first Bellevue TC temporary bay changes in recent years. Amazon building construction next to TC has led to changes smaller to current one at least twice. They enabled the temp stops at 112th St NE & NE 6th this time for 271/532/535. It is no surprise to me because that’s exactly what they did last year when Amazon construction closed the entire eastbound bays.
I saw the fences when I got of last Tuesday to hike my ballot up to the library drop box. I wondered what it was about. I figured that since it was just low handrails rather than more permenant construction fencing it was short term for maintenance.
I think on the WB side of the DT station there is a stair down to 6th (not sure but thought I saw one). Nothing though on the EB side. I don’t know why ST hates on mid station entrances. At Bel-Red for example it would be better access for most of the P&R and it would be perfect for bus stops on both sides of Spring Blvd. They’d have to install a couple of crosswalks and ORCA readers. There is very little traffic on Spring Blvd. The apartment blocks to the south would also benefit.
Why are there so few benches at DT Bellevue Station? There’s way more at Bel-Red than DT.
There is a garage door under the middle of the platform on 6th St side, but my guess is that had something to do with the future development south of light rail station.
Light rail station is not located in the heart of Downtown Bellevue. Super majority of the foot traffic walk out via west entrance because the DT station is so far east of Downtown core, having a mid-block station access is not that beneficial in this case.
There are stairs at the east end of the platform (both sides) that access 112th. Elevators too maybe? Unfortunately there is no skybridge to access 112th NB or the Maydenbauer Center. I guess the crosswalks aren’t any worse than the scramble between the west end and the TC.
Bel-Red would really benefit from mid platform access. It’s hard to believe they didn’t plan for a bus stop on Spring Blvd… er, well I guess it’s not that hard to believe. At least they put in enough (for now) benches.
The vacant area south of the platforms is owned by the City of Bellevue. The garage door leads to the City Hall parking garage. I’m thinking that Bellevue PD needs the access.
The land (used now as a dog park) is integral to the Grand Connection project that will tie into the upper station plaza off 110th. The aerial walkway is envisioned to be in various alignments south of the station platforms across the property. Nothing crosses northward over 6th St there as of the latest I can find.
https://bellevuewa.gov/city-government/departments/transportation/projects/transportation-capital-projects/grand-connection-crossing
Stay tuned!
I’ll add that I personally think Bellevue could use a general purpose civic auditorium that seats at least 1500 people there . If City owned, it could even be used for large public meetings. The Meydenbauer auditorium is nowhere near that size. It would be a perfect place for all sorts of performances and even coordinated with conventions across the street. What billionaire is willing to fund it?
Wow, I didn’t realize the the auditorium in Meydenbauer was so small seating only 410 people. That’s about the size of my HS and I went to a small school. The performing arts center at virtually all every BSD HS can seat more people. I also didn’t realize that Meydenbauer was relatively new (1993). It looks like a 70’s bowling alley that was converted. All that’s needed to replace it is a billionaire that wants their name preserved for prosperity. 1,500 is too small; the McCaw Hall seats 3,000 which I think is a much better target. A 4 car link train can hold what, ~800 people?
The Grand Connection originally was conceived as a 405 lid that was going to cross at SE 4th. It was a much more ambitious plan than the not so grand pedestrian bridge on the south side of Link. The cloverleaf at NE 8th needs to go away. I’m not sure how you accomplish that but the cloverleaf interchange of the 60’s isn’t designed for today’s Bellevue. Can you imagine a cloverleaf in DT Seattle? It will be interesting to see how the megabucks NE 85th St project plays out.
Are Stride buses really going to be double-decker? Why? It’s hard for me to get up to the top level, or to walk hunched down because the second-story ceiling is so low. At the bottom level there are only a few seats I can use because the’re at the entrance level. The back is a large step up, and then the seats there are so high I can’t step up into them. That leaves only six or so middle seats and the very back row. When I took it once I had to sit in the back row. I dread getting on someday and finding all the ten usable seats filled.
That will suppress ridership as people try to travel in off hours when those seats won’t be filled, or take another route to avoid Stride, or not make the trip. It’s frustrating that the Eastside has needed north-south BRT for so long and then it comes and it’s only 10% usable.
I think the thought is S1/S2 are mostly running on freeway with limited stops, so having a type of fleet with highest seat density is the reason double-decker was chosen. So without consideration of ADA, I think it is the right choice, but you are right about the accommodation part. I don’t think it hasn’t been recognized enough the compromise double-deck bus has to make to priority seating. I personally saw wheelchair users were left out and had to wait for next 532 because there is no seat for her.
its a bit complicated but double decker busses are more efficient for the electrified battery bus. the articulated bus is much heavier than the double decker ones. this allows them to place the bus recharge pantograph at less stations.
My understanding from a few years ago is ST has a service metric around time a rider stands on a typical trip. That is why the long haul routes tend to be double decker – the bus tends to spend a longer period of time “full” and ST wants everyone to have a seat given the length of time, whereas for a route like the 550 has much higher ridership, the typical rider is only standing for 10~15 minutes so the standing capacity is OK.
having a type of fleet with highest seat density is the reason double-decker was chosen.”
How can a double-decker have higher seat density? Part of the space is taken by the stairway.
It’s more seats per vehicle than an artic
It seems like it would have fewer seats.
I don’t think it’s about seats per vehicle but seats per linear feet of roadway. Bendy buses were a disaster in London because the stops weren’t long enough for them to pull fully to the curb. For SnoCo the issue as I understand it is parking at the base. You roughly double the amount of space you need for a bus base with an artic vs double tall. Bendy buses are also a complete disaster with just the smallest amount of snow on the road. They do have one major advantage, when there is room, in that boarding and unloading is more than 2X faster (depending on the number of doors, payment scheme, etc).