Fall 2026 Service Change: East King County

174 Replies to “Fall 2026 Service Change: East King County”

1. Why is my commute being destroyed because of the 2 line? I was told that there would now be service to North Bend to make up for my loss and that was clearly a joke. Every 90 minutes? I went from a bus every 5-10 min with the 550 or 554 to every NINETY minutes. The deception that went into this move is unacceptable. People who live North near Everett still get an express, people South near Tacoma get an express. But East losses all its routes for 30 min options with 3 transfers or a 90 min option with 2 transfers? Shameful. Disgraceful. Guess the people moving out of King County are right because the taxes that go to the public teansportation services are from a giant portion of EASTERN KING COUNTY that is worse off in September than we were today.

   1. Can you explain where you are coming from and commuting to? 90-minute service to North Bend is actually an upgrade, as the previous service to North Bend was every 2 hours (120 minutes).

      If you previously had either the 550 or 554, that would mean your commute was Mercer Island to downtown. In that case, the 550 and 554 are replaced by the 2-line.

      1. There’s a Zoe Sumner in Easton, according to Whitepages, and one in Seattle (Delridge). I would imagine that its the one in Easton, or someone using a pen name.

   2. It’s not clear to me where you’re coming from based on this comment, but Issaquah will get more service between there and Bellevue between the 556, 269, and 215 (though the Highlands is the real winner in terms of more service). The 550/554 only share a stop at Mercer Island outside of downtown Seattle and I would think Link is an upgrade to that. Even Eastgate – a place that will see a forced transfer compared to prior direct service to downtown Seattle – will come out ahead in terms of frequency and span. And not to belabor the point here, but North Bend and Snoqualmie are getting a massive service upgrade – it will be way way faster to get between there and any other point in the transit network once this service change goes through, and the bus will actually run on Sunday too.

      Could Metro and ST kept a few direct express buses from a few places on the east side? Probably. But it would’ve made it cost-prohibitive to run as much all-day service between parts of the east side. And while it’s true that Everett retains the 510, the 512/Link (or even the 510/Link) is often faster in rush hour traffic anyways.

      1. As I wrote below, I think Issaquah Highlands comes out ahead while central Issaquah is more of a mixed bag. You only have one bus to Link, and that connection is made at South Bellevue. For trips to Downtown Seattle you go from a bus every fifteen-to-twenty minutes to an indirect bus every fifteen. Given the nature of the transfer and the frequency of Link (which is not that great to the East Side) it looks like a degradation for trips to Seattle. It is definitely better for trips to Downtown Bellevue but I can see how someone in the main part of Issaquah would complain. Oh, and some parts of Issaquah are losing service entirely.

         1. The 556 has a notable better schedule than the 554 did, and I think that makes up for a transfer to Link. 13 buses after 7 PM compared to 7 now would have made my life a lot easier when I lived on in Issaquah briefly. I get that frequency may not be world-class, but every 10 minutes is still quite good. I’d take 6 more evening bus options if it meant an average of a 5 minute transfer – I think most regular riders would.

            It may look like a degradation for service to Seattle, but it’s really not. This may be enough to move commuters away from transit, but I sort of doubt it. It will be interesting to see how things pan out over the next year.

         2. Central Issaquah gets less than a mixed bag; the Highlands has improved service. Route 556 and Link will be slower to major markets than better bus routes could have been. A Route 554 between Issaquah and Mercer Island via the Eastgate freeway station would use the center HOV lanes and the Sound Move center access ramps better; it would be fast and not congested. The pathways to South Bellevue station have congestion and the buses will weave to/from the center of I-90. The connection at South Bellevue is also out of direction. I have advocated for route consolidations over the decades, but this one is flawed.

         3. “ The 556 has a notable better schedule than the 554 did”

            Of course because several parts of 554 is currently paired with some peak/routes like 212/218,
            So I am not too impressed by 556’s daytime frequency as it is the only one-seat ride from Issaquah to Bellevue and it is sort of a Link Candidate.

            I wonder how many minutes of delay it will get at Bellevue Way off ramp in the morning and whether any agency is going to do anything about it. Also, will it be even faster if some folks from Issaquah just transfer at Mercer Island.

            The combined frequency from Issaquah Highlands to Mercer Island are going to be 8 buses per hour and they skip Issaquah TC, so if someone just missed a 556 at Highlands, they probably should just board a Mercer Island-bound 215/218/269 if they arrive within the next 10 minutes.

         4. The 556’s better schedule is primarily a function of more service later in the evenings and on weekends, the 212 and 218 will continue serving the same non-downtown Issaquah stops as they do now (well the 212 is going away, but the 215 will functionally replace it with better service anyways). Longer travel times from Issaquah to Seattle probably could have been avoided, but it would probably involve pairing Issaquah TC with the the 215 instead of the Highlands. That said, I think something easy like having the 218 serve the TC and downtown Issaquah to at least give that part of town a better Seattle connection during commute hours should have been done. I’m not convinced that the Highlands need the 215 and the 218 during peak hours. When I rode the 218, it was definitely busy, but not usually standing room only busy and the 215 will run more often than the 218 did when I was out there in Fall 2025

         5. “The 556’s better schedule is primarily a function of more service later in the evenings and on weekends,”

            Weekdays is a big deal too. When I’ve occasionally traveled between Seattle and Issaquah, or tried to take the 554 at the Eastgate freeway station to Seattle in the PM peak (from Lake Hills), I was dismayed at the 554’s its half-hourly frequency. I assumed it would be 15 minutes reverse-peak but it wasn’t. It has kept me from going to Issaquah more often, or using that Eastgate freeway station transfer more often.

            And an all-day Issaquah-Bellevue express is a big deal too.

   3. Issaquah is a major winner in the restructure. 30-minute service to 15 (556). Even if you had a one-seat ride to Seattle (554), you had to time your trip around half-hourly pulses. Issaquah is getting new all-day express service to downtown Bellevue, which it should have gotten two decades ago. Bellevue is a major jobs/activity destination for Issaquah, the hub of transfers north and south, and the natural target for the primary express service because it’s within the Eastside. Gilman Blvd is getting much more service as the 208 is replaced by the 556.

      The Issaquah Highlands also gets 15-minute daytime expresses to Mercer Island station. So that’s 15 minutes times two.

      What ST/Metro are doing is finally addressing a longstanding need (frequent Issaquah expresses) with a major service boost. It sometimes does that in restructures. We should applaud them for doing something we’ve been asking them for years, not kicking them when they do it. That will just make them shy about other major improvements.

      Some in South King County are complaining that Renton and Kent are being left behind in connectivity and deserve it more than Issaquah does, because they’re both larger, grew more, and have much more equity needs.

      North Bend has never had 15-minute bus service. From the 1980s to the 2010s it had a peak express to downtown Seattle, and a route four times a day, and maybe not on Sunday or Saturday. In the 2010s it lost the peak express but gained more frequent local service, but still only every two hours. There was also a Metro north-south route for a time that was replaced by the Valley Shuttle. This service change is a boost for North Bend’s connectivity to the region, both in frequency and a one-seat express to the Highlands (e.g., Swedish Issaquah) and Mercer Island (to Seattle, Redmond, UW, etc). It does lose a one-seat ride to central Issaquah.

      There’s also route 203, which was implemented in an earlier phase in the restructure and replaces part of the 271’s routing. There have been arguments on both sides on whether this is better or worse for Issaquah.

      1. Issaquah is a major winner in the restructure.

         I would say Issaquah Highlands is the major winner. Central Issaquah is more of a mixed bag. The 554 is 20 minutes midday, 15 minutes peak. It gets people right to Downtown Seattle. Now they have a 15 minute bus to Downtown Bellevue. They have to transfer at South Bellevue, which will take a while. Parts of Central Issaquah (Newport Way) will lose service entirely.

         1. Newport Way is covered by the 203. The section on Newport between the TC and downtown had the 554 running on it, but it didn’t have any stops outside of downtown. I don’t think that’s a service loss of note.

         2. “The 554 is 20 minutes midday,”

            It was 30 minutes middday last time I used it. It must have been raised to 20 when I wasn’t looking.

            “They have to transfer at South Bellevue, which will take a while.”

            The maximum wait is 8-10 minutes to Seattle, or 15 minutes from Seattle, assuming Link is reliable. That’s is reasonable for a second-level exurb 15 miles out. It’s smaller than Renton or Auburn, and less of an equity issue. Part of what they lose in transfer time, they gain in the initial wait being shorter.

            “Parts of Central Issaquah (Newport Way) will lose service entirely.”

            That part of Newport Way is low density. It’s not appropriate for the primary express route, and low priority for service. Service is moving to an area that more people are going to and that’s a higher priority for the limited service-hour availability.

         3. The section on Newport between the TC and downtown had the 554 running on it, but it didn’t have any stops outside of downtown.

            Wow, you are right. Well that was stupid. I guess the folks that lived in the apartments along that stretch were screwed before and they are screwed now. So yeah, that isn’t a degradation. There does seem to be some loss of coverage in that area with this change but the old buses didn’t come that often anyway.

            That’s is reasonable for a second-level exurb 15 miles out.

            Yeah, sure. But my point is that it is a degradation. The transfer to South Bellevue will probably involve more traffic than the one at Mercer Island. This will add up. It will be slower to get to Seattle but they will have all-day service to Bellevue. I’m not saying they did anything wrong but the Highlands seem like they are better off overall while Central Issaquah seems like a wash.

         4. Central Issaquah will have better service than the current 554 and 208. But Issaquah has large gaps in coverage, both now and future, and no plans to address them.

            I rode the 203 eastbound from end to end two months ago to see what it’s like. It has long segments with no stops; some of them have large apartment buildings or they’re under construction. One of those areas is Newport Way; the other is northwest Issaquah. The 554 never served either of those. The 271 doubles up with the 203 in part of that area, but that”s a temporary overlap.

            So I think Issaquah should really demand comprehensive transit service to all its multifamily areas, and the city should step in to fund it if Metro can’t.

            Simply adding stops to the 203 would be problematic, because it’s already 45 minutes long. So some other solution would be ideal. Maybe replacing the 203 with two routes that could do different things.

      2. Route 203 takes the long way to South Bellevue. The network had too little bus connectivity at Eastgate.

   4. The primary issue is that East Link was predicated on truncating bus routes. If people didn’t want that, they should have brought it up more in the 2000s when East Link was being decided.

      1. If you’re talking about the East Link plans from the 2000’s –

         East Link was also predicated on the trains running faster than they’re actually running.

         East Link was also predicated on the trains running with three or four cars, rather than the two cars the longer runtime limits them to.

         East Link was also predicated on the trains actually running reliably!

         I’m still waiting for Sound Transit to uphold its end of the bargain. Until then, I’m sorry for the people whose commute will be destroyed when the buses drop them off at a station only to wait an hour for the disruption to be fixed, and then wait through several jam-packed two-car trains, and then finally board only to wait while the train inches down the track at low speed.

         1. I think you’re making it out to be worse than it is. There’s room for improvement, but it’s more reliable and less crowded than the buses it replaces.

            Not really any faster, though…

         2. Is East Link leaving people behind who can’t fit into crowded trains? Are 2-car trains still in service?

            If it is as bad as that, that could generate a larger public outcry that forces ST to focus on operational issues more. When it was concerned about just such overcrowding in the north end, it had a 515 peak express as a relief valve. One could say why isn’t it doing the same in the Eastside.

            Except it sort of is by keeping the 545, and keeping the 550 for so long even though it will end this month. I’m still not sure whether East Link is really overcrowded, or how much of the time, and I’ve heard 550 ridership has dropped significantly, which doesn’t sound like people are in desperate need of a relief route.

         3. @Mike Orr, I still see two-car trains regularly. Usually they aren’t leaving people behind, but after a service disruption it can get bad.

         4. My experiences traveling between Judkins Park and Bellevue is that the train is probably moving at 55 mph between stations mostly. Downtown Bellevue is just the fourth stop once boarding at Judkins Park. It’s awesome when things are normal.

            I was on a three car train during rush hour (5:15 pm) heading east yesterday. Eastsiders are so funny that they will stand — even if there is an open seat next to a non-threatening rider. Almost everyone could have sat but because of this personal space invasion avoidance mentality they don’t.

            So the train would be crowded as a two-car train but everyone could have still fit.

            And yeah ST planners did a really bad job estimating the time it takes for a round trip train set. It was a basic error that should have not happened. It was never fully explained where the error was made but I think it comes down to not building in factors like occasional slow track sessions, prolonged station boarding times, added time to reverse trains and things like that.

            Supposedly there will be all three-car 2 Line trains by the end of next year (2027) assuming it goes as promised.

            And ST is planning on having double-length trains in the fleet in a few years. Of course, the next extensions are now 9 years away from opening. OMF South is supposedly 5 years away but probably not needed until 7 years from now.

            OMF North is still targeted to open before Everett Link but that opening date is uncertain. The OMF sites are all well beyond Mariner which is why Everett Link Phase 1 needs to reach SW Industrial Center.

            Everett Link is quite long as the halfway point between Westlake and Downtown Everett is supposed to be Alderwood! So that’s a long distance to run mostly empty four-car trains.

         5. The train isn’t super fast, but it is fast enough. Sure, you could have an express bus that gets right on 405 and then the HOV lanes of I-90 but then what? Go through the tunnel? Mixed service didn’t work very well and once we had enough trains from the north it just didn’t make sense any more.

            This is all to be expected. Nothing has surprised me about East Link. Trains are not infallible (neither are buses). Light rail is usually not that fast. Buses can be faster by bypassing intermediate locations (like South Bellevue) but then you are running a lot more buses. There are really only two big advantages to trains:

            1) They can be automated.
            2) They can carry a lot of people.

            Both of these save service money. This money can then be spent on other buses. Whether it is good or not depends on your trip. There are still people that complain about how the 41 was faster from Northgate to downtown. But a lot of other people appreciate the fast that the buses to the U-District are a lot more frequent.

            There are similar winners and losers here. But the savings for Metro are limited because they got rid of a lot of the express buses during the pandemic. The savings from truncating are minimal. Sound Transit, meanwhile, insists on running some of the express buses as if nothing has changed. So there really isn’t a huge pot of money to work with, and spreading it around the gigantic area that is the East Side is challenging. The Issaquah Highlands have better service to Eastgate (i. e. Bellevue College) as well as better service to Downtown Bellevue. Other than that, this is just a restructure designed to connect to Link (as opposed to one taking advantage of big savings).

         6. This is an excellent opportunity to use Ross’s frequent mention, “If the trains become over-crowded, that’s the time to run some express buses in parallel.” Given Line 2’s less-than-stellar reliability, it would behoove ST to have six or eight buses scattered around the East Side for incident relief. When Line 2 goes sideways for a couple of hours, buses can launch from Redmond Downtown at the regularly scheduled times and make stops like the night owls, at least until the snafu gets righted.

            I recognize that he’s talking about consistent over-crowding, which lends itself to bus-amplification because it can go through a design phase and all that. This is more of a rolling blackout kind of response. But it very well might work.

         7. “Everett Link is quite long as the halfway point between Westlake and Downtown Everett is supposed to be Alderwood!”

            I was stunned to see that Lynnwood to Everett is as far as Westlake to Lynnwood.

         8. “I was stunned to see that Lynnwood to Everett is as far as Westlake to Lynnwood.”

            One way to explain it is first looking at the exit numbers on I-5. Denny is Exit 166. 196th St SW (Lynnwood) is Exit 181. Downtown Everett is Exit 193. That’s 15 miles between Downtown Seattle and Lynnwood and 12 more to Downtown Everett. Add in extra time for the Paine Field scoliosis and it makes sense that Alderwood is the estimated halfway travel time point.

      2. East Link is clearly better than the buses of Y2K. I remember being stuck on a 550 outbound, unable to get to the front door to pay my fare as I leave, even when the bus dwelled for multiple minutes.

         The current bus network is clearly faster than Y2K, even when routes have not changed much.

         I prefer the improved frequency over the less-frequent one-seat rides into downtown, gobbling up service hours and slowing down close to a 100 other bus routes.

      3. Mike is correct; the ST board voted on the East mode choice in 2006.

         The Metro diction has been connect “to” Link. It should be connect “with” Link, as trips are two-way. The typical inbound trip is to Link with a relatively short headway; the typical outbound trip is to a local bus route with a relatively long headway; riders may attempt to time their Link trips or wait more.

         See the ELC use of South Bellevue. Outbound riders oriented to Eastgate or the Highlands will face a choice of alighting the 2 Line at Mercer Island and using routes 215, 218, or 269, or alighting at South Bellevue and using South Bellevue; the optimal answer may vary by time of day. The network would have been stronger if all east-west service was oriented to Mercer Island.

         1. Oops: using Route 556.

   5. What are you talking about?? If anything, Issaquah Highlands should not be getting this much frequency. Many other parts of the county are getting shortchanged for your all day frequent service.

2. The 270’s schedule on weekends is really horrible. On Saturdays and Sundays, the 270 drops to just once per hour as early as 5 PM (departures at …, 4:00, 4:30, 5:00, 6:00, … in both directions). Even on weekdays, the 270 never gets better than every 15 minutes, even during peak (the old 271 did), and service drops to every half hour at 7 PM, with the last trip of the evening departing at 9:30 PM.

   Service like this is going to lead the route into a death spiral. Particularly, at once per hour, that makes the bus slower than enduring the 45-minute train ride, taking Link all the way around, once wait time is taken into account.

   In the meantime, during some the same span that the 270 is running once per hour, the service that could be used to upgrade it to every half hour are being spent to operate the 249 at once per hour too. Which effectively means a choice that a trip between Bellevue and the U-district should take an extra 30 minutes (either waiting at the bus stop or riding Link), for the sake of hourly coverage in Clyde Hill and Medina. The entire route of the 249 is wealthy neighborhoods, for which anyone living there can easily afford Uber. This is not a service that should be prioritized ahead of reasonable frequency and travel times between core urban centers, like downtown Bellevue and the U-district.

   1. Yeah, Bellevue to U District is the real loser in this service change to me. I think it’s frustrating that Metro and ST have leaned so heavily on Link for UW/Eastside trips when service over the 520 bridge is a lot faster.

      1. I think it’s frustrating that Metro and ST have leaned so heavily on Link for UW/Eastside trips when service over the 520 bridge is a lot faster.

         The worse part is that ST will continue to run the 545 (from Redmond to Downtown Seattle) — a trip that is actually pretty fast via Link. It is backwards.

         1. Yeah, if ST just swapped the schedules of the 545 and 542 I’d be happy. The 545 probably still makes sense during peak hours, but it doesn’t need service every 10 minutes. And the 542 transfer at UW is only a few minutes slower than the 545 is anyways.

         2. If routes 542 and 545 were consolidated, waits would be very short on both bus and lines 1 and 2 at the UW stadium station. Route 542 could be extended to Bear Creek. September 2027.

      2. Blum: yes. Not only is Route 270 les frequent than Route 271 has been since 2010, but Route 556 was taken away. Between the U District and BTC, bus is several minutes faster than the 2 Line, but now the waiting has increased. Sad.

         1. The 270 will also take longer than the old 271. Don’t believe me? Look at Metro’s schedule.

            Current 271 at 4pm: ~19 mins from UW Bay 1 to Bellevue TC.

            Future 270 at 4pm: ~24 mins for the same trip.

         2. Metro is really ignoring UW riders which provide some of the best ridership numbers. Buses to UW always feel full. UW needs more service from different parts of the county. Both the Seattle and Bothell campuses. The 520 bridge is heavily underutilized.

         3. There’s a reason why routes like the 255, 271, and 372 need articulated buses on many trips (really all if they had enough operators trained for it)… It’s the UW. And Metro is screwing those routes over one by one.

         4. Perhaps it is due to weave required to/from the Bellevue Way NE ramps on the outside. The center access was available for 108th/112th avenues NE.

   2. Also disappointed that they didn’t take this chance to upgrade Bellevue-UW service to frequent on the weekend.

      1. Yeah, instead Issaquah Highlands should get sub 10 min frequency to Link from 215, 218, 203, 269, 556,🤡

   3. Yeah I don’t really understand that. I thought that separating the 270 from the less productive parts of the 271 was setting up for additional frequency, but it seems like that’s not the case?

      The UW-Bellevue segment of the 271 does fairly well, and I’d expect it to do even better on Bellevue Way than in Medina. The UW-Bellevue segment accounts for roughly 75% of the 271’s ridership while consuming roughly 45% of the 271’s service hours.

      1. jd: yes, that frequency was the dream of a previous generation of planners. The pathway does not matter much.

         The Bellevue Way NE pathway got hourly headway in fall 2014 with the service reductions. Metro had a project in March 2020 and had the opportunity to fix Route 249 but somehow it was excluded from the project.

         (Some “600” routes were created to fill network holes from the reductions. In the North King subarea, the Sunset Hill coverage hole has not been filled even though Metro had projects in 2021 and 2024. The span on Route 331 was reduced; it was not fixed in 2021; it was fixed in 2024).

   4. There’s still a plan for RapidRide 270, which would lead to minimum 15 minute full-time frequency. But like many upgrades like that, the agencies leave people hanging in the 5-year or 10-year or more gap until then, as if there’s no need now but there will suddenly be a need the day it opens. I don’t think thousands of apartments will be built all in one night before opening; I think they were already built in the 1960s and Metro has just been neglecting the transit market (north Bellevue Way).

      1. As I said, the service hours to upgrade the 270 with today’s funding is there, metro just chooses to spend it on coverage routes. I understand that ridership vs. coverage is a legitimate tradeoff, but at least the weekend evening schedule seems to spend a far-too-high percentage of the total service budget on coverage. The idea that a Clyde Hill and Medina shuttle deserves the same level of service on a Saturday late afternoon as a direct route between downtown Bellevue and the U district is absurd.

         I’m ok with running the 249 hourly on weekdays during the daytime, when the 270 is every 15 minutes. But, cutting the 270 to once an hour to pay for increased span of service on the 249 is going way too far in the direction of coverage over ridership.

         1. Is the 249 getting a longer span? I thought it was just moving its hours from Bellevue Way to 84th. And it was recently truncated to a third of its length and part of it became a DART area, so that released hours for other routes.

         2. Metro is spread pretty thin. I agree, I would put service elsewhere, but holy cow, look at Sound Transit. They will continue to run express buses from Redmond to Downtown Seattle, duplicating Link. It is too bad that ST didn’t take over the UW/Downtown Bellevue route. Then it could shift money away from the 545. Given the 545 takes longer and is more frequent that would allow the 270 to run a lot more often.

      2. A Lattemann adage: one cannot take a plan across town. Plans need to be funded. The RR plan is just a dream. The ELC was a real project.

         In fall 2011, the more frequent combination of routes 230-234 was shifted to the hospital district from Bellevue Way NE; it attracted more ridership; Route 249 was assigned to Bellevue Way NE, that had less ridership. In fall 2014 reductions, the off-peak headway and span of Route 249 was reduced. Metro did not fix that hole.

   5. I wouldn’t be so sure that the ridership for the 249 is people living in those neighborhoods. It might be more from people working in those neighborhoods.

      1. And teenagers going to schools

      2. The ELC Route 249 seems almost designed to attract low ridership. It is DART; DART has deviation or poor reliability as a feature and not a bug.

         1. JW, you seem to know a lot about route design. Can you speak to why Metro avoids routing buses on Bellevue Way, between NE 8th street and NE 4th street, along the east side of Bellevue Square? A commenter recently said that one of the reasons Metro avoids routing buses on that stretch of road (like the new route 270), is fear of lawsuits by Kemper Freeman, Bellevue Square’s owner. Another commenter said routes avoid that section of road due to congestion. Thoughts?

         2. Sam, I am not in tune with the ELC team. That segment of Bellevue Way NE has severe congestion during the holiday shopping season.

         3. I’m not a planning expert but I have used those routes for a long time. I think the 270s routing on 8th is inertia: that’s what all its predecessors did. I never heard anyone suggest having it remain on Bellevue Way to NE 4th until now; it never came up in the restructure debates. I don’t know that Metro actively opposes it; it probably hasn’t thought about it. And it might say that that’s an out-of-direction detour that would increase travel time.

         4. “That segment of Bellevue Way NE has severe congestion during the holiday shopping season.”

            It can be rerouted during that season, as other routes probably are.

         5. Can you speak to why Metro avoids routing buses on Bellevue Way, between NE 8th street and NE 4th street, along the east side of Bellevue Square?

            I think the obvious answer is that the transit center and main Downtown Bellevue Link station are directly to the east, midway between those streets.

         6. @ Sam:

            I think that section of Bellevue Way doesn’t have service primarily because Metro focuses so much connectivity at Downtown Bellevue TC and a bus for that segment skips the connection.

            It’s not yet fully embraced that Link now serves six stations in Bellevue with exactly the same number of trains. While the TC will be important for connecting to Stride and to some other buses that end there , the amount of jogging (turns) to reach it does add travel time. Metro expects every bus in Downtown to serve the TC.

            Unlike Downtown Seattle that has a clear spine orientation, Downtown Bellevue density is in a large square shape and it pushes the walking distance to the TC several blocks. (To me, Downtown Bellevue would have been better served with a “spine” rather than a “hub”. By choosing to make NE 6th a pedestrian spine rather than a transit spine decades ago, Bellevue structurally solidified the awkward bus transit paths needed downtown with added turns needed for many routes. I doubt that the effect wasn’t fully contemplated at the time.)

            Can Bellevue and Metro change the transit structure? It would take decades to implement a distributed bus network structure in Downtown Bellevue that would offer frequent services on road segments perpendicular to the TC like segments of East Main, NE 10th St, 116th Ave NE, 116th and Bellevue Way. It could be done but it would be a major overhaul to the network.

            It’s not unlike how there’s no Metro route on Boren that’s perpendicular to Third Ave Downtown.

   6. Not only that, but the 270 looses the most convenient, and heavily used, 271 bus stop at Bellevue Square, across from the Nordstrom entrance. And does not replace it with an alternative convenient stop. In order to make the turns from Bellevue Way to NE 8TH, the bus stops need to be far from the intersection, then there is the matter of crossing the wide intersection itself.

      There is an easy solution to this. Have the bus continue along Bellevue Way and make the turn at NE 4TH. Then it can stop at the Macys entrance. This is not only a better stop for Bellevue Square, it is also literally the heart of Bellevue’s dining and entertainment district. It is also that much closer of a walk to the park and Bellevue historic main street. It is where most people want to GO when they go to Bellevue, for non-work purposes. As well as many work purposes–mall workers, food and bar workers, the hotels, the office towers, etc. What exactly is there along NE 8TH that is worth turning there instead of NE 4TH???

      PLEASE write to Metro and ask them to reconsider this stop placement!

      1. It sounds like you know downtown Bellevue really well. Why do you think Metro didn’t want to run the route 270 along Bellevue Way between 8th and 4th?

         1. @Sam my best guess is traffic. It would take the bus a few more minutes to go further along Bellevue Way and make my proposed stop at 6th. But this is a local not an express. It is meant to serve neighborhoods, not just get as quick as possible between transit centers. That’s what the 271 did very well.

         2. My guess is that the folks at Metro never even bothered to consider 4th. Because the 271 took 8th, the default route for the 270 was 8th. And, that was that. That and, of course, not wanting to fight lawsuits from Kemper Freeman for running buses too close to his precious mall and decreasing his property values.

         3. Brandon, I think they avoided that section of Bellevue Way in front of the mall because of traffic congestion. Asdf, while I think your “fear of Kemper Freeman” reason is ridiculous, if you were in charge of designing the route 270, would you run the route up Bellevue Way between 8th and 4th, then turn east on 4th, like Brandon suggested, or do you like what they did by having the route turn east on 8th?

         4. It’s a question of tradeoffs, but my inclination leans toward 4th.

            My thought is this. 4th is better for people actually headed to downtown Bellevue, while 8th is better for people passing through downtown Bellevue only to make connections. After accounting for walking and waiting, the 270 saves far more time, compared to Link, for people in the former group vs. the latter group. Thus, it’s the former group that Metro should primarily focus on as users of the route.

         5. I think we all know it wasn’t “Metro” that didn’t want the bus stopping in front of Bel-Square, don’t we?

         6. I think there’s a pretty clear tradeoff there. A lot of people board/deboard near the mall (8th/102nd), but far more people board/deboard at the transit center. That’s most likely for connections (to Link and other routes) or for the large cluster of offices near the TC. Is it worth delaying the riders headed to the TC by 2-3 minutes to serve the mall more directly?

            https://seattletransitridership.com/

            The stop pair at 8th/106th is fairly significant as well.

         7. Kemper knows full well there are 550 stops at BW & NE 4th, and 271 stops at 102nd & 8th, and that some of his customers and employees use them. He brings lawsuits against light rail at all or having light rail near the mall, and he thinks what’s ultimately needed is more peak-hour vanpools/carpools and otherwise Uber/microtransit is adequate. But I doubt he’d sue to stop buses on Bellevue Way between 8th and 4th.

         8. I guess I can buy the argument that a pair of stops at Bellevue Way between NE 8th and NE 4th has its complication. Because Bellevue TC is at NE 6th and NE 6th doesn’t continue for car west of 108th Ave NE, it is difficult to have a bus route serve both the TC and that part of Bellevue Way naturally. You will have to make a detour to serve that block on both direction, so I have no problem with 556’s stops near Bellevue Square.
            As for 270, it would be just nice if they can put westbound stop outside Hyatt Regency either on NE 8th or on Bellevue Way.

            The stop locations along NE 8th in Downtown Bellevue just seems so random or it is skipping some blocks to make way for traffic.

      2. What exactly is there along NE 8TH that is worth turning there

         NE 8th is the busiest arterial in DT Bellevue. Clearly somebody wants to go there. For one it is the heart of the financial district of Bellevue with Schwab, Fidelity and major banks all located in towers there. And it has Lincoln Square which would be a long hike from 4th (and it’s the north end of Bell SQ).

         Bellevue has far less transit connections north of the TC than south. If the goal is to get to UW going south from the TC is kinda stupid. And as Mike pointed out, the bus has always taken that route so moving it would be a kick in the teeth.

         1. As an aside, the “missing link” from BTC is a decent connection with S. Kirkland P&R. There used to be 15 minute frequency split between two milk run DT Kirkland buses that used 116th (aka the Medical Mile). Now there’s only one bus so it’s 1/2 hourly. And it no longer connects with the venerable 249 (RIP). There is a really fast route between BTC and S. Kirk P&R… 112th; no cross streets or reason to stop and pick up pesky passengers. Actually Overlake Senior Health Clinic is in the Bellevue Commons and would be a worthwhile stop and also be close to the Library, Jacobs (the old CH2M Hill building) and new multifamily built near there.

            Not saying the 271 should use this route but this connection with transfers to the 255 and ST Express would be pretty valuable for both people from Bellevue trying to get to most of Kirkland (or 520 into Seattle) and 520 people from Seattle trying to get to Bellevue and it’s connections. It’s just two major hubs that are geographically really close but effectively transit severed.

         2. Bernie: the 15/15 connection between South Kirkland and BTC was provided by routes 230-234 until fall 2011, then routes 234-235 until March 2020, and now Route 250 at 15/15. Since fall 2011, the service has served the hospital district.

         3. @Jack, Thanks for the memories; no doubt your route numbers are correct. But the current 250 is every 30 minutes. And it doesn’t connect to anything when my only transit option was the 249 at Northup & 116th which was not great to say the least but now there’s nothing (not great… non-existant).

            The Medical Mile now has half the service despite two large senior centers that have opened along that route. OK, they probably have private shuttles but that does nothing for the workers. Still, the bone I have to pick is the crap connection between BTC and S. Kirk P&R. It would be super fast via 112th but provide little (but maybe important coverage). OTOH, restoring the 15 minute service to the Medical Mile also has merit. And the more frequent the bus service the less time each one spends waiting for passengers to board.

         4. Route 250 has 15/15 headways on weekdays. Same as provided by the predecessor routes. A link to the Saturday schedule was provided.

         5. Bernie, you said there is no decent connection between the Bellevue TC and the S Kirkland P&R …

            The weekday route 250 schedule shows that the travel time between those two points is approximately 10 minutes. Example, leaves BTC at 5:05 PM, arrives at S Kirkland P&R at 5:15 PM.
            You keep saying the route 250 is 30 minute frequency, but M-F, from about 6 AM to 8 PM, it’s every 15 minutes.
            And arguing to move the route off 116th (Whole Foods, Overlake Hospital), and put it on 112th, doesn’t make sense. You want to move the route from where more people and businesses are, in order to speed it up, because you find the 10 minutes it takes to go from the BTC to the SK P&R unacceptable?
            Sam, aka Mr. Route 250.

         6. My bad, I was looking at the weekend schedule. 15 minute frequency is about the best you can hope for on the eastside. But people go places on weekends and a lot of people have to work weekends. Kinda sucks you have to add 30 minutes round trip to your Sat/Sun shift.

            I am not suggesting moving the 250. It provides valuable coverage on 116th and Northup. But in the afternoon you’ll wait two light cycles at 116th and Northup (sometimes more). So that’s a good 20 minutes to go about two miles (direct).

            Somehow there needs to be a direct frequent connection. The idea to run a Link track is stupidly expensive. But, if they build a line to Issaquah I’m not sure how else you’d reverse the train. I suppose they could use the OMF? And you still have to get to Wilburton which is not a walk from BTC.

            What’s needed is RR-K that connects BTC with Kirkland TC via S Kirkland using 112th, 108th/6th St. Where/if it goes from there I can’t say. Maybe east from DT Kirkland to DT Redmond via 85th? The only reason to connect BTC with S. Kirkland is to facilitate transfers. For that to be useful it needs to be an 8 minute trip with 8 minute frequency.

            I see that the 249 (30-45 minute frequency) also connects BTC with S. Kirkland. And it also connects BTC with S. Bellevue P&R. And S. Kirkland with Spring District. Why? S. Bellevue is duplicative of other much better service and is just a Link shadow. Preferably (for me) from Bel-Red rather than Spring District since it’s the higher ridership station and would provide a bit of additional service on 20th. But I can see why BTC to S. Kirkland makes the most sense as a lot of people (most) arrive at BTC from other bus routes rather than Link. Directly from Link to S. Kirkland should be all that it does. And then you could have decent frequency.

         7. The ELC has no bus route serving the Bel-Red station at 130th Avenue NE. I suggested that Route 250 serve 120th Avenue NE and the Spring District station; it could still serve the part of 116th Avenue NE with significant ridership. But no. The K line alignment is set to skip the Link station as well.

         8. I suggested that Route 250 serve 120th Avenue NE and the Spring District station; it could still serve the part of 116th Avenue NE with significant ridership.

            As I commented above I would not change the 250. It really has to stay on 116th as there are now two very large senior living centers at the north end. Diverting to Spring District is silly when that station has really low ridership. If the office towers fill then it will have decent ridership but none of it will be people that are interested in a divereted 250.

         9. “The K line alignment is set to skip the Link station as well.”

            Wait, what? The K line is a real thing? I though I just made it up. And I did an AI search to see if it existed… artificial cheese, mmm.

         10. /html.onlineviewer.net/ seems to have failed me here. Apparently WordPress has a problem with capital vs lower case HTML tags.

             [Ed. WordPress doesn’t seem to accept blockquote tags in comments. It accepts only a limited number of tags. a, b, and i are known to work.]

         11. The 226 and 250 overlap between Bellevue TC and 116th & 12th. They alternate for 15-minute service when they’re in 30-minute periods. That serves the hospitals and the surrounding clinics. The medical “mile” is a quarter mile.

             When I was living in Bellevue there was no transit on Northup/20th. That was when Microsoft started and moved to Redmond and other tech companies clustered on 20th. That frustrated me because there was no way to get to those high-paying jobs on transit without walking up from 8th. I decided I’d rather move to Seattle and have a transit-accessible job.

             Later there was a peak-only route on 20th. I attended a users’ group at one of those office parks, and since the peak-only route wasn’t running at that time/direction I walked from 8th under protest. When RapidRide B started, the 226 was moved from 8th to 12th, and the 249 was moved from 12th to 20th, so then 20th had all-day service.

             The 250’s ancestor was on north Bellevue Way (235), later 230. I don’t know what Jack means by two Kirkland-Bellevue routes (230/234, 234/235) — what was the other one (234)? It must have started after I left.

         12. Metro’s practice for the past two decades has been to take the abandoned tails of restructured routes and string them all together into one coverage route. That’s what the current 249 is. South 108th SE, Bellevue Way/Beaux Arts/Enatai, north Bellevue Way, Medina, Northup/20th, and whatever the NE 24th-West Lake Sammamish Parkway route is now — all came from abandoned parts of restructured routes.

         13. — WordPress doesn’t seem to accept blockquote tags in comments.

             I think it does. I think it works with upper or lower case tags. Let me try:

             This is inside a lower-case blockquote

             This is inside an upper case blockquote

             The convention is to use lowercase tag names, even though HTML allows both. The browser should convert the upper case (or mixed case) to lower case when it converts the code to a Document Object Model (or DOM). Worpress seems to do this just fine. So I’m really not sure why blockquote didn’t work for you, Bernie.

         14. The medical “mile” is a quarter mile.

             While the larger medical buildings are closer to 12th there are private practices extending virtually all the way to 20th so that’s a 1/2 mile. The north end has two large senior living apartments. And on Northup there is a large UW Medicine facility. But if you’re try to transfer at S. Kirkland the overlapping 226 on 116th is of no benefit. If you are going to Overlake or KP you can just use Wilburton Station.

             [I think the trick with html tags and WordPress is the open and close need to match; either both UPPER case or both lower case.]

         15. I don’t know what Jack means by two Kirkland-Bellevue routes (230/234, 234/235)

             The two routes overlapped between BTC and S. Kirkland. Then one of the routes took Lk WA Blvd to Kirkland Transit Center. I’m not sure about the other route. I think it continued on 108th overlapping the 255 until Houghton when it turn east on Old Redmond road. This was in place when I was working in Totem Lake about 10 years ago.

         16. The 230|235 was the one on Lake Washington Blvd like its ancestor 235 was. The 234 may have done what you said.

      3. The 271 should stay as it is, at least up until Newport Way. The new routing serves no purpose. A new N-S bus route would satisfy Bellevue Way much better.

         1. I’d still like a route like the original 235, from Bellevue TC up north Bellevue Way and Lake Washington Blvd to downtown Kirkland. I lived on NE 29th and my mom later lived on NE 17th. I went to both downtown Bellevue and downtown Kirkland, and if I were there now I’d be disappointed at not having Kirkland access. But I didn’t have U-District access then, so that’s something substantial.

   7. I agree. That was one of my first thoughts. You have a bus connecting the second and third biggest transit destinations in the region and the bus only comes every fifteen minutes — at best? WTF? I get that these are tough times for Metro but it seems like they are prioritizing the wrong things here.

   8. I agree, though I don’t think the 2 Line is that much slower? Metro shows the 270 taking 27 minutes from Bellevue TC to U-District, while the 2 Line is 37 minutes. I would be unhappy if I had to take the 2 Line but it wouldn’t be the worst thing especially if it avoids Montlake traffic.

      1. And 271 and subsequently 270 ends a few blocks south of NE 45th which is where most people are going.

         I don’t know what’s their problem of running 270 one just stop further so that people can make easier transfer to routes like 31/32

         1. IIRC the 271 lays over on Memorial Way. It seems a cheap solution would be to use the existing WB 31/32 stop in 45th, and move the EB 31/32 stop to the west side of Memorial Way.

         2. Routes 31-32 should lay at the Pacific Triangle to protect the rest of the network from the Fremont Bridge openings. A separate Route 30 could serve Children’s and loop around the U District station. The fall 2021 pathway for routes 31-32 is very awkward; it has too many turns and goes through too much congestion.

            The several SR-520 routes could lay on Memorial Way: 270, 255, and 542. today, Route 255 falls short and lays on NE Campus Parkway.

      2. Yeah, if you are going right from the Bellevue Downtown Station to one of the two stations in the U-District then taking the train isn’t that much slower. But the Downtown Bellevue Station — sorry, Bellevue Downtown Station — does not cover all of Downtown Bellevue. It is basically on the eastern edge, close to the freeway. Someone at 10th & Bellevue Way is certainly within Downtown Bellevue but they have a long walk to the station (https://maps.app.goo.gl/RxZroRnxM2tXk7F98). This also assumes they are going right to a station in the U-District. Just like in Bellevue, the 270 covers a lot of the area, with each stop likely accounting for dozens if not hundreds of riders. Thus the bus has the potential to save a lot of riders a lot of time and yet it is nowhere near as frequent as it should be. That is a problem.

   9. The 271 has been a significant route for students and faculty at the UW. I think the impact of the new truncation and service reduction will become more obvious later in September when the autumn quarter opens.F

3. Is it the first time Issaquah has a service that runs every 15 minutes on Sunday?

   1. Yes. It’s also the first time on weekdays or Saturday.

   2. In 2010, ST reduced Route 554 Sunday service during the recession and then did not fix it after the recovery.

4. Since this article referenced other service changes this fall, I guess it is relevant to point out that Community Transit also has a service change. Most routing changes are related to Cathcart P&R which will be served by 109/166/901.

   The information they put out is, as always, impressively informative in contrast what ST put out.
   https://www.communitytransit.org/buses/service-changes

   1. We’ll cover the CT changes and the north Seattle changes in an article next week.

      1. It seems like a real missed opportunity not to send the 109 a few more miles past its Ash Way P&R terminus to Lynnwood Station for a direct Link transfer.

         1. I can see why they don’t want to send another all-day route from north to Lynnwood, but it is unfortunate that many places that used to have peak period 1-seat ride to Downtown Seattle now takes 2-3 buses to reach Seattle any time of day.

            That’s why I think Link Extension across SR 525 to Mariner (128th) via Alderwood is much much more important than the entire Everett extension. It should happen in the next 5-8 years rather than being built along with the rest of the extension to Downtown Everett.

      2. The main non-small-ball change for CT is very relevant, with STX 535 finally getting upgraded to half-hourly on weekends. It is as if ST is planning to turn that route between Lynnwood and Bellevue into a Stride Line.

         CT 908 to Bellevue also has some small changes.

         1. Don’t forget, the 535 takes almost as long from Bellevue-Lynnwood as the train does. Functionally, it’s a bus to Bothell.

            Which is useful!

         2. And the Stride line will minimize its connection to Bothell, leaving that to a transfer, while becoming a mostly straight-ish line between Lynnwood Station and the downtown Bellevue crawl.

            That said, CT has several lines to Bothell, which will include the Swift Green Line in a few years.

5. Because several routes are not changing, the post was feeling incomplete. I found a new system map on the Metro web site to illustrate all the new East King routes here:

   https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/metro/routes-and-service/service-change#service-change-maps-2

   1. As I’m looking at this, I see that even this map is incomplete. It’s missing lines like RapidRide B.

      1. B Line have any change this time, right? I think that’s why it is not highlighted in map.

         1. B Line doesn’t have any change this time

   2. I think that Downtown Bellevue inset map is incorrect by showing 556 will be using NE 2nd between Bellevue Way and 108th Ave NE.

6. Still no bus on Woodinville -Redmond Rd yet

   1. No there isn’t.

      I saw a Facebook post hinting to that service starting in March. I’ll link it if I find it again
      .

      1. I guess you are referring to this post. https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1KgzpBe7BX/

         It says effective March 2027

         1. Correct. Thank you

7. If I’m reading the maps right it seems the new 215 isn’t going to serve the stops at High Point on the I-90 ramps, which are currently served by the 208. That’s unfortunate — I’m sure they’re very low-ridership, but they do provide access to hiking on Tiger Mountain trails and service straight from a light rail station would make this even more useful.

   1. They show up on Google Maps as being served by the 215, so I would expect that they will be served. Or I’m hopeful at least – that part of Tiger Mountain is annoying to get to on the 208 from Seattle and I was looking forward to actually being able to do a hike out there on a Sunday too.

      1. Yeah, maybe they just left it out of the map. The map is covering a bigger area now so I could see that. The stop doesn’t get a ton of riders but it is hard to see them just getting rid of it.

      2. Yes, both Google Map and Pantograph show the stop pair and they are direct rendering from King County Metro GTFS data.
         The service change map is less credible than GTFS because if GTFS is wrong, there will be in some serious trouble when they start the service.

      3. The route was marketed as replacing the 208 with a reroute in Issaquah, but no changes further east were mentioned. So it’s likely an oversight in the map. We’ll know in a week, if you want to do a first-day ride.

   2. I’m not seeing a significant difference between the 218 and the short 215 trips that terminate at Issaquah Highlands.

      Perhaps all those trips should just be renamed to route 218 and name the trips going to North bend as the 215.

      1. This makes more sense, except that it would leave a “hole” in the 215’s headways west of the Highlands. In the old days of paper schedules you could do things like that by simply printing one “combined schedule” with the line ID at the left. Now with everyone digital, if a rider doesn’t know that the 218 is an overlay of the 215, they might see “30-30-60-30-30-60” headways and say, “Weird!”

         1. You can have single combined schedules online too. Metro does that with the 131/132. https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/metro/routes-and-service/schedules-and-maps/schedule?route=131-132

      2. ELC Route 251 is due in March 2027; would have been cute to use Route “202” as it uses SR-202. ELC Route 222 could have been assigned “251” as Route 931 was the new number of former Route 251 in about 2013.

      3. Delphoxy: perhaps there should not be a one-way peak-only Route 218 any longer.

8. I hope ST is ready to have all 3-car trains on the 2-Line on weekdays. Forcing riders from several retiring routes, particularly ST’s flagship workhorse, the 550, will bump up peak ridership west of Mercer Island.

   1. Agree. My chance of running into 2-car 2 Line train is pretty high these days. If these are all they have, then I suspect that the additional order are enough to fill the gap to run all 2 Line trains 3-car.
      Maybe they are still not done testing all the Series 2 LRVs they received, or some Series 1 LRVs are not actively running.

9. Let me sing the praises of ST and Metro putting their heads together to have a single bus route between Bellevue and UW. Sure, more of the saved hours should have been used to increase span of frequent service, but removing the portion of STX 556 north of Bellevue, which did not compete well time-wise with the local-stops 271, made the network much better.

   1. I doubt ST’s move has anything to do with the 271, or that ST and Metro jointly decided on “a best solution”. ST does what it wants with ST Express, and then Metro has to fill in around it. See for example the 522’s move from Roosevelt to Shoreline South, and which stations the new ST Express night owls don’t serve.

      ST wanted service hours to upgrade Issaquah service so that Issaquah could benefit from East Link. It had to take the hours from somewhere, so it took it from the Bellevue-UW segment. The 2 Line is intended to be the primary successor for Bellevue-UW regional service; that was one of the reasons it was built. The 271/270 doesn’t figure in because it’s a different transit market: it’s primarily for the stops in between and is not an express.

      1. I fear Mike is correct. A previous generation of planners at the two agencies did work closely together. They did projects together in 2002, 2008, and 2011. For ELC, I noted that the two agencies treated the potential WSDOT SR-520 reversible I-5 ramp differently in P2; ST ignored it with its Route 544; Metro Route 256 was to use it. Note how the FWLE Link and bus structure timing was so far off.

10. It’s not clear to me if the new 215 route will service some of the local issaquah stops? I’m specifically referring to some of the more obscure stops on NW Sammamish Way Rd or East Lake Sammamish Parkway?

    1. Here’s the future map and schedule. It’s nonstop from the Eastgate freeway station to the Highlands. The 269 map is the same, and has a closer-up view of the Highlands routing.

11. Whoo-ee! Folks from Issaquah are UP IN ARMS on ST’s Facebook page this morning. Some are panicking incorrectly because they don’t understand that they’ll be getting service to south Bellevue, but it is one angry hive of hornets.

    1. Do any of them want the 4 Line, if the transfer is at Wilburton Station?

       1. The 4 Line is far in the future. It would be better with bus.

    2. Tom: please share a link to this discussion. I looked and did not find it.

       1. It showed up in the feed on my phone because FB knows I’m interested in transit, but I don’t know how to identify a particular FB post (and comments) there. There’s no URL at the top.

          I’ll try to find it on the computer.

          1. Ah, I think I found it. It is a post from “Councilmember Sarah Perry” from August 13 at 10:01 AM I found it by querying for “sound transit changes in issaquah”

          2. It came to my feed today. It included complaints about the deletion of Route 372 as well.

    3. Some are panicking incorrectly because they don’t understand that they’ll be getting service to south Bellevue

       Why would anyone coming from Issaquah care about S. Bellevue? Sure they can grab a 2 Line to Seattle with a slightly better chance of getting a seat than at MI. Good luck getting home on the bus stuck in traffic.

       If they want to get to DT Bellevue then a transfer to Link instead of just “going to the damn TC” is a loser. I guess someone living in Enatai and working in Issaquah would love it.

       There is nothing at S. Bellevue but a swamp and a P&R. And there never will be. Yes, it gets “great” ridership now but it was a terrible decision that cost a fortune and severely limited any eastside expansion. Thank you Claudia for giving us this “magical place” (her words).

       1. The trunk, all-day and weekend ST 556 buses will go to downtown Bellevue after they stop at South Bellevue. They’re replacing the 550 on Bellevue Way. The stop at South Bellevue is for folks headed into Seattle to change to Link. The folks on FB don’t like that.

          1. I can understand why they are upset. The I-405/I-90 mess in the afternoon will add an unpredictable but substantial amount of time. People that want to transfer to Link could just do it at BTC with very little time penalty (overall). If the goal is to transfer to Link rather than serve Issaquah to DT Bellevue then just go to MI instead and add frequency with the service hours saved. Replacing the service on Bellevue Way from the loss of the 550 shouldn’t be Issaquah’s problem. RR-K S. Bellevue via Bellevue Way to BTC then on to Kirkland TC via S. Kirkland. I know RR isn’t ST branding so it would have to be an ST Express if that money was used. But it would be “Bellevue/Kirkland money” instead of screwing the Issaquah to Bellevue route.

          2. Bernie is correct. The impact the southbound Route 111 trips will be worse.

          3. Bernie is correct.

             First time for everything!!!

             Seriously, the backup from I-90 EB to 405 is monumental and it’s only going to get worse, much worse, as companies are forcing more people to drive back into the office so their expense for empty office space doesn’t look so bad. And then you add to that the freight transportation need as the metro area adds population and the fact that I-90 is a primary route for “Amazon” logistics into and out of the PNW (SeaTac + Port of Seattle & Tacoma). S Bellevue’s “magic” is starting to look more like a hoax.

             Fact, when I’m driving back from Ski Patrol Sunday evenings I exit at 148th rather than risk the typical 405/90 gridlock. That’s a Sunday evening!!!

          4. This last week I taking my kids to a camp in the Somerset neighborhood, so coming from Mercer Island I was using the Factoria ramps. And let me tell you, coming back at 9:15am, the backup from WB I-90 onto the Bellevue Way ramp was epic – backed up all the way to where the Factoria onramp joins I-90, so that I was having to make an insane maneuver to merge left from near-stopped on the ramp to a through lane that was going freeway speed. I don’t even want to know how long it would take to get from there to South Bellevue Station. If last week is any indication, 556 reliability is going to suffer horribly during peak.

             Makes me wonder if someone going Seattle to Issaquah would be better off using the 215 or 269 from Mercer Island and then transferring at Eastgate or maybe even going all the way to the Highlands and backtracking. The added transfer is another time penalty though.

       2. “There is nothing at S. Bellevue but a swamp and a P&R. And there never will be. Yes, it gets “great” ridership now but it was a terrible decision that cost a fortune and severely limited any eastside expansion. Thank you Claudia for giving us this “magical place” (her words).”

          It’s all about the P&R. A P&R station outside downtown Bellevue is better than a P&R at Bellevue TC. (Counterexamples in downtown Lynnwood, Renton, and Burien.) And it was publicly-owned land and is centrally located between the east-west and north-south travel patterns. I wish it had more housing and retail in the station area, but that’s the suburbs, and the Mercer Slough wetland limits development.

          “Severely limited any Eastside expansion” of what to where?

          What would you prefer instead of South Bellevue station?

          1. What would you prefer instead of South Bellevue station?

             Good question. I don’t see alternatives that are much better. Consider the train heading east, after serving Mercer Island. It could head north after serving Factoria. But then what? Follow Richards Road and then cross back over to the other side and loop around? That means crossing 405 three times. That gives you two mediocre stations, one at Factoria and the other at around Richards Road & 26th. The trip from Downtown Bellevue to Seattle (on Link) would be slower than it is today and you still haven’t connected to Bellevue College. That would cost a fortune, too.

             You could just try and follow the freeway but that would likely mean no stations until you get right to downtown. If you are going to do that you might as well just run a bus doing the same thing. Also run express buses from Redmond — which is what ST is doing anyway.

             I see no better option than turning north between Mercer Island and 405. At that point you have a couple options. One is to turn north on 108th Avenue. This is a quiet street without much density (https://maps.app.goo.gl/c77NfsYsGsrKSuNp6). I just don’t see that being possible — there would be too much local opposition. It would end up being quite a bit more expensive than what they did and you wouldn’t get that many walk-up riders. Bellevue Way is the best option.

             Once you’ve decided to go Bellevue Way then of course you add a station in South Bellevue. The problem is they didn’t stay on Bellevue Way and instead went on 112th, a road so obscure they don’t name the station after it. If they had followed Bellevue Way they could easily add a station at Bellevue Way & Main. The could even add two: one at NE 4th and the other at SE 3rd. Even with the one station at Bellevue Way & Main you you get a lot more walk-up riders and you greatly improve the potential network. You would have two Downtown Bellevue Stations and the buses wouldn’t need to serve both (e. g. the 270 would just keep going on Bellevue Way). But that is beside the point. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the South Bellevue Station.

             The issue is how Link interacts with the buses. If you are coming from Issaquah, you have two choices: go to Mercer Island or go to South Bellevue. Neither is ideal. Mercer Island is much better for trips to Seattle. South Bellevue is much better for trips to Downtown Bellevue. So Metro and ST run buses to both places. This sucks since it means spending extra money on service, which Metro doesn’t have. This leads to weak headways and thus rider angst.

             It also means that riders in some places have only option (which only works well from Downtown Bellevue or Seattle). Even if they are lucky enough to be served by buses from both areas the headways are watered down if they are coming from Downtown Bellevue or Seattle. There are a lot of buses headed to Issaquah Highlands from Link but they serve two stations.

             But again, I don’t see any particularly bad decisions here. The general framework of both East Link and the buses are about as good as can get. The main problem is money. The East Side (just like the West Side) needs to stop pretending that the choo-choo will serve all of our transit needs. We will continue to be heavily dependent on buses which means we should be spending a lot more money on them (instead of spending it on dubious projects like Issaquah Link).

          2. What would you prefer instead of South Bellevue station?

             The alternative, which was significantly cheaper and could save even more if Link extends to Issaquah was to use the abandon BNSF ROW (B7 alternative) switching to 118th where the train crossed 405. The group of the City Council that opposed this argued that it would be bad for Greenbaum Furniture (now closed) and that it was “impossible” for Link to cross I-405 so there never could be an extension to Issaquah. There was one plan put forward to build a large parking structure into the Enatai hillside that would serve an elevated station above Bellevue Way. That one looked pretty pie in the sky. The other solution for a P&R was to build a large garage in the area of the defunct Wilburton P&R.

          3. It is a good central position that you can reach via highway easily. I wouldn’t say it’s bad as a major transfer point.

             Transfer points don’t have to be destinations.

             Link has many other stations with destinations.

          4. a good central position that you can reach via highway easily.

             Unless you are traveling during the AM or PM peak.

          5. “Transfer points don’t have to be destinations.”

             Ideally both would be together, so that you can walk to a transfer, walk to a cafe while you’re waiting, walk to a supermarket or store to do an errand, walk to an office job, or walk to home. Having all that in one place like at Bellevue Downtown creates a network effect.

             But P&R drivers only take Link or express buses, not local buses. They don’t have to be within walking distance of anything, so their P&R can be at an isolated station.

             Still, it’s not always possible geographically to put a bus transfer at the downtown station without a time-consuming detour/backtrack. It’s a tradeoff judgment whether there’s a compelling reason to in some particular case. In general it shouldn’t be the primary trunk routes (e.g., Stride between Renton and Bellevue), but instead secondary routes from smaller cities/neighborhoods (Issaquah, northeast Renton), if you have to at all.

          6. We’re talking about three different things that may not all have the same answer.

             1. Should the 2 Line have a South Bellevue station?
             2. Should the 556 from Issaquah serve South Bellevue station for transfers? Alternatives would be a reroute to downtown Bellevue, or going straight to Mercer Island. South Bellevue Way would then need another route.
             3. Should future Issaquah Link serve South Bellevue station? The alternative would be to go north somewhere between 112th and the Eastside Rail Corridor. Since Issaquah Link is so far into the future and hasn’t had an alternatives analysis yet, I’m inclined to table the debate until then.

          7. It’s best when a light rail line has variability at each station. Some stations can be in great high rise office or residential districts, some at busy retail, some at medical centers, some at universities, some at recreational destinations — and even some at park and ride lots.

             To me, the bad transit corridor planning is when there are several stations in a row that have similar functions. There should not be a park and ride garage with nearby apartments for several stations in a row that may cover a distance of 7-8 miles (Like Lynnwood Link). That creates crowding a few hours a day and empty trains the rest of the time. .

             The only garages on East Link are Mercer Island, South Bellevue, Redmond Technology and Marymoor Village. The other remaining stations have some but not lots of parking for train riders, and these other three even have more than parking happening. So I’m cool with a large garage at South Bellevue. If anything, it could be bigger (as I noticed the top level was mostly full this week). It would only be terrible if there were more similar stations in the corridor.

             And I did witness lots of transferring bus riders waiting at South Bellevue this week — even before the upcoming service change. It’s for more than Link riders who park.

12. “Overall, this restructure is focused on reducing redundant service with the 2 Line while improving frequency and reliability”.

    Redundant service remains.
    Route 630 duplicates the 2 Line. MI would have been better off with more intra island service and less waiting. The 2 Line serves several stations with First Hill service. Route 630 attracts few riders per platform hour.
    Route 566 duplicates the 2 Line between BTC and RTS.
    Route 256 ignores Link; it does not meet the 2 Line at BTC; it does not meet Link at the UW Stadium station. It weaves across I-5 in a short distance. It runs on downtown Seattle streets relatively empty.
    The Metro Flex application seems to duplicate the fixed route network.

    Frequency
    Posters have pointed out that routes 220 and 270 will have less frequency and longer waits than Route 271. Route 556 will also be taken from the U District market.
    ST still has not consolidated routes 542 and 545.

    Reliability
    We have to wait for the data.
    I expect Route 111 to have poor reliability outbound between South Bellevue and I-405; those ramps are often jammed in the p.m.
    Route 556 may have slowness leaving South Bellevue as well but less so.
    Route 240 is shaped like a fishing knot. The deviations may make operators and riders dizzy.

    Coverage was not listed. Metro was brave to delete so much coverage; that was not allowed in the last generation. Some seems too much. The former Route 246 coverage areas were very low ridership. But not serving Richards Road or 116th Avenue NE seem a bit much. The extent of Route 226 was reduced east of Crossroads. Will riders make a fuss?

13. At least point, I only hope that 270 will improve 271’s reliability issue.
    From my personal experience, I think 271’s crowding was often due its delay. There were multiple time I saw U District-bound 271 running 20+ minutes behind schedule when it was trying to reach Bellevue TC.
    It is a very long routes that passes through many chokepoints. Maybe an 270 turning around at Bellevue TC will serve UW-Bellevue trip more efficiently with real 15-minute headway.

    1. The split of Route 271 is a separate issue and choice from its pathway and service level.

       1. I have a feeling they may through route the 220/271, even if they’re separate routes. Maybe not during peak to ensure buses are on time. They do that for some other routes.

    2. Does anyone with a right mind seriously think the new routing will improve delays? Bellevue Way will suffer from much more congestion. It’s simply a longer route with more stops and more traffic lights compared to the existing routing.

       Even Metro’s schedules put the new route at least 5-10 mins slower than the existing 271.

    3. The 20+ min late U District bound ones are operators, especially on weekends. There is no traffic. People don’t believe me when I say it’s the operators fault. It’s the operators fault. They probably show up to work late or take longer breaks.

14. Do you have plans for a first-day or first-week ride on any of the routes you don’t normally use? Which are the first routes you want to see?

    My first choice is the 269, because I’ve only seen Sammamish a couple times years ago and only in a car. But I don’t know if it’ll be in the first week.

    1. I’m looking forward to taking my bike to North Bend on a Sunday on the 215. Not quite as good as Trailhead Direct but it’ll be year-round.

15. So far nobody has talked about the spectacular improvements for the 269. Before COVID there were plenty of peak hour 216 and 218s to and from downtown Seattle with park and rides in Sammamish being well utilized. After COVID a limited 216 was introduced, but ridership had been lost; the park and rides remained empty. The question is will the new peak hour 269 15-minute headway (used to be 30 minutes or worse) to the new destination at Mercer Island attract Sammamish commuters (if they still exist) as it is not a one ride option and a little slower that the previous services to downtown Seattle. The other spectacular improvement is the 30-minute weekend headway (no weekend service at all since the Saturday only pre-COVID service). So, Sammamish now has all day 30-minute service to 2 line stations at Mercer Island and Marymore Park. Will that attract some much-needed riders to the 269? Maybe not, the present service to Marymore has little off peak traffic and occasional riders may not be happy with having to pay for both bus and light rail if they don’t have a topped up Orca card. Let us be hopeful that some Sammamish residents will leave their cars at home, otherwise I can see this new service getting some cuts in the not-too-distant future. By the way nobody has mentioned that the new 269 routing provides yet another freeway express option from Issaquah Highlands to Mercer Island. The bus service from Mercer to Highlands is better than the 2 service from Mercer Island to downtown Seattle!

    1. Everything was better before COVID. Our transit, office development, and economic development has went to the gutter now.

       The transit agencies are hell bent on screwing any riders outside of downtown Seattle, and random places like Issaquah and West Seattle where their corrupt councilmembers live.

       1. And downtown Bellevue and downtown Redmond and Judkins Park.

    2. I look at it from the perspective of somebody who doesn’t have a car or doesn’t want to drive or take a taxi. We had a commentator in that position in Sammamish, who at first was below driving age and then didn’t want to drive. Half-hourly all-day transit is a godsend compared to the previous peak-only, irregular, or no service. It’s not just to go to Seattle but to go to anywhere. Trips to downtown Redmond will probably be popular, and there are also transfers there.

       1. Half hourly off peak transit does exist on the 269, but not at weekends.

    3. “Will that attract some much-needed riders to the 269? Maybe not, the present service to Marymore has little off peak traffic and occasional riders may not be happy with having to pay for both bus and light rail if they don’t have a topped up Orca card. Let us be hopeful that some Sammamish residents will leave their cars at home, otherwise I can see this new service getting some cuts in the not-too-distant future. ”

       Of course it will attract more riders. There’s the pent-up demand like former commentator Peyton, and others who gradually realize they want the flexibility the new service provides. And people who move to Sammamish partly because of the new bus service, who wouldn’t have moved there before. And people frustrated at gas prices. And on and on. It may not double the ridership but it will be noticeable. Metro’s threshold for keeping service is lower than people assume, and there are also more riders than people realize because they don’t see them. So Metro may keep the service even if there are no more riders, because the existing number of riders is enough to justify all-day service: Metro just hasn’t had the resources to provide it until now.

       1. There will definitely be new riders. The question is whether there will be enough to justify the route. The 269 performed very poorly as of the last system evaluation (https://cdn.kingcounty.gov/-/media/king-county/depts/metro/documents/about/data-and-reports/2025/2025-system-evaluation.pd). Maybe it will go up with the direct connection to Eastgate and Mercer Island (and not just the trips to Redmond and Issaquah). Maybe it won’t. It is clearly a coverage route and my guess is it will continue to be one.

       2. You think being a city of 67,000 isn’t enough in itself to justify an all-day bus route? That’s really US thinking.

       3. Half hour off peak service on the 269 does exist at present, but not at weekends.

16. This is ridiculous that route 218 and route 554 no longer go to downtown Seattle. Eastside bus riders already lost route 216 and route 219 after COVID and now route 218 and route 554 are eliminated to downtown Seattle and are forced to transferred in South Bellevue Park and Ride to take the 2 line light rail to downtown which it will take longer for our commute. I guess this is one way to make commuter to take the light rail and to show that light rail ridership is way up… Thanks Metro and Sound Transit for the “gift” of taking longer to get to work and to get home.

    1. Objectively, the light rail should be faster with a Mercer Island transfer. There are plenty of other choices that you could criticize them for though, that makes it harder for commuters.

17. This East side update is generally a good service update for Link connectivity… Unlike the South Link changes.

    In particular South King county has very weak Link connectivity but they’re cutting service to Seattle. And they expect us to use infrequent Sounder service instead when Link connection takes you to more places.

    What they should be doing is sending the express buses up to SODO via I-5 (which is like the Mercer Island for the Eastside), but avoid the Seattle traffic slog.

    For example, suppose someone wants to go to the UW. If they don’t have express service to SODO, they need at least a 3 seat ride. Sounder doesn’t improve that experience, and transferring to Link before SeaTac makes you ride the slow part of Link. While Kent Station and South is worth the savings, Tukwila Station is not so most of the areas north of Kent have a transit desert with no reliable express Link connections.

    On the other hand, Eastside buses take you right up to Mercer Island so you get into Seattle much faster and can continue up to the UW and further north. The disadvantage is the airport, but that may be improving as more E-W service gets built like Route 164. Also 168 should be extended to Link, and 906 should be restored back as the 155 and go to SeaTac instead of Tukwila Station.

18. I’m curious to see how the frequency improvements with the new routes will affect commuters who used Route 271. The mention of reducing redundant service with the 2 Line makes sense, but it’s crucial to ensure that the changes do not leave gaps in coverage for those relying on bus connections, especially in areas like South Bellevue. helpful site

19. I don’t get why there are so many comments saying that Issaquah and Issaquah Highlands will be better off with the removal of 554 and 218 respectivecly. The forced transfer to line 2 is extremely bad at peak hours, often 15m worse.

    Try using google maps to search for routes from Issaquah Transit Center or Issaquah Highlands Park and Ride to the Seattle Central library for example, and select a departure date before and after the transition (eg. Aug 26 vs Sept 2) – journey times go from ~40m -> ~50m, and ~35m -> ~50-60m respectively.

    if you factor in that the direct buses tend to arrive early in Seattle, that widens the gap.

Comments are closed.