Fall 2026 Service Change: Snohomish County and North King County

151 Replies to “Fall 2026 Service Change: Snohomish County and North King County”

1. ST Express 535 (operated by CT) will get half-hourly service on weekends during the day.

   1. I ride this route often and wish that the SB Bellevue-bound bus would stop across the street from where the NB Lynnwood-bound one does on Sunrise Drive. Riders now have to walk down a very steep hill to the Park and Ride to catch it.

2. Route 522 sure does a lot of aerobatic loop-de-loops at the Bothell/Woodinville end. Hard 150 degree turn onto Kaysner Way for a stop in the middle of nowhere; presumably to serve the P&R. That’s going to be primarily peak only riders so the majority of the stops nobody is going to use it. Or as the linked map shows the stop will be on Main just past the fringe of Old Bothell. Didn’t realize the Post Office was a major transit destination. This is very strange routing that seems designed to miss any density at all.

   The population center of DT Bothell is all the new development next to Pop Keney. Why not turn north from 522/Bothell Way on 98th Ave NE and continue onto NE 185th St. Utilize the stop in front of Bothell Library. 185th turns into Campus Way. After stopping at UW follow Campus Way back to 522. Loop through the “transit center” at 405/522 since apparently they didn’t design the flyer stop to actually function as a transfer point. Then stay on 522 to Woodinville. This avoids getting on 405 at Beardslee only just to exit to 522 EB. Looks like the plan is to use the GP lanes which are going to be moving at a crawl during peak.

   I really don’t understand going all the way out to 195 before doubling back to get to Woodinville P&R via a scenic bypass through the shopping center. I though maybe it was to serve Woodinville HS but the stop is well south of 195th in the heart of an industrial wasteland. I guess if you’re going to bypass all of the density in Bothell you want to do the same for Woodinville. The bus exits at 132nd (the Woodinville exit) but gets back on 522. There’s nothing close to this stop. But if you go into Woodinville and take 171st (aka the Woodinville Bypass) you go right by all of the new apartments and City Hall. You can still loop through the shopping center if that’s really necessary but the P&R is literally right across the street. And all of the older more established stores are on the SE and NE corner of 140th & 175th (175th is Woodinville’s “Main Street”.

   1. Route 522 sure does a lot of aerobatic loop-de-loops at the Bothell/Woodinville end. Hard 150 degree turn onto Kaysner Way for a stop in the middle of nowhere

      The future Stride 3 BRT will replace route 522. It won’t head down kaysner way anymore. instead it will turn north onto 98th ave. king county route 331 will use the new route down 98th. i think route 522 will also be rerouted down the new path though im slightly unsure.

      https://i0.wp.com/seattletransitblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Screenshot-2026-03-01-at-10.47.23-PM.png

      Shows the new stops in more detail

      I really don’t understand going all the way out to 195 before doubling back to get to Woodinville P&R via a scenic bypass through the shopping center. I

      Later with the full stride 3 brt the bus will after the 195th brt station terminate at the bothell/woodinville transit center in the northwest corner of the freeway interchange

      https://i0.wp.com/seattletransitblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/image-10.png

      1. Looking at that second link to the S3 route I see they indicate “new parking” (*2034 & beyond) at 98th Ave NE. I’m just dumbstruck that land here would be “banked” for a future parking structure.

         1. That one was cancelled. Originally it was planned for a 300 space parking garage at the pop keeney (stadium) parking lot

            https://www.bothellwa.gov/2320/Lot-P-South

            however it is now planned for apartments there.

            Sound Transit completed an analysis to explore transit-oriented development with a parking garage on this site to support future bus rapid transit. Sound Transit withdrew from the discussion in August 2021 when project realignment deferred the park-and-ride to 2034.
            A building permit for the construction of 7 story mixed use building with 201 residential apartments (200 affordable and 1 market rate), community center, and 206 parking stalls was submitted for review.

   2. I believe eventually 522 or Stride 3 and Swift Green (extension) will both be using NE 185th. This street was designated as the transit corridor in Downtown Bothell and are currently undergoing some improvement.

      https://bothellwa.gov/1955/NE-185th-St-Utility-Roadway-Improvements

      1. I watched form one of the Community Transit boarding meeting recording maybe in 2024. They briefly touched the subject. They said they were working with City of Bothell and Sound Transit to finalize the transit element of the street. The idea was that Swift Green and Stride 3 will share stops in Bothell along NE 185th St.

         1. Because… no student or faculty would ever thing of using there U-Pass?

         2. Whoops, last comment got put too far up the tree. But I’m confused as to why CT is involved with this in Bothell when 185th is over a mile south of the county line and running east/west is entirely in King County?

         3. “But I’m confused as to why CT is involved with this in Bothell when 185th is over a mile south of the county line and running east/west is entirely in King County?”

            Because the Swift Green extension is primarily for Snohomish County taxpayers going to UW Bothell and downtown Bothell. Forcing them to transfer at the county border is a bad transit practice, especially when the routes aren’t ultra-frequent. The city of Bothell is split between King and Snohomish Counties. Residents in the Snohomish side should be able to get to their own downtown and university easier than to anywhere else.

         4. Yeah, there is not much at the that part of Snohomish County. In contrast, that part of King County has the commercial area of Bothell and the college. It is like before Link. There were buses from Community Transit heading to Downtown Seattle. But there wasn’t much going the other way (other than maybe to Boeing).

   3. This is the current path of the 522 in Woodinville/Bothell. I agree, it seems flawed in a few areas. Serving the park and ride seems like a waste. It is worth noting that the 372 does the same thing. In my opinion the 372 is worse because it doesn’t keep going to Woodinville. It could easily just loop around and serve the park and ride. That would take longer for those who parked and rode but be better for everyone else.

      Back to the 522. I would think that after serving the UW Bothell stop they would just go through campus, come out the other side before heading to Woodinville. The current routing get you rides on Beardslee, but not that many (maybe ST expected more). Worse yet, once it gets to Beardslee it doesn’t keep going (and serve the relatively dense area to the east). Something like this would be a lot better. It seems to be the worst of both worlds.

      To be fair, the routing has been in place a while. A lot of the development is fairly new. Traditional 9-5 commuting has gone down over the years. The park and ride used to be a big deal — now it isn’t. The 522 used to get about 200 riders a day from at Kaysner Way (next to the Bothell Park and Ride). Now it gets maybe a dozen. Likewise, the development in the area is fairly new as well. It should be changed but given that this is fairly temporary (and the route will be replaced by Stride fairly soon) I can understand why they kept it like it is. AS WL mentioned, a lot of these issues go away with Stride 3, although the issues surrounding Beardless don’t.

      1. I would think that after serving the UW Bothell stop they would just go through campus, come out the other side before heading to Woodinville.

         You’d think! There is some new development up at the Beardslee exit (195th) but it would be an easy walk to the UW stop. As it is the UW stop is at the very north edge of a fairly sprawling campus. Going straight through they could put the stop more like in front of or just south of Cascadia CC which would be the center of campus.

         If you do go up to 195th you’re right, just keep going through the North Creek business park. Honestly there’s not much there there but most of the day it’s going to be about the same travel time and when 405 is gridlocked possibly much faster. But then just stay on surface streets through Woodinville instead of getting on 522 to go out to the 195 exit.

         1. “I would think that after serving the UW Bothell stop they would just go through campus, come out the other side before heading to Woodinville.”

            Average weekday ridership – 0

         2. If you do go up to 195th you’re right, just keep going through the North Creek business park. Honestly there’s not much there there

            The route I suggested goes by a bunch of apartments. That is about as dense as anything in Woodinville and yet it is basically on the way. This routing just seems to be the worst of all worlds. Go up to serve just one stop and then abandon the area entirely by getting on a notoriously crowded freeway only to get off the freeway almost immediately before serving a handful of places to the east. That is a lot of time spent with a bus picking up no one. Oh, and that freeway trip I mentioned does involve HOV lanes to enter but not to exit as it is probably too hard for the bus to work their way over to the far left in that short distance.

            But again, that is the 522. Stride solves the problem a different way which is to not get close to campus (and not serve Woodinville entirely). Since it skips the campus going via the freeway is a bit shorter. I still prefer going through campus just because it serves the campus better. This is more important than serving a poorly performing stop Beardslee. It might be a bit slower but my guess it would be more reliable. One issue is that a bus has to detour a bit just to get to the main road (Campus Way). If they opened it up just to transit then a bus could just keep going on 185th all the way across. The eastbound bus just moves a few feet (to about here). Westbound you could just skip it (since CT serves Beardless & 110th).

         3. The route I suggested goes by a bunch of apartments.

            Yes, if you’re going up Beardslee to 195th it would make sense to just cross the freeway and take the surface streets into Woodinville. There’s a few more low density apartments just north of 522 across from Home Dopey. But once you are in Woodinville the big development is off of 171st which also avoids the almost always congested 175th through the center of town. I’m curious what will happen at the old Molbak’s site

      2. “The park and ride used to be a big deal — now it isn’t. The 522 used to get about 200 riders a day from at Kaysner Way (next to the Bothell Park and Ride). Now it gets maybe a dozen. ” Few riders may use the stop on Kaysner, but far, far more than a dozen use the other stop, just around the corner, on 522, the south edge of the park-and-ride. Pre-COVID, the park-and-ride filled by 7:30 a.m. It’s taken a few years to build back up, but the lot is edging toward full by late afternoon. Bothell residents who live more than a mile from 522 are using it, as are people driving over from Woodinville, Kingsgate, etc., for the commute and people headed downtown for games and events.

         1. “The park and ride used to be a big deal — now it isn’t.”

            Blame the light rail for killing the age of the park and ride.

         2. South Bellevue P&R is doing fine and dandy judging from Link usage last Sunday afternoon. Some forty people got off each train. Only a single digit were traceable to the bus stops or a bus, so the others must have gone to the P&R. I saw a larger number going to the P&R. I can’t confirm where the majority went to, but it wasn’t to the bus stops because I could see them, so they must have gone to the P&R because where else could the go?

         3. Yeah, S. Bellevue and Marymoor are whoopers of a parking structure. I guess there’s more on the original 1 Line route (& Overlake Village & Red-Tech). But from south of Rainier Beach Link has been the last nail in the coffin for P&R lots ;->

         4. i think the south bellevue p&r is getting a bit more popular for both seattle and bellevue office workers especially they usually have to pay for parking like 10/15 a day. though notably it seems mostly people are using it for bellevue?

            (idk if sound transit has the stat but i am curious of more are using it for bellevue or if most are using it for seattle)

         5. In this case it seems some were going to a Mariners game or coming from it.

         6. Link park and ride might be fine but some of the eastside parking and rides serving buses have declined.
            My coworker told me that they had issues finding parking at Canyon Park pre-pandemic from time to time. Now it is not an issue anymore.

         7. “(idk if sound transit has the stat but i am curious of more are using it for bellevue or if most are using it for seattle)”

            I think you can sort of tell from morning peak boardings. My guess is majority is going to Seattle.

         8. Absolutely the bulk of the traffic from S. Bellevue is going into Seattle. Not having free parking on the eastside is the exception whereas in Seattle it’s the norm; or you have to hunt for street parking that isn’t metered. And yes, on days like today the train is packed with Mariners fans. I’d guess maybe 60 people got on this morning at S. Bellevue; most wearing Mariners garb but a few Philly fans.

            I do occasionally see people riding from Spring District to Bel-Red which must be for the free parking.

         9. @Kim — OK, you are are right. I got confused. The main stop for that park and ride — the one off of SR-522 — is listed as “Woodinville Drive & Kaysner Way”. I was probably confusing it with “Kaysner Way & Woodinville Drive” which is around the corner. So, the park and ride does get a significant number of riders. Specifically it gets about 115, split evenly between the two buses (the 372 and 522). So that means about 60 riders on the 522. That is still a lot less than the 200 it used to carry. Kenmore Park and Ride is more extreme. It is now less than 50, compared to the 300 before the pandemic. Ridership on the 522 is about half of what it was before the pandemic and much of that is because of the big drop in park and ride ridership (although it isn’t as bad as I originally wrote). So while I screwed up the numbers, I think my main point still stands. Before the pandemic, this route was dominated by the park and ride (outside Seattle). Now it is a lot more spread out.

         10. PSRC keeps a database of park and ride usage:

             https://psrcwa.shinyapps.io/park-ride-dashboard/

   4. Speaking of the Bothell Park and Ride, anyone know of any future plans? Right now it is served mainly by the 372 and 522. The 372 is going away. The future Stride 3 will replace the 522 and it won’t be close to the parking lot. It is also close to the 239 but that serves areas that are fairly easy to park at (there isn’t much point in parking and riding). What will Metro do with the lot? I see a few possibilities:

      1) Just sell it to a developer. This has happened from time to time.
      2) Sell it to Bothell to be used as free local parking. This allows the businesses to grow without worrying so much about parking.
      3) Keep it, in hopes that Metro (or ST) will run an express in the future. If not for the rapid rise in working from home, I could see this as a possibility. Imagine Stride is so full that they are running it every five minutes during peak. You can run it every four minutes but that is expensive and doesn’t get you much. You might as well run a few buses from the park and ride, even if they make all the same stops once you get to Bothell Way. You save a little money since the bus isn’t working its way through Bothell while also serving those park and ride users.

      Anyone here anything?

      1. If we close Bothell Park and Ride, then where will people park?

         Kenmore? Too far

         New parking in Downtown Bothell for Stride S3? Sound Transit is basically cancelling and delaying their parking projects nowadays.

         Bothell/Woodinville Transit Center? There will never be a spot available even on the weekend.

         Woodinville? First of all, too far, second of all, it won’t have the Stride S3.

         UW Bothell? Smart decision if you want your car towed!

         Exactly. Nowhere. Sound Transit hasn’t thought the side effects of their projects deeply and obviously needs to.

         1. Too far from where? The only thing Bothell P&R is close to is DT Bothell. You’ve got Kenmore if you’re east/northeast, Canyon Park if you’re north, Woodinville if you’re east and Brickyard if you’re south. And if you’re in the general Inglemoor/Norway Hill area it’s much easier to take Simons Rd into Kenmore than fight you’re way into DT Bothell.

      2. The P&R is two parcels owned by King County. I’d wager Bothell would be interested in some sort of three way purchase and swap agreement to acquire the remaining three parcels west of Lazy Wheels mobile home park that would complete Bothell Landing. The P&R would be much better commercial/mix use than the land along the river. The problem is Bothell doesn’t have a secret stash of cash for park development. They struggle with just trying to maintain the Wayne’s Golf Course property they acquired.

   5. The intended pathway was NE 185th both east and west of SR-527 but Bothell allowed too much parallel parking west of SR-527. This was noticed in March 2020 and new Route 230 had to be changed from its ordinance version. (A similar parking issue has impacted routes 225 and 239 in Kirkland; see K line of future).

      1. Too much

         1. [Fixed]

   6. Weirdly Metro’s service change map in this post shows the 522 taking your preferred routing in Bothell but the TransitTimes map shows what you describe. Based on other replies I think the TransitTimes map might be more accurate.

      Yeah, I’m not sure why the 522 goes all the way up to 195th then swooping back down instead of just getting of at SR 202 and heading east on 175th or 171st.

3. Do we know why Metro Routes 333 and 365 are still routed up Meridian Ave to N 155th Street to/from Shoreline South/148th Station? In the original Lynnwood Link restructure proposal, these routes were supposed to follow N 145th Street to/from Shoreline South/148th Station; however, construction on N 145th at the time resulted in a long-term re-route. With construction on N 145th Street now complete, why aren’t these routes returning as originally proposed?

   1. I guess Metro just wants to keep it like that since they’re too lazy to make their promises. Doing so keeps the new developments in the area oriented to the light rail station busless.

   2. Maybe they haven’t gotten the official OK from Shoreline and Seattle. Ultimately they are the ones that approve or reject the bus stops. The bus stops still say “temporary closed” and you are right — they are done with the project. I see no reason why they don’t run the buses on 145th, especially since backtracking via 155th is so poor. It would be quite reasonable (and I would argue better) if the buses went across on 155th instead of 145th. But the way they are doing it now is stupid (and hopefully very temporary).

   3. When were the roundabouts completed? Is Metro waiting for a biweekly or is some one asleep or is it a training issue? Shoreline bragged about helping transit.

      1. The roundabouts at the I-5 freeway interchange were completed in late June along with the rebuilt section of N 145th St from the west side of the freeway to Corliss Ave N. Although the eastbound shelter still exists at N 145th St/Meridian Ave N, past stop locations at N 145th St/1st Ave NE show no signs of returning.

4. Adding to the criticism of the NE Seattle KCM service change, I think one missed opportunity with this change is not rerouting the 45 to turn onto Roosevelt and 12th instead of the proposed 15th turn near Roosevelt Station. Turning on 15th instead adds no new stops accept at 14th. until the route joins the 77 on the ave. All it does is halves the frequency of busses going to the departing from Roosevelt to the U district at several densely populated stops.

   1. Combined, the 77/45 would provide service every 6 minutes at peak and 7.5 Minutes all day. From Roosevelt to the North Ave/Central UW campus.

   2. I agree. This would also combine with the 67 for similar trips. Someone who is generally headed south (e. g. to 55th & Brooklyn) would be able to take any of the three buses. Even if they are headed to 55th & Roosevelt it might be best to to use that bus stop and take the first bus that comes along. Otherwise riders are busy checking their phone to see which bus stop to head to. Oh and isn’t just stops that are in between the stations. If you are in the neighborhood and just want to go ten blocks down the road it is the same thing. Then there are places like Campus Parkway — between the stations. Walking to Link is an option but riders may just want to stay on the surface. The same goes for transfers to buses like the 31/32.

      Interestingly enough we’ve been having a debate on the subject (off line) about this very subject. I prefer having the 45 turn. The alternative is to have the 77 turn which means you would get double the frequency at 65th & 14th. I think it is more important to have double service at Ravenna & Roosevelt because it better complements Link. If I’m at Ravenna & Roosevelt and want to go to the U-District, Link is too far away. In contrast if I’m at 65th & 14th I’ll just take Link.

      In my opinion the strongest argument for keeping the 45 the same (and changing the 77) is that it provides a better connection for 45 riders heading to Link (e. g. Green Lake to Capitol Hill). While that is true, I don’t think that is worth it. I think it is best if the 45 turns on Ravenna. I won’t make counter arguments (I’ll let him — or others — make them).

      1. You have it mixed up,

         “77 turn which means you would get double the frequency at 65th & 14th”

         According to the map at the top of the article the 77 does not serve 14th and 65th. That’s the 45 turn. Which continues straight on 65th to serve 14th. We both agree on the 77 turn

         1. According to the map at the top of the article the 77 does not serve 14th and 65th.

            No. I’m saying it could. That is an alternative. There are two good options:

            A) Have the southbound 45 turn south on Roosevelt and share service with the new 77.
            B) Have the southbound 77 turn east on 65th, then south on 15th, following the current route of the 45.

            Both work, but we both think the first option is better. What is really bad though is this:

            C) Have the new 77 go south on Roosevelt until Ravenna. Have the 45 continue to stay on 65th until 15th before turning south. Thus the two buses are like ships passing in the night. Despite the fact that both routes go to the same place, riders can’t go to a single stop that serves both.

            They are planning on going with option C, despite the fact that it violates the Metro Service Guidelines (and common sense). Oops.

         2. There’s also a southbound stop on 15th south of 65th.

         3. There’s also a southbound stop on 15th south of 65th.

            Is there? From what I can tell it goes from NE 65th St & 14th Ave NE to University Way NE & NE Ravenna Blvd without any stops. I don’t see it on Google Maps or the data we got from Metro (as of Mar 27, 2026). I also don’t see it on Google Maps even though you can clearly see the 45 on the sign for the stop on 14th (https://maps.app.goo.gl/QetKnGhk2BjSW9xb8). Both that stop and the routing on 15th were added at the same time (the bus used to follow 15th which is the routing we want it to revert back to).

   3. The 75/45 has been good to get from the U Village area to destinations on the Ave and in Roosevelt. E.g., destinations at 47th, 50th, 55th, and 65th; it’s better than transferring at Campus Parkway. I was concerned about losing this, but a 75/77 through-route serves almost the same destination areas.

      Before 2016 the 48 went up 15th to 65th. I took it at 55th, and I go to the produce shop at 65th & 15th. When the 45 was split from the 48, the route shifted west to University Way to backfill the 71/72/73. There was some surprise and pushback that it didn’t remain on 15th, although not that much since it isn’t that far, and keeping frequent service on the upper Ave is important.

      Now in this restructure, the 77 is overlapping on the Ave south of Ravenna Blvd, and Roosevelt/12th between Ravenna and 65th. The 45 is remaining on the Ave south of Ravenna Blvd, and 15th between Ravenna and 65th. This is probably to respond to that pushback. 55th is south of Ravenna Blvd so it will have double-frequency like the rest of the Ave will. Since this is a high-ridership/high-pedestrian/high-retail corridor, this makes sense south of Ravenna Blvd. North of Ravenna Blvd, I can see the arguments either way for what the 45 should do. But I think Metro probably sees it as a way to strike a longstanding complaint off the list.

      1. The stops in the Roosevelt/U-District/U-Village area are a complete mess. I’ve been working with someone on the blog here about a proposed restructure. We got bogged down in the details and debates like this one. But we both agree — what exists now is terrible. Here is a good example. Imagine you are trying to get from Northgate Station to the HUB. There is a bus stop nearby (https://maps.app.goo.gl/ruaMnMXukjMM7HKd8). There will now be 14 buses an hour serving that bus stop. This should be easy.

         Except wait. The 65-67 doesn’t go there — it goes along the outside roadway. Even if it did go through campus, it doesn’t serve the U-District Station (not unless it was rerouted and that was difficult the last time they tried it). So you have the 72 and 75-77. Good, right? Wrong. They serve entirely different bus stops. So while it seems as if you have 14 buses an hour, you really only have 6. If you just miss the 72 I suppose you could walk over to the other bus stop and see if it is coming but it really shouldn’t be like that. They should all serve that same stop. They should all go through campus. By “all” I mean some combination of the buses that come from the east (the 67, 75 and 72).

         What is true for that combination is true for various other ones, like the one that “Exponent” mentioned.

         1. Northgate Station to the HUB

            HUB as in Husky Union Bldg? Does UW allow buses back on campus again?

         2. Yes, the HUB is the Husky Union Building. There are still some bus routes on Stevens Way. The university was trying to get Metro to reduce or eliminate them, or at least get them off lower Stevens Way (south of Pend Orielle Road where the HUB is). I don’t know how much it’s still pursuing that, but the number of routes has been reduced. The 31/32 were rerouted from Stevens Way to the 45th viaduct, partly to get them out of congestion and maybe partly to reduce the number of routes on campus. That’s ironic because earlier their ancestors were moved from 45th to Stevens Way to get them out of 45th congestion. I used to take the 75/31/32 through Stevens Way before U Link and Northgate Link, and it was a bottleneck there. I don’t ride east-west through that area enough now to tell whether 45th really has improved and is faster than Stevens Way or not.

         3. Northstate Station to the HUB doesn’t seem like a great trip for buses, though; simply taking Link to U-district station and walking would be much faster.

         4. Northstate Station to the HUB doesn’t seem like a great trip for buses, though; simply taking Link to U-district station and walking would be much faster.

            Sorry, I thought it was obvious. From Northgate Station you take Link to U-District Station. From there you take a bus. It is a classic “last mile” problem. Yes, of course you can walk. But that takes a long time (about 13 minutes according to Google Maps). That is much longer than most people will walk. It is about 8 minutes by bus. The problem is that despite a steady stream of buses heading that way, none of them serve the same bus stop.

5. “Route 512 will have new late-night trips on Saturdays and Sundays.”

   You should probably point out those are trips departing from SoDo

   1. “You should probably point out those are trips departing from SoDo”

      I wish they did :(

6. Michael, you forgot the change where the 908 is being extended to Bellevue Square. Also display the route changes to the 109, 166, and 901. They have a little more change than just serving the new P&R (at least for the 109 and 166).

   1. There’s a 900-series route in Bellevue? Ah, it’s CT 908, a Snohomish-Bellevue peak express. The number is unfortunately in Metro’s van-route coverage range.

      1. “The number is unfortunately in Metro’s van-route coverage range.”

         Thanks for reminding me the irony about Community Transit making changes in King County. That too applies to building a Community Transit facility in “that other county”.

      2. Route 981: A school commuter service (Lakeside School) that stops at the I-405 ramp and SE 8th Street.

   2. I was surprised they didn’t run 908 that way from beginning, maybe they were unsure about articulated bus running through that mini-roundabout, but if 45′ single-unit ADL bus can enter it, it should be easier for 60-ft articulated bus to turn there, right? Plus, 532/535 are occasionally run by the same type of fleet.

7. Mentioning that there is a typo in the 77 map. The leftmost street going to Shoreline CC should be Greenwood not a second Roosevelt.

   1. Roosevelt Ave NE lol

   2. Wow. The 77 projects has been doomed from the beginning. First they forgot to run a bus on Lake City Way. Then instead of sending the 65 to Bitter Lake they combine it with the Lake City bus (a terrible combination). Now Metro can’t even get the map right.

   3. Yeah, that’s a pretty bad error because it left me guessing what the actual route is supposed to be.

8. Does anyone actually believe stvwill deliver amy of the stride lines on time? I see a lot of comments predicated on ” when stride comes”…

   1. It’s too early to predict whether Stride will open on time. It depends on future factors. I think most people would be happy if they opens within 1-2 years of their estimated time, because that would be pretty good for large ST projects. And once they’re open, people will breathe a sigh of relief and be so glad that after a while it will feel unimportant that they opened late, because they’re running now and people will start to think “How could we have gotten along without it?” Because of the frequency increase and speed increase, making it more competitive with driving. I think the start dates have already been pushed back, so that includes the most likely delays. Additional delays will depend on future problems, which we don’t know yet.

      1. I think they can always just open on time but without all of the additions they promised. All they need is the special buses and special bus barn. Oh, and the money to run the buses. OK, yeah, I could the date slipping again.

         1. Ross, this is not a criticism of you or Mike, but Jeshua HC, as many billions of dollars that ST is spending getting to Neverett and Dacoma Tome, they have to worry about a couple of hundred million for bus service on I-405?

            What’s wrong with this picture?

         2. It is not just that. They are wasting money on the bus projects. It is really weird. I’m sure there are people wondering how you can waste so much money on bus projects. Rail, sure, but buses? Yet somehow they are doing it. They are buying special electric buses. They are spending half half a billion dollars just because they don’t want to force drivers to take a left turn half a mile down the highway. There are plenty of things they could do to make these projects a lot cheaper which would easily allow them to run more buses but they aren’t interested.

            The same is true with the various bus restructures. They could run a lot more buses from the South Sound to Seattle if they simply had the bus stop in Federal Way and keep going. They could run more buses from the East Side to the UW if they stopped running buses all day that mimic Link (by running from Redmond to downtown). They could speed up the buses from Everett to Lynnwood and save a little money if the bus skipped Ash Way. They could provide much better service for Everett, Mukilteo and Edmonds station with buses instead of North Sounder. But ST is set in their ways. They don’t seem to be interested in the best value when it comes to transit and then when things go wrong they don’t look for cost effective alternatives. They simple reduce quality (like getting rid of stations) or they delay projects.

         3. Stopping in Federal Way won’t help riders. Link is way too slow. The 2 Line is okay but 1 Line is not. And ST will force the transfer fiasco at Chinatown once the 3 Line opens.

         4. Stopping in Federal Way won’t help riders. Link is way too slow.

            Yes it would. Riders heading to a Link destination (like SeaTac) would get off the bus and transfer. Riders heading to Seattle would stay on the bus. You wouldn’t even need the 574. That would save a huge amount of money that could go into running the buses more often or running other, more useful buses.

         5. I don’t mind the 594 getting more trips without adding a stop at Federal Way, so long as Federal Way to Tacoma gets moved up to 10-minute all-day headway first.

            Ideally, the 574 ought to get extended on the south end to Olympia (which could involve getting rid of some Intercity Transit trips that only make it as far as Lakewood).

   2. The more I examine what Stride operations look like and the places where it stops, the more convinced that its start date will not be very important to the public — unlike a Link extension.

      I think it will instead just be considered a faster version of ST Express. Note that Link extends existing lines (get to stay on the train) while Stride 1 and 2 lines are still stand-alone and will often require bus transfers for those using it — and the transfer time and inconvenience penalties will offset the travel time advantages it could have offered.

      For example, ST touts that S1 will be 15 minutes faster end to end. But the added time to transfer will eat into that if two transfers are required to use it — like from Seatac to Redmond. The time to first make a trek between a Link platform and a Stride stop will be 3-5 minutes and the average wait time will eat another 4-8 minutes for each transfer. Those improved 15 minutes (actually less for trips not on the full length of the route) become negligible to a rider — especially since there will still be congestion at several places on the route (like South Renton) and SeaTac travelers will likely be carrying luggage.

      1. I think it will instead just be considered a faster version of ST Express.

         Was it ever supposed to be anything else?

         But that doesn’t mean that the change won’t be popular (for some riders). Imagine they made the bus trip to Tacoma a little bit faster and ran the bus every fifteen minutes. This would be a really big deal. I’m not saying this is in the same category but if you are in Lynnwood and commute to Bellevue (or just want to go to Bellevue in the middle of the day) this will be a big improvement. The bus will be faster and more frequent. Of the route is very dependent on transfers but that is true of much of Link as well, especially the extensions.

         1. “… but if you are in Lynnwood and commute to Bellevue (or just want to go to Bellevue in the middle of the day) this will be a big improvement.”

            While it’s great for Lynnwood’s Link station specifically , it’s not for Mountlake Terrace or western Shoreline. While it’s great for Downtown Bellevue it isn’t for Overlake or Redmond.

            Because it involves transferring, Stride’s biggest travel time enticement is limited to 6 other stops for S2 and 4 other stops for S1 if it’s serving mainly Downtown Bellevue. While several of these stations are transfer hubs, transferring twice is still a big time suck if the can go directly or transfer only once with Link.

         2. While it’s great for Lynnwood’s Link station specifically , it’s not for Mountlake Terrace or western Shoreline. While it’s great for Downtown Bellevue it isn’t for Overlake or Redmond.

            But you could say the same thing about a Link extension. While it is great for Lynnwood it isn’t great for Edmonds Community College. While it is great for Mountlake Terrace it isn’t great for Downtown Edmonds.

            While several of these stations are transfer hubs, transferring twice is still a big time suck if the can go directly or transfer only once with Link.

            Who said you only transfer once with Link? Lake City to Bellevue College. Northgate to First Hill. Sand Point to the Seattle Center. The main thing is, Stride 1 and 2 both serve the main destination on the East Side, which is Downtown Bellevue.

            If anything, the bus is more reasonable since running next to the freeway for a bus allows it to serve places (like Totem Lake and a stop close enough to UW Bothell to walk) without a significant detour. In contrast, running the train next to the freeway is just a bad idea.

            As I’ve said many times, I’m mostly disappointed in two aspects of the project:

            1) Running special buses with a special bus barn and special buses.
            2) The idea that you should only have one route on each corridor.

            The former is really expensive which helps explain the latter. After blowing all of that money they didn’t have any left for a set of overlapping routes (like a normal busway). But given one route on each corridor I probably would have made the same choices for the most part. The only thing that I would do differently is extend them deeper into Downtown Bellevue, like the existing 550. Which gets back to the main point. These are just ST Express buses that happen to be very, very expensive.

         3. running the train next to the freeway is just a bad idea.

            I don’t see that as a universal truth. I think the 1 Line north is proof in point. Given that Link is a “Metro”, no “commuter rail”, no a bird in the sky, no a plane… I think the North Link section has proven a success. It’s jam packed full even with the doubled service of the 2 Line.

            The 2 Line; options were either steal the HOV bridge from I-90 or negotiate the cost of adding rail to the new sinking bridge on 520. Door #3 was build your own damn rail bridge across the Lake (or tunnel). Long term door #3 was the right answer IF there was a competent agency in charge. So Nix #3 and you’re stuck with freeway running.

            Tacoma Dome. I know most hard core transit addicts hate on the T-Dome as a destination. But “build the damn train” says I-5 w/o the local “gimmie” parking garages is the right answer.

         4. I agree with you, Bernie.

            First of all what matters is where the stations are. Trains don’t stop on tracks in between stations.

            Second, it’s better to not have stations where there are wide interchanges that take lots of land. Even just a few blocks away from all the ramps (with a freeway bridge) makes access easier.

            ST has done an okay job with station placement. It’s not great at Mercer Island, Judkins Park, Pinehurst and Star Lake. A few others have some land constraints like Overlake, Redmond Technology, MLT and both stations in Shoreline — but at least none of them are placed in the middle of full, wide interchanges.

            I see the planned ones that need repositioning away from freeway interchanges are Factoria, Eastgate, Ash Way, South Everett and maybe East Tacoma. Hopefully these get shifted as they all get further study.

         5. ST has done an okay job with station placement. It’s not great at Mercer Island, Judkins Park,

            Given the route was fixed the MI & JK stations are A OK. Full disclosure, I haven’t used MI but observe it’s usage. Judkins Park is OK. It is what it is because it spans two big Seattle routes. Can’t think of how this could have been laid out any better. Some have opinioned that it bias’ 23rd over Rainier. I don’t think that’s true from a distance metric. The current issue is how the City is dealing with illegal camping in the park and not patrolling the access path. Really get the feeling, using this to daily for work, that the current admin wants to make it bad to further their own adjenda.

         6. The station locations are based in large part on where the cities wanted them. That in turn tells what kind of community the city sees itself as, and who they think will ride the train, for what purposes, and how they’ll get to the station.

            Ideally a station is at the center of a walkable neighborhood, away from freeways and large garages, like those paintings of a Paris cafe with a metro station steps away. U-District, Capitol Hill, Roosevelt, Beacon Hill, and Downtown Redmond stations are like that. The rest of the south Seattle stations at least have some things in walking distance. Spring District and BelRed stations can be seen as a new urbanist version of that.

            But Lynnwood, Shoreline South, and Northgate stations are at existing P&Rs next to freeway entrances. This misses the chance to have a walkable urban environment immediately around the station. Bellevue Downtown is near the eastern edge of walkable destinations, and a bit far from Bellevue Way or 106th. Lynnwood is building massive housing north of the station, but it doesn’t seem to have much retail, or to meet a wide range of shopping needs. That’s all at Alderwood Mall to the extent it exists, and the opportunity for a lot of walk-up retail and businesses right around Lynnwood station seems to not be reaching its potential.

            The cities could have pushed back on ST and insisted on better station locations. But they didn’t.

            BRT has to use existing arterials and freeways if you don’t want to build a new right of way for it. And usually the reason BRT is chosen is to avoid the cost of a new right of way. Between Bothell and Bellevue, or Renton and Bellevue, there is no alternative to 405 with reasonable travel time, so it has to use 405.

         7. >> running the train next to the freeway is just a bad idea.

            I don’t see that as a universal truth.

            Yeah, and smoking doesn’t always cause cancer. But that doesn’t mean it is a good idea. There is plenty of research showing how running next to the freeway is a really bad idea (https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/files/economics-of-urban-light-rail-CH.pdf). There are a number of reasons. The trains compete with cars. But if you run right by the freeway you are bound to lose unless it is rush hour. You are basically building commuter rail but at the high cost of a metro. The approach ignores the buses. Express buses can complement a metro by providing faster express trips. That is a solid approach taken all over the world for several reasons. The farther out you go, the more likely the trip is “commuter” oriented. Riders are heading a long ways, into the city (not to a nearby neighborhood). The trips tend to be peak-oriented. Buses do a good job of providing this functionality at a fairly low cost and high performance. They can pick up various people in the neighborhood, get on the freeway and run express to the metro (or even downtown). In contrast, a metro by its very nature should make lots and lots of stops along the way. Thus a rider heading from Lynnwood Station to 185th Station benefits greatly because of Link. But someone from Lynnwood heading downtown in the morning would do just as well with an express bus running in HOV lanes to 148th (if one was possible). There is plenty of value in having a freeway-intercept for express suburban buses (like Lynnwood and Federal Way stations) but that doesn’t mean that it had to be those stations or that we had to build so many right next to the freeway.

            Consider the line from UW to downtown. It should have had a lot more stations. But some wanted to go via the freeway. Do you really think that would have been better? Roosevelt Station was supposed to be by the freeway as well. Does anyone regret moving it? Meanwhile, the first freeway station is a huge mess. It screws up the bus network while walk-up ridership is hammered by development that occurs everywhere but next to the station. From there the train serves parking lot after parking lot next to the freeway. The alternative would be serving Aurora. Again, do you think Pinehurst Station is better than a station at 130th & Aurora? What about 145th? 185th? Is there even a single station by the freeway that is actually better than a similar one by Aurora? Whether you are looking at the network or the walk-up ridership, it would have been much better to serve Aurora. (Again, with the caveat that you need a good suburban bus-intercept station).

            The idea that we are some special snowflake unlike every other American city is silly. We are making some of the same mistakes while avoiding others. Sure, in some cases it makes sense to add a freeway station. It definitely adds value to have that suburban bus-intercept. But station after station right next to the freeway is a really bad idea and a huge missed opportunity.

         8. First of all what matters is where the stations are.

            Yes, and building station after station right next to the freeway is a bad idea. No one is complaining about the train running over I-90. I certainly wasn’t.

            But that is beside the point. The only reason I brought up Lynnwood Link is because Al claimed that Lynnwood Link is so much better than Stride 1 and 2. Somehow freeway bus stations are terrible (because people have to transfer) but freeway Link stations are OK. That is completely backwards. A freeway station (like Totem Lake) is just fine. It allows express buses to do double-duty. They can run express from places like Lynnwood while also serving a community like Totem Lake. All for (what should be) relatively little money. You aren’t building a lot of brand new track connecting the stations. The freeway is already there. In contrast, building Northgate, Pinehurst, 148th, 185th, Mountlake Terrace and Lynnwood Station all next to the freeway cost a fortune and it would have been much better to just go over to Aurora. It might have cost more, but probably not a lot more.

            Mike is right. A lot of this was because the cities “wanted it this way”. Fair enough. They should have hired experts, listened to them and then decided what to do. But ST from its very conception (with its goal of a “Spine” from Everett to Tacoma) wasn’t likely to follow such a responsible approach

            Anyway, I don’t know what any of this has to do with Stride 1 or 2. Stride 1 and 2 are simply express buses. That is what they were always going to be. The idea that we would build some sort of brand new busway (away from the freeway) to serve suburban rider is just absurd. Where would it go?

            Oh wait. We did have a plan like that but ST shot it down. Is that it Al? You thought that Stride 1 and 2 were going to be like that, with buses running through urban areas and then criss-crossing to provide regional mobility? If so, yeah, I guess I can see why you would be disappointed. It is not going to be like that. It was never going to be like that. ST didn’t want that. They will run a set of very overpriced express buses instead.

         9. [Holy cow, this thread has drifted, now we are talking about East Link for some reason. ]

            OK, I’ll join the party. East Link is pretty good. Unless you wanted to spend a lot more money (by say, digging up Jackson and Rainier and putting more stations in Seattle) you didn’t have much choice. They could have had better coverage in Bellevue/Redmond if they stayed away from the freeway longer but that isn’t the biggest mistake. No, the biggest problem by far was that they put the station at 112th Avenue instead of Bellevue Way. East Main Station is (you guessed it) too close to the freeway. It is also too close to Bellevue Downtown Station. In contrast, a station on Bellevue Way would provide significant additional coverage of an urban part of this highly stratified area. It could also dramatically improve the bus network.

      2. The problem is the nature of the Eastside: much of the area is low density, and large centers aren’t in a straight line. A north-south BRT route can only do so much, and 405 is where it is. At the same time there are hundreds of thousands of people in the S1 and S2 corridors, and they need trunk transit to tie it together. People in Renton want to go to Kirkland, and an imperfect frequent transit service is better than none. People in Bellevue want to go to Renton, and the fact that there’s miles with little there in Newcastle and Kennydale is irrelevant: they want to go to Renton, they want access to Renton jobs and shopping and cultural events, and they don’t want to spend 30 or 60 minutes waiting for a bus or have it take an hour to get there. There’s tens of thousands of people who might want to do that at least occasionally. So we should have a Stride network that does that.

         The biggest thing that would solve the station-access problems people raise would be multi-line BRT. Two lines can do the original S1 and S2. Another could go from Bellevue to downtown Kirkland. Another could go from Woodinville to Bellevue. Another could serve Factoria, another Southcenter, another SeaTac. They’d all use the shared segment and stations but branch off to reach strategic dense walksheds and shopping centers — whatever the route endpoints might be. There are alternatives and tradeoffs with that that can be decided later.

         This was one of the alternatives for Stride north and south: multiple lines, so that some would serve the near-adjacent centers that the chosen alternative leaves out. The reason ST didn’t choose this alternative is it would cost more, because you’d have more buses running in parallel. So ST got what it wanted: two BRT corridors that cost relatively little and leave areas unserved.

         We should aim for better than that, and build a full multi-line system that provides comprehensive transit. That’s a way to really solve the problem so that we don’t have to come back and do it again because we didn’t really solve it. That won’t fit into ST3’s budget, but it’s something that can be added on later when the political climate is ready for it. The HOT lanes and stations will be there, ready for more routes to use them. That would also better leverage the big investment we made in making the transit-priority corridor. The additional cost of more lines and buses would be smaller than that.

         1. Yes, I think a multi-line BRT would have been better. I think the Stride trunk should have had at least two branches for both S1 and S2. I get how the Stride idea is to have a stand-alone high-frequency route like a RapidRide line. It’s just the freeway distances are so vast and the freeways aren’t great environments to catch a bus unlike a commercial arterial.

            Another enhancement may be to simply add stops beyond the ends or in the middle. These S1 and S2 routes as planned just don’t serve enough stops, especially with so many set up primarily for park and ride.,.

            S3 will perform better I think. That’s because of its operation on an arterial. Although it’s still sad that it skips Lake City, which got a healthy number of STX riders

         2. the freeways aren’t great environments to catch a bus unlike a commercial arterial.

            But on on the eastside there isn’t a parallel arterial to 405 like (somewhat) there is with 99 in Seattle. Especially when you are north of the King County line there is nothing other than Bothell Everett Hwy which they are addressing with the Green LIne.

         3. “Stride idea is to have a stand-alone high-frequency route like a RapidRide line.”

            No, there’s a difference between Stride and RapidRide. The difference is like the Geary Blvd route in San Francisco, with local, limited-stop, and peak express variants. RapidRide is full-stop, every 0.25-0.5 mile. Stride is limited-stop every 1-2 miles, like Link, Swift, the 512, and the 522. Express is longer nonstop segments like the 545, 554, 574, and 594.

            The local counterparts to S1 are the F and 240. The local counterpart to S2 is the 250 and whatever routes are north of Kirkland TC. S3 was going to have a local shadow the 372, but Metro later decided not to, so I think S3 had to add a few stops to compensate, and thus it’s kind of in between. But since S3 is a shorter distance than S1 or S2 or most ST Express routes, having closer stop spacing than those other routes is less of an issue.

         4. You’re describing Blue Streak service, Mike, with in-line freeway stations to make it even more useful. It was a great idea, and with the “7X’s” lasted forty years.

            Blue Streak is NOT “Park-N-Ride” express buses. Sometimes a line will pass by a garage just before getting on the freeway; that was the original Blue Streak’s secret sauce. But it was important to have the neighborhood collector/distributor portion of the route.

         5. @ Mike:

            I agree that Stride is not RapidRide in its structure. What I am saying is similar is only the concept of running a high frequency bus route with paid fare areas. That’s pretty much it.

            Plus the shortest RapidRide line is G — which has 11 one-way stops compared to 5 for S1 and 7 for S2. The other RapidRides have lots more stops.

            Had S1 and S2 been combined as one continuous route with 11 stops it may have made more sense. But that’s not what ST is currently planning .

         6. Stride 1 and 2 are freeway express buses. That’s it. The Blue Streak model is of course superior. You serve the neighborhood, get on the freeway and head to your destination (in this case Downtown Bellevue). Freeway stations help connect the various routes by allowing transfers that don’t involve a huge amount of backtracking. They also serve areas that happen to be on the way (places like Totem Lake). Ideally you give a rider the choice between taking a bus from the neighborhood (running every fifteen minutes) or a combination of buses on the freeway (running every few minutes). And sure, you can call the freeway a busway which somehow makes this BRT but that seems like a stretch.

            In contrast, the Kirkland BRT plans really seemed like BRT. It involved a unique busway that cars can’t use. It cuts through the city in ways that the freeway doesn’t. Waiting for a bus is actually pleasant, as the electric (trolley) buses are quiet and there is no truck or car traffic. It serves a mix of locations instead of just one line (see page 70 of that doc).

         7. The problem is the nature of the Eastside: much of the area is low density, and large centers aren’t in a straight line. A north-south BRT route can only do so much, and 405 is where it is.

            I think for Stride 2 brt it is fine. But for Stride 1 brt from burien via renton to bellevue they should have actually stuck with the right side freeway BRT.

            while it would have gotten stuck in traffic more they also could easily ahve a lot more flyer stops at sunset boulevard and coal creek pkwy. instead literally the only major stops are just burien, south renton and then bellevue.

      3. “Al claimed that Lynnwood Link is so much better than Stride 1 and 2.”

         The one aspect that Lynnwood Link offers better than Stride is that it’s an extension rather than a stand-alone transit line. There is no need to change trains. So even though the Lynnwood Link segment is entirely along a freeway, the entirety of both 1 and 2 Lines still include many stations away from a freeway.

         It is an opinion consistent with those from Ross and Mike that Stride as a stand-alone line running mainly between median freeway stations is an inferior service to what it could be.

         Or in other words, one thing much worse than a freeway-adjacent station is to have only freeway- adjacent stations for an entire frequent line.

         1. “The one aspect that Lynnwood Link offers better than Stride is that it’s an extension rather than a stand-alone transit line.”

            And it’s more frequent. Even just the 2 Line is minimum 10 minutes every day until 10pm. Stride will be lucky to have that: it may be 15 minutes daytime and 20 minutes evening. So if you don’t take the train you run the risk of maybe sitting at the bus stop for 20 minutes. Many people prefer to get moving sooner, even if it adds 5-10 minutes to the trip.

      4. For that long of distance, I’d totally accept 5-10 minutes longer travel time for not driving in unpredictable traffic and not paying for parking. And wait time is not a problem if can be well predicated if you are doing the same commute every week Regardless, a lot of people probably will drive to park and ride directly, so they don’t even need to transfer.

         In my real commute, I trade 20-30 minutes for that every day.
         The problem is not travel time, the problem is unlimited cheap parking at work and sometimes you need to go somewhere else after work where there is absolutely no reasonable transit alternative.

9. There are many buses that could deservingly have a “lake-night trip”, but I’m afraid the CT201 is not one of them.

   1. “There are many buses that could deservingly have a “lake-night trip”, but I’m afraid the CT201 is not one of them.”

      Is that so? Well I believe the contrary.

   2. Andrew did a post about CT ridership recently.

      The northern portion of 201/202 is being converted into the Gold Swift Line in a few years for reasons backed up by data.

      1. Er, Michael Smith

10. This brings up an interesting issue. Folks have argued for extending the 372 to Kenmore or Bothell. While I’ve been opposed to this in the past, I now support doing this, but only half as often. The 72 is scheduled to run every ten minutes (midday weekdays). That works out to twenty minutes if half the runs are extended northbound. That is pretty much ideal. A thirty minute will struggle. Riders will get sick of waiting and just take the 522/Stride and transfer. A fifteen minute bus could work but that means spending a lot of service hour on a relatively weak route (when riders can just transfer). Twenty minutes seems like the “sweet spot”. It is often enough that it can compete with the 522 but no so often that it costs a bunch of money.

    If my math is correct, it would actually save money. Getting from Lake City to South Shoreline (148th) Station is cheaper than going to Kenmore, let alone Bothell. But it isn’t twice as cheap. According to the existing schedule, in the middle of the day it takes 26 minutes to get from Lake City Way & 30th to the UW Bothell (the terminus). For the 72, it will take 14 minutes to get 148th Station. Thus if we truncate half the bus we (theoretically) save more than half the money.

    But wait, there is more. The 331 is being extended to Bothell mainly to cover stops that the 522 and Stride won’t cover. I think this is a worth choice since there are some relatively high ridership stops in there. With the 372, you don’t need the extension of the 331. You save even more money. At the same time you give those riders better frequency along with a trip that is probably more popular.

    There are winners and losers, of course. You have less frequency along 145th. I don’t think this matters that much, given riders still have the 522 and 65. Likewise, there are a couple bus stops along Lake City Way — at 137th and southbound 130th — that lose out. Those riders will have to use the less frequent 65. Or they can walk to 130th and catch the more frequent 72. Neither of these issues are big enough to make up for the benefit of sending half the 72 buses to Bothell (in my opinion).

    Of course I wouldn’t call both versions the 72. I would call the one to Bothell the 372 and the one that ends at Lake City the 72. That also makes it much easier to track the overall performance of the 372 version. For example, right now (all of) the 372 ends at Lake City on weekends. That would probably continue (which means that Metro would save even more money). But maybe it is worth giving this a shot on the weekends. We can see if a half hour bus actually works (when competing with the 522 and Stride, which I assume will run every fifteen minutes on weekends). If so, then maybe if times are tough we cut back the 372 to every half hour on weekends. If not, then we only run the 372 version weekdays (just like today).

    1. Are you saying to have half the 72s terminate at 130th (the former Fred Meyer site), and the other half go to Bothell? Or to have half the 72s go to Bothell and half go to Shoreline 148th?

       The former approach is a lot like the current 522, where only half the buses continue from Bothell to Woodinville. The latter approach is a lot like the old 71/72/73, where they combined for high frequency from downtown to the U District, and then split off towards Wedgwood, Lake City, and Jackson Park respectively. I think the latter makes more sense, since without Fred Meyer as a neighborhood hub, there really isn’t much of anything at 130th anymore other than a convenient bus layover.

       If it seems like 145th Street is oversaturated (between the 72, 65, and 522), then this would help to balance service levels in both areas, while also addressing the complaints about Metro and ST disconnecting Northshore cities from Lake City, and also ensuring there isn’t a transit gap in north Lake City between 130th and 145th.

       1. addressing the complaints about Metro and ST disconnecting Northshore cities from Lake City, and also ensuring there isn’t a transit gap in north Lake City between 130th and 145th.

          Roger that, Lake City really got screwed over. While I feel for Woodinville, having lived there from before our son was born until he was through HS, a suburb that… to be frank, is sprawl, is far different than an established Seattle neighborhood. One that has up zoned substantially over the last decades. Did Lake City get the shaft because of it’s high crime problem? When we lived there it was one of the safest/sleepiest places in Seattle. The only “excitement” was summer cruising on Lake City Way. That probably generated more SPD response than a murder does today. Of course SPD didn’t have much else to do on a Saturday night back then (early ’80s).

       2. Are you saying to have half the 72s terminate at 130th (the former Fred Meyer site), and the other half go to Bothell?

          Yes. Otherwise you wouldn’t save money. It is actually very similar to the existing routing of the 372 since the 372 often just lays over next to the old Fred Meyer.

          without Fred Meyer as a neighborhood hub, there really isn’t much of anything at 130th anymore other than a convenient bus layover.

          Which is everything. Losing the Fred Meyer sucks for the neighborhood but never really mattered for riders. They were coming from the surrounding apartments. More to the point, by the time you’ve reached 130th you’ve picked up the vast majority of riders. Ideally there would be a layover at 145th but there isn’t one. 130th will do.

          1. There used to be a layover at 145th but it wasn’t much of a good one.

          2. Riders were also coming from the rest of the city to Fred Meyer. If you live in a neighborhood without big box stores, some things you can get from nearby small stores. Others are only available at big box stores or department stores. You may go to the closest Fred Meyer, or you may bypass it for another Fred Meyer that has a more frequent bus route or is a short walk from the bus stop. The Lake City Fred Meyer had good bus service from several directions, and the bus stop was next to the parking lot.

             Hopefully something as useful as Fred Meyer will appear in the space. Is it vacant now?

             Riders theoretically would have come from Northshore to the Lake City Fred Meyer too. It’s hard to say how many did, since ST and the proponents of terminating S3/522 at Shoreline North seem to think only a negligible number did.

          3. The Fred Meyer was there back in the middle ages when I lived in Lake City. It and the Value Village were an anchor of the community. Both gone because of a widening gap between the left and the right. Used to be a great place to live… not sorry I’m not there now.

          4. Bernie, what does that mean? Do you think that Fred Meyer is a “republican” store? I guess Kroger is probably pro-Republican, but the clientele at a full-size Fred Meyer certainly spans the range of politics.

          5. Do you think that Fred Meyer is a “republican” store?

             Not sure how you read that into my comment. But Kroger did mention high crime (shop lifting) in it’s excuse to close the Lk City location. Value Village was sued out of Seattle by a left leaning AG. With a more centrist policy these things wouldn’t happen.

          6. “Kroger did mention high crime (shop lifting) in it’s excuse to close the Lk City location.”

             Large corporate chains have been citing shoplifting as a primary reason for closing. It’s unclear how much this is true and how much it’s a pretext for lower sales or bad management. I’m inclined to think half if not most of it is a pretext. Shoplifting occurs but is it that much to close a store. Another thing Fred Meyer and QFC is now doing is gates at the entrance and an ominous sign saying “Receipt required for exit.” Huh? What if they don’t have what I want? I just walk out normally and haven’t been bothered but it makes me even more against shopping there.

             My family has always shopped at Fred Meyer since it opened in Overlake; it was one of our most-preferred stores for a wide range of things. But with one thing after another since the 2010s I got tired of Fred Meyer and QFC treating their customers like shit or criminals so now I avoid them if I can. (Sale price only with loyalty card, closing pedestrian-friendly entrances so you have to use the car entrance, forcing people to self-checkout, not accepting cash sometimes, gates at the entrance.) Trader Joe’s doesn’t do that, or the co-ops, or the small grocery stores, so I go there when I can.

          7. So, on the FM closing in Lake City, there always was dating back to the middle ages when I lived there a QFC west of Lake City Way (NE of Bill Pierre Ford). QFC wasn’t bought out by Kroger yet when I lived there. I think now from looking at Google that might be a Grocery Outlet? Anyway, after Kroger swallowed QFC it would make sense they would close a FM only a block away from a higher margin QFC. The non-grocery side of FM is tough to compete against Amazon. The Lake City FM was a strange split level design like the one east of DT Redmond which they also recently closed. The old Redmond location has become a fitness center. What’s become of the old FM in Lake City>

          8. There is a Grocery Outlet on the west side of Lake City Way.

          9. Mike, does Costco treat customers like criminals? Be careful how you answer that. They might revoke your membership.

       3. there isn’t a transit gap in north Lake City between 130th and 145th.

          There wouldn’t be a transit gap even without the 72. They have the 65. But they would also have what I’m calling the 372 — a bus that runs every twenty minutes midday directly connecting those riders to Kenmore and Bothell. It is a trade-off for those riders just like other riders.

          Metro plan: Riders have the 72 running between 185th Station and the UW every ten minutes.

          My plan: Riders have the 372 running between Bothell and the UW every twenty minutes. (The 72 starts at 125th southbound.)

          Either way they have the 65 (which runs from 185th Station to the UW). Once you get up to 145th they have the 522 (which runs from Bothell to 185th Station). So it is really just the two stops at 137th and 130th that might prefer the increased frequency of the 72 versus the one-seat ride to Kenmore and Bothell. But going from a bus every ten minutes to every fifteen minutes is not the end of the world. I would think even those riders would prefer a direct bus to Kenmore instead.

    2. I like the idea of truncating the 72 in Lake City and extending some trips to Bothell as the 372, but I think 30 minute coverage north of Lake City would be more than enough.

       The 372 is not and will not be successful north of Lake City. Right now, running at 15 minute headways, the 372 serves 900 boardings north of Lake City (145th to Bothell) in about 24-25 minutes. It serves 5,700 boardings south of 145th (UDS to 137th) in about 36-39 minutes. Not all trips head to Bothell, but the vast majority do; the Lake City segment gets 86% of the ridership for something like 60-65% of the service hours.

       1. I think 30 minute coverage north of Lake City would be more than enough.

          I think it would fail at 30 minutes. That reminds me of the 73. Riders in Pinehurst (like me) greatly preferred a bus that directly connected them to Maple Leaf, Roosevelt and the U-District. But we would inevitably take the first bus that arrived. That was typically the more frequent 348. Then we would take that and transfer to the 67 or Link. Despite being the faster, more direct, transfer-free bus for many trips, the 73 just couldn’t compete. Ridership was so low that Metro just cancelled it. In contrast, if it ran every 20 minutes it is quite possible that it would have survived.

          This seems similar. It is hard to justify running the bus every fifteen minutes. If you run it every thirty minutes, a lot of potential riders will end up on the 522 (and just transfer). Twenty minutes seems like the sweet spot.

          If anything, it seems worse for those riders than the Metro plan. The average wait time is worse. The worst case scenario is worse. It only works for those who time their trip.

          I get your point about ridership. It is something I’ve mentioned many times. Even when you include 522 riders (going from the northern suburbs to Lake City) it doesn’t add up to that many people. But if that is the case, why bother? Why not just terminate all of the 72 buses at the old Fred Meyer? It doesn’t benefit those in Lake City much. Running the 72 — every ten minutes midday — is mainly so people from the northern suburbs can transfer to a bus that goes to Lake City. So if we really don’t care about the thousand or so riders trying to get from Kenmore to Lake City then we might well terminate all the buses in Lake City.

          While it may be overvaluing those riders, I don’t think that is a good approach. I think running every twenty minutes is the best combination. Unlike running every thirty minutes it is better than what Metro has planned while still being cheaper than Metro’s plan.

          1. Because the proposed 372 shadows the entire route of Stride, I think the main use case north of Lake City is a one-seat ride, not a transfer. Riders headed to the UVill/UD area already have higher quality transfer options: the 65 or Link. 30 minutes is not good enough for a transfer, but it is workable for a one-seat ride

          2. I’m not saying that a 372 is good for transfers. I’m saying that Metro’s current proposal — which requires a transfer — is better than a 372 that runs every half hour. There is a tipping point. Imagine the 372 ran hourly. Or twice a day. Is it still better than the 72 that goes every ten minutes to 148th Station? No, of course not. Riders are better off just taking the 522 and transferring.

             So what is the tipping point? I would argue that 30 minutes is beyond it. Again, the average wait time is longer. The worst case scenario is longer. Start with worse case scenario since that is actually easier. Imagine someone trying to get from Kenmore to Lake City:

             Metro proposal: You just miss the 522. You wait about 15 minutes for a bus. You then just miss the 72. You wait 10 minutes for a bus. Thus you waited 25 minutes just to get to Lake City.

             Your proposal: You just miss the 372. You wait 30 minutes.

             My proposal: You just miss the 372. You wait 20 minutes.

             Same goes for average wait. For a single bus this is half the headway. This gets tricky for the transfer since the 72 runs every ten minutes and the 65 runs every fifteen. The average wait for the 65 is about five minutes. But there is a good chance that a 65 comes along. If someone wants to do the math and come up with a number, go ahead. For now I’ll just say about four minute average wait. So:

             Metro proposal: You wait 7.5 minutes for the 522. You wait about 4 minutes for a bus to Lake City. Total wait (on average) about 12 minutes.

             Your proposal: You wait 15 minutes for 372.

             My proposal: You wait 10 minutes for the 372.

             Again, my proposal is better than Metro’s, and Metro’s is better than yours. Twenty minutes is the sweet spot.

          3. They aren’t directly comparable in that way, since Metro’s 72 doesn’t have same-stop transfers, and the 65 is slower than the 72. The S3-72 transfer requires a few minutes of out-of-direction travel (to and from 30th ave), plus crossing the busy 145th. That adds up to an additional (roughly) 4-5 minutes of overhead on the transfer. Also, a transfer means additional trip variance and mental load for the rider; people hate transfers.

             372: 10 or 15 minute average wait, no transfer
             522-72: 7.5 + 4-5 + 5, roughly 17.5 minute average wait, with a transfer

          4. people hate transfers

             People also hate waiting. This is why these transfer-avoidance routes tend to fail. Even ones that avoid two transfers (e. g. from some suburban location to First Hill) tend to get very poor ridership. Yeah, there will be a little extra waiting on the bus but not a lot. There are no stops between Lake City Way and the stop where people will transfer (either way). It isn’t a same-stop transfer but it involves simply walking across the street.

             Oh, wait a second. There is no crosswalk there! WTF? I just assumed that 27th would have a crosswalk so that people could transfer to either bus there isn’t a crosswalk there. It also doesn’t look like the 522 will stop at 30th. Who designed this crap? Either add the crosswalk for 27th or better yet, move the damn bus stops. This is ridiculous. The whole thing is predicated on that transfer and here it is, a week before it opens, and it is terrible.

             Anyway, I still think half hour service would fail. Half hour service is coverage by nature. It can’t compete with fifteen minute service even if the other trips are more direct. There aren’t that many people headed to Lake City. The folks headed to UW and even the U-Village are just going to take the 522 and then Link, followed by a bus.

             Put it this way: If your goal is to provide something symbolic that only a handful of people will use and thus perform so poorly that Metro will eliminate it then by all means, run a bus every half hour. But if you want to have something with a change of success, run it every twenty minutes.

          5. There will eventually be a stop on 30th, but yeah right now the transfer situation is very bad.

             Sound Transit is investing heavily into Stride, and despite its many flaws I think it should be treated as the primary route on the SR522 corridor north of Lake City. Of course in the abstract more service is better than less service, and of course those riders would prefer more frequency, but Sound Transit should be the agency investing the bulk of those service hours rather than Metro. Metro has standing issues with frequency on core routes or service gaps and I don’t think Metro should be spending its limited service hours doubling up service on SR522.

             With that being said, I think some service on the 372 is still worth keeping, because it offers a lot of time savings on its corridor. I don’t think the 372 needs to compete with Stride; the main value of the 372 is as a coverage route that offers a handful of unique one-seat rides.

             An example might be from UW Bothell to the HUB. At 8 AM, that takes 49 minutes via the 372 today, versus 61 minutes (including a 12 minute walk) via 522-Link next week. There are even more dramatic time savings heading to U Village or Lake City, but those trips are rarer than those headed to UW campus.

          6. FWIW Metro has reopened the bus stop at 145th St and LCW (by McDonalds, previously used by the 330). As a councilmember, I have received confirmations from both Metro and ST that the 72 and 522 will both stop there. So 145th / LCW will be the temporary transfer point.

             However once the 522 becomes Stride, neither the 72 nor S3 will stop there and the transfer point will move to 30th.

             Still, I’m in favor of sending some 72s to Shoreline 148th and some to UW Bothell, in order to maintain connectivity and not force people to cross busy intersections to continue traveling in the same direction.

          7. Once upon a time, the 372 was an express route. Most runs were morning and evening, and there were no runs after 6:00 p.m. or on the weekends. It ran every 20 to 30 minutes. For people with regular schedules, it worked great–we adapted. As the 372 service increased, the number of riders from Northshore stayed strong but they were diluted among the increased runs. And then in the last 7 or 8 years, there has been an immense increase in the number of students taking the bus between 25th (U Village) and main campus, which has totally skewed the numbers of the old standby 372. I truly wish–and advocated–for a return to a less-frequent but reliable express route for commuters (students and employees).

          8. Since the 372 stops at U District Station and is within walking distance from UW Station/UW Medical Center, it could serve as a backup during Link planned or UNPLANNED stoppages, rather than relying on Shuttle buses.

          9. There will eventually be a stop on 30th, but yeah right now the transfer situation is very bad.

             They need to take one of two approaches:

             1) Use 27th as the transfer point. This is where the westbound 522 will stop. Both the eastbound 65 and 72 stop there. All they need is a crosswalk (with a signal and beg button).

             2) Use 30th as the transfer point. There is an existing westbound bus stop there — the 522 could stop there as well. But both the 65 and 72 are too far away. Their is a shared stop for both between 27th and 30th but it is too close to 27th. It should be moved close to 30th. It is usually better to have a bus stop after the traffic light but in this case it should be placed right before it.

             The second approach would be ideal as it means less backtracking.

             Sound Transit is investing heavily into Stride, and despite its many flaws I think it should be treated as the primary route on the SR522 corridor north of Lake City.

             I agree.

             With that being said, I think some service on the 372 is still worth keeping, because it offers a lot of time savings on its corridor. I don’t think the 372 needs to compete with Stride; the main value of the 372 is as a coverage route that offers a handful of unique one-seat rides.

             I agree with most of that. But it is not a coverage route. Otherwise half hour service would be fine. But if the goal is coverage then we just live with the 331 (which runs every half hour).

             The goal is the other part. It offers a handful of unique one-seat rides. That’s it. That is the main purpose of the route. That is why I think it definitely competes with the 522/Stride. If a one-seat ride is too infrequent, people take a two-seat (or even three-seat) trip. Again, look at the old 73. Or bus service on Summit. When it ran every half hour (or worse) people just walked to other buses. Now that it is running every twenty minutes it is doing just fine. Or look at the half hour routes like the 303 and 322. They perform poorly. The most popular inbound stop — by far — is the one at Northgate Transit Center. That’s because southbound riders are given 15 minute headways there. Or just imagine if the 67 ran every half hour. Ridership plummets as people take other options (involving Link or the 45). So much so that ridership per service hour actually goes down. That is because the bus is not isolated. It is not Seward Park. People have other transit choices.

             So yeah, it most definitely is competing with the 522/Stride for the same set of riders. It can compete by running every twenty minutes. But it can’t if it runs every thirty.

          10. Since the 372 stops at U District Station and is within walking distance from UW Station/UW Medical Center, it could serve as a backup during Link planned or UNPLANNED stoppages, rather than relying on Shuttle buses.

              Yeah, but given there is a freeway ramp right there it seems like it would just get on the freeway and drive to one of the other stations (Northgate, Roosevelt or the U-District).

          11. I truly wish–and advocated–for a return to a less-frequent but reliable express route for commuters (students and employees).

              I could see that. It would be like the 322 but go to the UW instead. I think it is just a lot easier to run the 372 every twenty minutes to Bothell while the 72 just ends in Lake City.

          12. FWIW Metro has reopened the bus stop at 145th St and LCW (by McDonalds, previously used by the 330).

              OK, I think you mean this old bus stop on 145th, just short of 32nd. Fair enough. But that still means riders have to walk a ways. That also means they are committed to the 72. For a lot of riders, either the 65 or 72 will work (since both the buses go to Lake City, the U-Village and UW Campus). Thus you really want a transfer that serves both routes.

              Likewise I have been focused on southbound trips. But northbound isn’t any better. The 72 will turn and serve that stop. This means a walk like this. If they take the 65 it means a walk like this. These aren’t terrible but they aren’t good either.

              Still, I’m in favor of sending some 72s to Shoreline 148th and some to UW Bothell, in order to maintain connectivity and not force people to cross busy intersections to continue traveling in the same direction.

              Doing that would cost too much money. That is an important point that I think was lost in all of this. You actually save money If you send half (or a third) of the buses to Bothell while the rest of the buses layover at 130th & Lake City Way.

              There is another advantage. The 72 avoids a lot of congestion. There are northbound HOV lanes from Lake City to Bothell. But the 72 will get out of those lanes and turn left on 145th. So not only will it be delayed by a long left turn but it will be delayed by congestion as well. In contrast, the combination I’ve suggested avoids all that.

              You also don’t lose much in the process. Folks at the north end of Lake City can take the 522/Stride or 65. The folks in Lake City between 145th and 125th can just take the 65 if they want to head that way. Riders on the rest of Lake City Way can take the 77. Once you are south of Lake City Way (Ravenna, then 25th) it is hard to see many riders going all the way to 148th Station. They can always transfer to the 65 (in Lake City Way & 125th).

              It is really an elegant solution since it saves money.

       2. In the longer term (i.e. when S3 opens) a stop pair will be located west of 30th, meaning S3 as well as the 65 and 72 will stop there. I don’t know what will happen to the stop on 27th but I hope it gets closed; it offers no safe/easy way to cross the busy 145th, and it’s very close to the stops on 25th and 30th.

          On the 372: I think that after S3 opens the 372 should serve as a commuter route where riders need the learn the schedule and time their trips, rather than as show-up-and-go service. The route could of course offer more than that, but that comes down to cost

          The two main destinations (UW Seattle and UW Bothell) are all-day destinations with bidirectional demand, so I think all-day service makes sense, though ridership does tend to be pretty peaky in the Seattle direction

          1. I don’t know what will happen to the stop on 27th but I hope it gets closed; it offers no safe/easy way to cross the busy 145th, and it’s very close to the stops on 25th and 30th.

             Agreed.

             I think that after S3 opens the 372 should serve as a commuter route where riders need the learn the schedule and time their trips, rather than as show-up-and-go service.

             In other words, a bus hardly anyone takes. Seriously though, can you think of a bus like that performing well? I can’t. In contrast I can think of infrequent buses that are largely stand alone (24 and 33) that do OK, mainly because there is no alternative. But I really can’t think of an infrequent bus that performs OK just because its riders can avoid a transfer. Even commuters — who often time their trips — gravitate towards the flexibility that higher frequency offers, even if the trip is a bit slower and/or requires a transfer. When it comes to routes like the 372 you need to go big or go home (or at least go pretty close to big).

             The two main destinations (UW Seattle and UW Bothell) are all-day destinations with bidirectional demand, so I think all-day service makes sense.

             If those are the two big destinations then we should run an express, via the freeway. It would stop and serve the freeway stations along the way, including Totem Lake (where there potential riders). It would connect to other express buses like the future 532 and Stride 2 along with the future ST express from Woodinville to Downtown Bellevue. It should be run by Sound Transit, given ST has a lot more money. Of course ST is busy with other stuff, like running express buses from Redmond to Downtown that largely mimic Link.

             The beauty of the half-Lake City, half-Bothell plan is that is saves money and gives riders a high quality set of options. It also means you don’t need to extend the 331. Sure, you could save even more by running the 372 every half hour but the savings are pretty minimal (one bus an hour). It just doesn’t cost much to run the extension every twenty minutes, even though it is critical for its success. To put things in perspective, Metro is running the 331 to Bothell (to help backfill for the loss of the 372 stops). This takes about 13 minutes and the buses will run every half hour. So basically 26 minutes of extra service per hour (one way). That is exactly how much it would cost to go from two 372 buses to three 372 buses. So not only do you eliminate the 331 extension (saving even more money) but you give riders a far superior experience.

             If this was coverage — if it involved less than a hundred riders — we wouldn’t even bother. But we are talking about somewhere around 800 riders (including those that take the 522 and get off in Lake City). Giving them an option that is at least close to what we have now while also saving quite a bit of money seems like the best option.

          2. I think a similar set of routes are the 545 and 542. Of course riders currently prefer the 545 since it has more frequency. If the frequencies were reversed, many riders would switch, but some riders with specific commutes would still try to time the 545 in order to save themselves a transfer and likely quite a bit of travel time.

             It’s true that it’s not a huge amount of service hours, I just don’t think it’s the best place to spend them. By my math, a truncated 72T could run 10 minute headways for an extra 4 hours (from 7 PM to 10:59 PM) if the 372 ran every 30 minutes instead of every 20 minutes. Or the 44 could get bumped up to 10 minute service all day (including midday and until 9 PM). Or of course those service hours could be spent elsewhere, but that’s the level of service that would be spent there.

          3. Following up: I think 20 (or even 15) minute headways would be fine, it’s just a different level of service; in my mind that would be treating it closer to a core route, while I think ST should be taking the bulk of the load. I don’t think the 372 north of Lake City would do well at any of those frequencies, though I don’t think it would do overly poorly either

11. It has become clearer and clearer to me in recent years that routes should go all the way through a city center to the adjacent neighborhood on the far side. Metro’s through-routes through downtown Seattle have been doing that forever. I used to wonder why the 5/125 or 11/125 or 131/28 were joined, because there’s little likelyhood somebody on 16th Ave S wants to go specifically to Greenwood and not Ballard or Wallingford or the U-District, or that somebody on 4th Ave S wants to go to 8th Ave NW when there’s little there. But over the years I’ve found it’s useful to get at least to the part of the city you’re going to and you can transfer there, it avoids transfers at sketchy downtown stops, and it’s more efficient to get to the far side of downtown like Pioneer Square or SLU/Uptown. And if the route goes several miles at both ends, then there’s a gradual turnover of riders throughout downtown as some people go to the near half, others to the far half, and others within downtown.

    Applying this to Bellevue would mean most east-west routes would serve both Bellevue TC and Bellevue Square, and most north-south routes would serve both Main Street or the high school and the library or such. The 550 does this by terminating beyond the TC at the library. I’ve used that to go to the library, or walk to a destination that’s closest to the library (Overlake Hospital or 12th & 124th). The 550 and 271 bridge the gap between Bellevue TC and Bellevue Square. The 270 won’t, and the B doesn’t. So I’d like to see a commitment to make most routes do so. Both for one-seat rides to the Square, and to increase the aggregate frequency between the two.

    In Renton the 105 is an orphan route, going just from the Renton Highlands to Renton TC. But many people are going beyond Renton TC to the west Renton shopping center or south Seattle or Southcenter. So the 105 should be combined with another route going to one of those. A 105-106 pair would be the most obvious. Future RapidRide I will terminate in downtown Renton; this misses an opportunity to extend it to Rainier Beach Link station, so that everybody in the Benson/East Hill area that’s not close to an east-west route to KDM would have a one-seat ride to a Link station.

    1. Right now, downtown Renton and its transit center are pretty nice destinations in and of themselves. It is one of the transit centers that does not wall of riders from local businesses, becoming an anti-transit center. The plan to move the transit center over to the freeway will make it a place where riders will want to spend as little time as possible.

       At least part of the 106 will become a RapidRide, which will be slower than taking MLK up to Rainier Beach Station. At any rate, 105 will not be part of that RapidRide.

       Connecting apartments along south MLK to Rainier Beach Station and beyond is a long-standing missing link in the transit network. Perhaps continuing the 105 along MLK to Rainier Beach or beyond can show there is a market for a much quicker connection between Renton and Rainier Valley.

       In the long run, I hope the Rapid Ride I can be split at Kent Station, with the southern half turning up to Highline College Station, and the northern half reaching Rainier Beach Station via one path or another.

12. When are we going to get bus routes to/from Lynnwood City Center early and late enough to make public transit to/from SEA feasible for typical early morning and evening flights? It’s a pretty basic function of public transit to get people to/from a major metropolitan airport, but the busiest flight times aren’t supported. In my case it’s the 109/901 routes, but I’m sure this impacts many more.

    1. sound transit is working on the lynnwood and everett night bus but it isn’t ready yet.

       In addition to these Night Bus routes between Seattle, Lakewood, and Redmond, we’re working with our partners at Community Transit to extend overnight service to Everett. While this route won’t start this fall with the other two Night Bus routes

       they are starting with the tacoma and redmond night buses in 3 days.

       The 597 will serve between Lakewood and Downtown Seattle during late night hours. Service will operate from approximately 12:00 a.m. to 4:50 a.m.

       https://www.soundtransit.org/blog/platform/24-7-connections-night-bus-expansion-coming-august-29-30

       once the everett/lynnwood to seattle night bus is ready you can then transfer in seattle to the 597 to seatac

       1. Unfortunately those night busses are only to specific stops, so in Snohomish it’s Everett. From there, there’s no other busses running early or late enough to connect to other areas. So for me on 109/901 route and countless others, you still can’t get bus service from anywhere near your home to/from those night busses. I don’t see how they help anyone but a select few. Park & Ride’s open up some options, but I don’t consider those truly public transit as you’re still creating extra traffic for the sections where there’s no coverage. We have bus routes that cover just about everywhere… just not at good times.

          1. The basic idea in this case is either park and ride or take a cab to your place after taking the bus from SeaTac (or some other Link location). So it doesn’t really work for car-free, regular, late-night travel to places that aren’t within walking distance to a station. Unfortunately there just aren’t that many people taking trips in those hours to make it a good value.

       2. If ST expects to promote owl service transfers, they better be putting in the planning to make them safe (security) and quick (no long wais).

          I’ve seen nothing from ST talking about these two aspects of the owl service ride experience.

    2. I would suggest supporting the movement to replace the overdue-for-elimination 510 with an all-day ST Express route between Everett and Lynnwood Stations that does not stop at Ash Way P&R.

       Those hours wasted sending buses past Lynnwood to Seattle without stopping at Lynnwood Station could be put to better use rolling out ST Express 517 night owl service with 15-minute headway.

       ST Express 597 ought to also be improved to 15-minute headway if ST expects riders to feel safe transferring downtown.

    3. ST’s previous rounds implied the north night owl would start at the same time as the others. It appears that negotiations with CT are taking longer than expected, and by the time ST realized it, it was too late to ask Metro to operate it, since Metro needs 6-12 weeks lead time for logistics, and it may need even more time to go far into Snohomish County (beyond Mountlake Terrace where it goes now, or 44th/Lynnwood where a North City route used to go). The issue may be that opening a base all night would be brand-new to CT, or they may not have come to an agreement on a rate yet. CT delegates its operations to First Transit, a private bus company, so it’s a two-level contracting ST->CT->FT that could add complications.

       1. One big reason to go with Metro as the operator of STX 517 is that Metro already operates night owl service, and keeps at least one base open to do so. Ideally, Metro ought to operate all the night owl routes, so transfers can be coordinated.

    4. Is Paine Field going to become a major airport? If not, why is Link diverting toward it, but stopping far enough away that a transfer is required?

       1. Paine Field does have plans to grow, but it’s a long way away from becoming a major airport. By 2040 it expects to serve 4-5 million passengers per year (compared to about 1 million a year now). For comparison, SeaTac serves a little over 50 million passengers a year.

          It probably will eventually become the second major airport in the Seattle area. I don’t think we have any other option; SeaTac can’t get any bigger, and I don’t think a greenfield airport is very likely.

       2. Link’s Paine Field detour is because the Snohomish County and city governments insist on it. They say it’s the Snohomish subarea’s highest priority after Everett Link. Their ultimate reason is to attract more industrial employers, thus increasing the county’s jobs and tax base. They never address the unwalkable and pedestrian-unfriendly last mile between station and most companies’ entrances, so the companies would have to have shuttles to them, and will they?

       3. Paine Field currently has only about 2 percent of the daily flights that SeaTac does. SeaTac parking is expensive. And yet Seatac Link station only generates about 10K boardings each day. That’s roughly about 9 light rail boardings per flight.

          Paine Field would need at least 20 percent of the SeaTac flight departures to even BEGIN to justify a rail station. That’s 10 times (1000%) as many flights! That’s double the number of flights from Oakland’s airport or triple the number from Spokane’s airport! And that would require a much bigger new terminal (at least 40 and more like 50-60 gates) within walking distance of a Link station. There’s nowhere onsite to even put a new giant terminal with both station next to planned light rail tracks and parking today.

          So people that want to put the cart before the horse are being unrealistic. A huge new terminal would need to be designed and studied and approved by FAA first.

          1. Is it feasible to have a replacement terminal within walking distance of a light rail station?

       4. “Paine Field would need at least 20 percent of the SeaTac flight departures to even BEGIN to justify a rail station.”

          The station is primarily for Boeing workers and other aerospace workers. ST didn’t prioritize putting it near the airline passenger terminal. There are tens of thousands of workers in the Everett Industrial Center. It’s like having a station at Microsoft, the Redmond Technology Center.

          1. No it’s not like Redmond Technology. It’s much more spread out. The proposed station nearby is not adjacent to work sites.

             I only have to point to North San Jose and the nearby Moffett Field area in Silicon Valley for comparison. The VTA light rail ridership there is pathetic despite having tens of thousands of jobs nearby.

             Even Redmond Technology ridership isn’t great. It’s only getting 2100-2200 boardings on an average weekday. It’s effectively tied with Marymoor Village and Mercer Island in boardings despite the number of workers there. It’s lower than every single station in Seattle, including Rainier Beach and SODO and Stadium.

          2. The issue isn’t compactness or ridership; it’s PSRC regional growth centers (the Everett Industrial Center is one), the belief it will attract employers to locate factories there (whether true or not), and politics (which is how the decisions are ultimately made). Brent White asked why Link is being detoured to Paine Field. This is the reason why.

             Dave Somers, Snohomish County Executive and ST board chair, and Cassie Franklin, Everett Mayor and ST board member, would like you to know that Everett Link and the Paine Field detour are essential for Snohomish County’s economic future. Their belief in that is why they, representing the Snohomish subarea, recommended it to the rest of the board and led them to vote for it. This is why it’s being done.

          3. I think many Northeast King County and Snohomish residents would gladly use Paine Field to avoid I-5 traffic to get to SeaTac if more flights were available. Now there are only two daily flights to SFO, and also some to Portland and other US destinations.
             This airport has the capacity for, and is welcoming, more travelers. Parking is easy, and from what I hear, checkin and security is done in 15-20 minutes.

          4. @ Mike:

             The classification of a regional growth center is a reason to ensure transit. But it’s not a reason to provide Link light rail. There are even many forms of transit. There are many forms of rail transit. There is even a different operation al configuration which could have put 2 Line in the median of Airport Way with it ending in the industrial center while splitting off 3 Line to go to Rverett Mall and Downtown.

             A Growth Center designation may be a political selling point, but light rail is not required — and frankly it’s horrifically impractical. Because it warps the spine like a deformed bone structure. And it’s not just an impractical capital project; it’s an impractical rail operation that affects Link’s costs every day for several decades.

Comments are closed.