Friday Roundtable: Final Trips

32 Replies to “Friday Roundtable: Final Trips”

1. Mourning route 554 does not seem like joy for the coming of the Link 4 Line some day.

   It also seems like mourning for having to transfer at South Bellevue Station.

   But rejoice! For yours is no longer having to pull off the freeway on Mercer Island!

   Rejoice, for yours is a much-improved I-90 Rainier (and now 25th) Freeway Station! It has returned!

   Yours is the heavenly tunnel under downtown to Capitol Hill! and beyond! (If you want a longer one-seat ride instead of transferring at the Downtown Bellevue gates.

   Reply

   1. “Mourning route 554 does not seem like joy for the coming of the Link 4 Line some day.”

      Yeah not to mention if the 2 Line + 556 will be slower than the 554 then the 2 Line + 4 Line will be worse.

      Reply

2. Based on the 27-year-old article, Central Link was only 3 years late, UW 10 years, and U-District 15 years.

   But aren’t we glad they got built?

   Reply

3. RIP 554 bus, going to miss you.

   By the time light rail gets to Issaquah, I will be dead too.

   Reply

4. The PI story describes a limited stop pattern for Route 550 I do not recall being in place. ST just took over Route 226; it had been formed in a major restructure implemented in fall 1997. It was approved by the council transportation committee chaired by Rob McKenna. He was brave to allow Metro to turn the service upside down. It worked. Route 253 became an intra Eastside service; it had been in the DSTT; SR-520 was a mess before it was tolled (2010). New Route 226 was the new DSTT service. Route 215 served Issaquah; it was absorbed by Route 554. Over time, I grew disappointed with the overly tight budget ST applied to its bus service; routes 550 and 554 should have been provided better frequency and span.

   Reply

   1. Jack, do you know the history of the route 271? What year did it begin? What did it replace?

      Reply

      1. I was under the impression that, despite the implication of the image, the 271 well predated the 554 and indeed pretty much all other service in Issaquah with the possible exceptions of the 215 and 927. There may have been some route changes in 1999 to accommodate the 554? I don’t know.

         Reply

      2. In the 80s it was route 252: U-District, Medina (84th), NE 8th Street (with Bellevue TC when it opened on 106th), 164th, Lake Hills Blvd, 148th, Bellevue Community College (?), terminating at the bottom of Somerset Hill. Westbound started in the middle of Somerset Hill at Newport Way. It was hourly.

         At some point the 252 was renumbered to 271, and there was a 272 peak express that used 405 and bypassed downtown Bellevue. I don’t remember whether the express predated the renumbering. I can’t think of what the number would have been, since it couldn’t be 253 (another route).

         My route was the 226, when then went from downtown Seattle to Mercer Island (3 stops), south Bellevue P&R, 108th (Enatai), south Bellevue Way, Bellevue TC, NE 8th Street, Northup Way (where I lived), and Overlake Village. It got an extension on 156th to downtown Redmond. There was also a 226 peak express, but I could never take it because it didn’t fit my schedule/trips.

         My second-closest route was the 252 above.

         I lived for a few months on Somerset, so my closest route was the 252 and 210 (approx every 2 hours to downtown or Issaquah, 4 trips a day to North Bend).

         In my last years of high school I lived on south Bellevue Way, so my routes were the 226 and 235. The 235 was like the 226 but went to Kirkland instead of Crossroads/Redmond. They alternated for half-hourly service between Seattle and Bellevue. The 226 express probably still existed, but there wasn’t a 235 express. (The fastest way from Kirkland to Seattle was the 255, the same as now. The 226 and 255 were actually through-routed downtown.)

         After I moved to Seattle in 1985, there were several restructures. I don’t remember exactly when they occurred and in which order. The downtown tunnel opened in 1990. The 226/235 may have been consolidated into a new 226 between Seattle and Bellevue. That became the 550. There was a debate whether the 550 should go on south Bellevue Way or 405. The majority feedback was for south Bellevue Way, so that’s what it did. I think others may have realized long before I did that keeping that routing meant it would directly serve Bellevue Square and Old Bellevue, which would otherwise have a backfill route.

         The Kirkland/Redmond tails of the 226/235 were combined into a new route 230 (Totem Lake, Kirkland, Bellevue, Crossroads, Overlake, Redmond.) Later the eastern half was renumbered to 231. Still later it may have been renumbered back to 226.

         Then RapidRide B started. I don’t remember if this happened all simultaneously, but the NE 8th Street route (226/230/231 at different times) was moved to Bel-Red and numbered 226. The 249 was moved from Bel-Red to 20th, which didn’t previously have bus service and later had a peak route.

         The Bellevue-Kirkland route (235/230) was moved from north Bellevue Way/Lake Washington Blvd to 116th and renumbered. Later it was renumbered back to 235. Later a RapidRide concept appeared as Bellevue-Kirkland-Redmond. A route 250 was created to prefigure it, replacing the 235. Later Kirkland got the RapidRide moved to Totem Lake instead of Redmond, so the 250 and RapidRide were now in conflict. That’s the situation now. So when RapidRide K starts, the Kirkland-Redmond segment will have to be assigned to a different route.

         Reply

      3. The new 215 is in some ways similar to the 1980s 215 (peak express), 1980s 210 (on Newport Way), and current 203 (on Newport Way).

         Issaquah was a small town then, and Sammamish semi-rural. The Issaquah Highlands P&R and urban village and 4-lane boulevard must have gone up in the 1990s, just before the 554 started.

         Reply

      4. Some. I knew the east in 2004. The 271 structure was intact; it was supplemented by one way peak only route 272 serving NE 8th street. Earlier branches had been routes 273 and 274; they may been changed in 1997. Headways were long. In 2010, tolling funds were used to improve the weekday headway of routes 255 and 271. In fall 2011, routes 256 and 272 were cashed; rotes 255 and 272 were further improved. The 10/15 headway of routes 255 only extended to Totem Lake and the 10/15 headway of route 271 only extended to Eastgate. Some of wanted to split or truncate both routes but the projects were not allowed enough scope. In 2011, the place at BTC was eliminated. Route 255 was truncated in March 2020.

         Reply

5. The chart is a nice summary of how much is being cut. Alk the marketing and hoopla about added trups has completely ignored these losses of service. A lot of these routes will really be missed. For me, the 372 was the only bus service to my dentist on 25th ne. I have found a new dentist. It truly seems like 3ver since link came to life changes have largely focused on pushing people off buses and onto the trains. Given the prwcarious status of future expansions I hope we don’t live to regret that strategy. Fow it’s time to move on and try to rid ourselves of the dstt2 boondoggle.

   Reply

   1. So many of the buses on this list are just rerouted or changing numbers. They aren’t really being cut. For example, a bus will still run by your old dentist on 25th NE. It will just be the 72, not the 372.

      Reply

   2. I don’t think any area is losing service. Some one-seat rides are turning into two-seat or three-seat rides.

      It is true that people are being pushed to using trains rather than buses. Trains are cheaper to operate (on a per-passenger basis), so this is inevitable.

      Reply

6. I will be riding the last 515 that departs 4th & Jackson at 6:40 pm with my friend today. Idk if I will make it to the Issaquah TC ceremony then go to Seattle to ride the last 515 in under 40 minutes lol.

   Reply

7. Here are my ideas to fix Sound Transit’s weakest proposed light rail line (the 4 Line):

   Truncate the 4 Line north to Bellevue Downtown and skip the tail that would carry low ridership. If we’re not going to serve the heart of Kirkland we might not just send it to Kirkland at all, not to mention that Sound Transit’s northern terminus is basically in the middle of nowhere. Have those few riders use the K Line between Bellevue Downtown, Wilburton, and South Kirkland.

   Send the 4 Line to South Bellevue Station sharing existing 2 Line track rather than having it randomly run along I-405, saving time for commuters by transferring at South Bellevue rather than East Main making the 4 Line + 2 Line combo competitive with the 556 + 2 Line. If land impacts to the Mercer Slough is an issue, simply have it run in the median of I-90. This includes median freeway stations at Richards Rd and Eastgate, mimicking Judkins Park and Mercer Island stations. This would also make the stations more accessible from the intersecting streets (Richards Rd and 142nd) with station entrances on the road rather than having people cross random bridges above I-90 in order to get to the station.

   For Lakemont and Central Issaquah, simply defer Lakemont indefinitely. It’s density is so weak it doesn’t even deserve a funded study. Place Central Issaquah station near the current transit center, not in the middle of I-90 (which would carry low ridership) nor place it in an entirely new area. I would recommend leaving the median of I-90 and running next to 19th Ave NW via an elevated guideway then curving onto Maple St with the station north of the current transit center providing easy access to the heart of Issaquah, buses, parking, and the Juniper Trail.

   This forward thinking could potentially accelerate the project (saving even more money) forward from 2050 and bring light rail to Issaquah and I-90 communities faster than ever.

   What I’m basically proposing in a nutshell: A Link 556.

   Reply

   1. I think the Mercer Slough impacts could be avoided with a cable-stayed bridge. It looks to me like 4 Line has to cross Mercer Slough at some point and it might as well as be further south. It would save building 2 miles of new tracks on one side of the Slough.

      And if South Kirkland is dropped, it’s a good candidate for automation that ends at South Bellevue. Trains can sit open at the platform and leave very frequently.

      Don’t forget that East Main has side platforms. The 2/4 Line transfer will require walking to the end of the train before crossing the two gated tracks. The gates will be down most of the time as even 8 minute headways for both lines means that a train will be on the track an average of every 2 minutes and at least a minute is needed between when gates lock and a train finally passes as it moves slowly into or out of the station. To me, that is a strong enough reason to have transfers at the South Bellevue center platform instead. The only planned 2/4 Line center platform is Wilburton (Downtown Bellevue has side platforms too).

      Reply

      1. “I think the Mercer Slough impacts could be avoided with a cable-stayed bridge.”

         I think running in the median of I-90 would be the best option rather than running next to the freeway through the slough. Cable stayed bridges are too expensive and fancy, West Seattle Link is getting delayed to 2035 for using it.

         “And if South Kirkland is dropped, it’s a good candidate for automation that ends at South Bellevue.”

         Not to mention that the line would have no grade crossings, of course you can automate a train that has grade crossings but would be challenging (e.g: red light sensors, speed limit). I would rather extend up to Bellevue Downtown to grab the gold there and create a Link 556. Claudia Balducci has studied automation but Sound Transit doesn’t seem very interested right now even if it saves money.

         “Don’t forget that East Main has side platforms. The 2/4 Line transfer will require walking to the end of the train before crossing the two gated tracks.”

         Good point, I essentially forgot about that.

         “The only planned 2/4 Line center platform is Wilburton (Downtown Bellevue has side platforms too).”

         Yeah, if you wanted to transfer comfortably you would need a center station. Transferring at Bellevue Downtown would add time as it’s too far north and there’s no crossing gates at the station. You have to ascend then descend again. I guess this is why Sound Transit wanted to convert IDC to center platform.

         Reply

      2. Al, so do you agree with my proposal? Is it enough to convince you?

         Reply

         1. I think there are several unexplored design questions that would need study, although it’s a decent proposal.

            The biggest issues I see are:

            Mercer Slough. Even if the trackway could be in I-90 right of way, the environmental effects of dropping new piers around the slough would needed. I’m not a bridge design expert but I do expect that minimizing the piers would be needed. Sure maybe a cable stayed bridge is overkill. My ultimate point is that a slough crossing can be mitigated so it’s not a fatal flaw. And even if there are no problem piers, the shadow that a structure with tracks cast across the slough could be impactful.
            Track merging switches. The placement of tracks and switches affect future rail operations. I think the worst place is just south of East Main station for a variety of reasons. But aerial merges south of South Bellevue could also be a challenge. One reason I mention a separated automated system is because it could be done as a stand-alone system with no track switches at existing tracks.
            East Nain southbound platform access. Operating two lines through this station pretty much renders the current track crossing design to be unreasonable. That’s because so many trains would be going though the station. ST already locks the westbound gates just west of the Judkins Park platforms before the train even stops there. Having twice the number of lines plus two tracks rather than one to cross makes this step much worse (4 times as many trains). Frankly I don’t see how ST could propose anything except a new station design for East Main Station with their current planned operations if they build 4 Line as planned.

            As far as the other station placements, I think it comes down to anticipated train lengths, I would rather see the line have two Issaquah stations and maybe even two in the Eastgate area. In Issaquah, a strategy like Redmond may be good — one at at the TC (with a much bigger parking facility) and one for a more urban environment like a station oriented north-south above I-90 after stopping at Issaquah TC, with exits to both Costco HQ and to Gilman at this second station. Bellevue College should also be easily reachable from the platforms.

   2. If it’s just the 556, why upgrade to rail? Why not just take the 556 and evolve it to Stride with 1~3 new freeway stations in the capital budget? It can still run in mixed traffic in the tail.

      Reply

      1. Because politics. The Issaquah Link concept long predates the 556. Issaquah Link appeared in the 2010s because Issaquah’s mayor was on the ST board and championed it persistently for years. The board included it in ST3 to satisfy all “gimme” constituencies (405 north, 405 south, and Issaquah). Ultimately, Issaquah wants Link for the same reason Paine Field, Everett, and Tacoma want Link: they see it as a way to be in the jobs/prosperity core rather than in the less-desired periphery that may long-term degrade into a slum (because affluent people won’t want to move to/companies won’t want to locate in cities not on Link, because it’s harder to get around from there).

         Reply

   3. The 4 line is an ST3 project that would be BBB or better by bus. Route 554 would connect the Issaquah TC and Mercer Island Link via the Eastgate freeway station. Route 555 would connect the Highland and Kirkland TC via Issaquah TC, Eastgate, Richard’s Road, East Main, downtown Bellevue, NE6th, I-405 HOT, NE 85th street, and Central Way. Route 512 would connect the Eastgate local bays and Mercer Island link via the Eastgate freeway station and the center HOV lanes. All the capital is in place today except NE 85th Street; it is due soon. BBB could be opened sooner, provide faster and more frequent service. There is little congestion on the pathways. In the future, a center access ramp could be considered near 17th and I-90. The capacity of Link is not needed. Route 555 would serve the pedestrian center of downtown Kirkland that ST3 missed.

      Reply

      1. Might a gondola from South Bellevue to Bellevue College to downtown Issaquah (if such a thing comes together) to downtown Issaquah Highlands be feasible?

         Reply

         1. Issaquah-Bellevue gondola

   4. Or, connect the HOV lanes of I-90 with 405. For less than 700,000 million you could connect more than you need. See page 147 of this old document:

      Construct HOV direct connector ramps from SB I-405 to EB I-90, WB I-90 to NB I-405, NB I-405 to EB I-90, WB I-90 to SB I-405

      This means that a bus can serve the freeway station at Eastgate – not too far from the college — and then get right back on the HOV lanes all the way to Downtown Bellevue. It would be as fast as Issaquah Link and yet it would be better. You don’t have to have one route. You can have multiple, converging onto Eastlake (including a route right by the campus) and the running express right to the Bellevue Transit Center. Travel time: roughly four minutes.

      It would not help with trips from Eastgate or Issaquah to Seattle. But neither will Issaquah Link. For that you have the existing buses (or new ones) traveling on the existing HOV lanes to Mercer Island. You can’t beat that with a train. Seriously, a train would be slower, even if it went to South Bellevue. Unlike a set of buses it would also force an extra transfer for a lot of riders.

      Reply

      1. No link to the document + “700,000 million” is not exactly inexpensive if taken literally ;p

         Reply

   5. How frequently will trains need to operate on Issaquah Link?

      I’m thinking you combine low ridership tail with low ridership tail and send it to West Seattle, and forget about trying to add another line to downtown Seattle.

      Among other things, this would build a full wye at Stadium so you’d no longer need the pocket track at CID.

      Reply

8. We can mourn the loss of routes. To me the bigger question is whether or not there are more transit riders and better transit travel times or wait times next week.

   I do think it was smart to wait a few months as opposed to kick in the changes on opening day. Sadly, the offset dates were not used as an opportunity to do a last round of route tweaking because of implementation schedules.

   The downside of course is that we are singularly focused on losing routes after today, rather than combine it with celebrating the new transit connectivity with Link that we got in the past year. We had that party already!

   Reply

   1. When is Pinehurst Station opening?

      Reply

      1. Any day now. Just like … no, I won’t go there. Too dark.

         Reply

         1. I’m pretty sure Pinehurst will open long before that.

            Wouldn’t it be cool if the 67 and 75 detoured to Pinehurst Station on Opening Day?

9. Eliminate or terminate Route 106 and can you extend Route 48 or 48X to Rainier Beach? Which is the route 106 is half an hour

   Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.