News and commentary from the past week.

Reminder: most transit agencies will be running Sunday service on Labor Day (Sept. 7). Check your local agency’s rider alerts.

News:

Commentary:

This is an Open Thread.

88 Replies to “Midweek Roundup: between the rails”

    1. I can’t. It shows up on the list but then it doesn’t load. It starts to, but then it seems to reload and get stuck in an infinite loop involving loading and arranging pages. It is clearly broken.

  2. Fare gates. Because throwing nearly a hundred million dollars at increasing farebox recovery minimally is going to be remotely cost-effective.

    Can’t wait for these to break regularly too!

      1. You mean the article that has a section disputing that ST’s assumptions about fare recovery increases are valid, linking back to an article on this very blog which details how said assumptions are not borne out by the publicly-available data? That article?

        It wouldn’t be the first time ST overestimated returns and then had to amend future revenue projections.

    2. BART saw a precipitous drop in crime and maintenance issues after completing its station hardening program with better gates. The advantages aren’t just with farebox recovery, and I think discourse needs to consider those advantages to a gated system. It could also allow for fewer station security staff to be needed for similar effects, thus saving money on personnel.

    3. Sound Transit is in a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation. If it doesn’t install fare gates, people will complain it doesn’t take fare enforcement seriously. If it installs them, people like you will complain it’s a waste of money.

      This has been an issue ever since Link started. There were calls to install fare gates, but ST said they would cost more than it was losing from the 3% evasion rate. Since 2020 the evasion rate has risen, complaints about fare evasion have risen, and prominent media sources are loudly demanding ST install fare gates now. ST may be bowing to this unofficial pressure, but it may also be right that the cost-benefit ratio has changed as fare evasion has increased, gate technology has evolved, and more cities have installed gates so there’s more US experience with them and maybe be a more competitive market for the gates.

      1. The problem was exacerbated when the State Supreme Court barred fare enforcement from requiring passengers to show ID. They somehow did not find that failure to show proof of payment constituted reasonable grounds to believe the passenger did not pay.

        1. I’ve been baffled by the teen exemption.

          What equity idea prompted the change from just giving them cards?

          It seems like the inevitable result was ST looking bad

        2. The youth-ride-free program is a state program, but not actually a requirement of any agency, unless that agency is accepting money from the state’s Climate Action Fund. That said, the law was written to cap how much Metro could get.

          The monorail is not eligible for that funding, so they are only partially participating because the City asked them to.

          I don’t know if ST is getting any money from that pot.

    4. There are commentators on this blog saying their observation is nobody around them pays, so they’ve stopped paying because they don’t think it’s fair for them to when nobody else does. The data contradicts this since the majority do pay, and fare checks find the majority have paid. And people don’t realize that non-tappers may have a Link ticket they bought at a TVM round trip.

      Anyway, we shouldn’t get caught up in whether fare gates are worth the installation cost or not. What matters is mobility: where the trains go and the stations are, how often they run, and how reliable they are. Fare gates are a side issue, so let the political consensus do what it wants. There’s an inconvenience issue with leaving your card at home or it stops working or you lose in en roue or the time it takes to open the gate makes you miss your train. That’s a bigger issue. But metros around the world have turnstyles and gates and still have a high level of mobility and client satisfaction, so it is possible.

      And to the extent that fare gates or a nominal fare keep out criminals, obnoxious people, drug users, and non-destinational riders out, that’s a good thing. There’s evidence that this is likely.

      1. It is a side issue but it is also quite possible that ST doesn’t make their money back. In which case, it was a waste of money. It is quite possible it leads to fewer officials on the trains themselves. While not officially security guards, they have a similar impact. It will also probably be slower for riders (entering and exiting the station). None of these are terrible things but they aren’t good, either.

        1. I thought the gates were partially in lieu of fare inspectors, which would mean fewer visible ST employees on trains.

      2. The payment rate seems to depend heavily on the route. The worst, in my experience, seems to be the 36. I have noticed very few people paying on that one. If I took the 36 every day, I would start to feel like a sucker paying, too.

        Although if we’re talking about Link specifically, I haven’t noticed many people failing to pay on that.

        1. I ride the 36 a ton and think payment rates vary by what portion of the route you’re on (fewer people paying downtown and until you cross the bridge, more people paying in the neighborhood). I get my ORCA card through work, so I don’t really have an opinion about feeling like a sucker for tapping, but I still feel like I can’t relate to that. I pay fares on transit because that’s the general expectation and the right thing to do, I’m really not too concerned with what other people do. Sure, they should also pay the fare but I’m not gonna be sore about it if they don’t.

    5. BART and Vancouver sky train have them as well as Paris, London, Tokyo, Taiwan….we can figure this out. Seattle is the broken anomaly, not the standard bearer. I mean we can’t even keep escalators working or fund the system expansion. So why would anyone believe Seattle has stumbled on what to do with dare compliance when it has one of the worse in the world.

  3. I noticed recently that the Eastbound rails on I-90 are about a foot higher in elevation than than the westbound ones, at least on the floating section. Why?

  4. Comparing King County Metro 270’s Schedule with 271’s, I noticed a couple things.

    It looks like on top of losing 10-minute peak headway, 270 also finishes roughly an hour earlier than 270 on both directions. At U District, the last eastbound weeknight trip was 10:22 pm vs. 9:30 pm now. At Bellevue TC, the last UW-bound 271 trip left approximately 10:20 pm vs. 9:30 pm now. That was spoken. Between Bellevue TC and UW, 271 used to run 66 trips per weekday per direction. 270 now runs 60 trips per weekday per direction with roughly two taken away from late night and 4 taken away from peak period.

    Also, by looking at timepoints, it doesn’t seem like 270 taking Bellevue Way speed thing up at all. The most recent 271 schedule estimated that last UW-bound 271 trip took roughly 24 minutes from Bellevue TC to U District (15th Ave NE & NE 42nd S). The new 270 schedule shows that last UW-bound 270 trip takes roughly 27 minutes.
    However, it is also possible that Metro generally loosen 270’s schedule because 271 wasn’t doing very well meeting its timepoints.

    2. The 2 Line exists now, so it’s not like there’s no way to get to the U-District or Bellevue after 9:30pm. So there’s an argument to shift some hours to Link feeders or areas that don’t have Link. And the 270 is serving an apartment area while the 271 served mansions, so that’s several times more potential riders.

      The 271 was also in the top 5 underserved corridors that Metro will add to when it gets more resources. The 270 likely inherits that priority. Or at least some it, since the 2 Line is an alternative now that wasn’t available before.

      1. Then you can just make the argument that 270 shouldn’t exist because Link can cover that during the day too. It is not a coverage route. It serves a very specific demand between Downtown Bellevue and UW much faster than light rail.

        Not saying that Medica is more worth serving than Bellevue Way. I just don’t think 270 is the right service here.
        Bellevue Way north of NE 8th can be better served by extending a route coming from south such as 556 to South Kirkland P&R.
        Also, NE 8th is not that dense yet. Except two complexes near SR 520, most of the apartments are south of NE 17th from which biking and walking to Downtown Bellevue might be very competitive options for some people. 270 is just not that good of option for that short of distance especially it is usually full of people between Downtown Bellevue and SR 520.

        I think 270 just skip the part between Downtown Bellevue and SR 520. It should do the loop like 532/535 do and then enter freeway via 112th Ave NE HOV3-only ramp similar to what 556 did before.

        2. I think 270 just skip the part between Downtown Bellevue and SR 520.

          There are two issues with that. First, riders on Bellevue Way would have to backtrack. They had to before but that doesn’t mean it was good routing.

          Second, it costs money. If ST covered it with the 556 it would be great (since ST has more money to work with). This would be a logical extension, since it mimics Issaquah Link (but with more stops). But if Metro pays for all of it then you would see worse headways (somewhere) than we have right now.

        3. Bellevue Way is pretty dense. At 10th NE you are still basically downtown and yet it is way too far to walk to the transit center. At 12th you have apartment complexes. These continue off and on. It is a mix. There is plenty of low-density housing but some relatively high density housing as well. There is value in connecting this area to the UW. Of course we’ll see. Eventually we’ll get some ridership data to see how many people along there are taking advantage of the faster trip to the UW.

        4. “Bellevue Way north of NE 8th can be better served by extending a route coming from south such as 556 to South Kirkland P&R.”

          I agree, or even extend the 556 to Kirkland Downtown so the extension is at least worth it.

        5. “Not saying that Medica is more worth serving than Bellevue Way. I just don’t think 270 is the right service here.”

          I would push to redirect the 270 to Medina via the old 271 routing and the 556 to Kirkland TC via Bellevue Way so there’s more of a grid network in the Eastside.

      2. Downtown Bellevue is an awkward geography. The dense designated core extends just a bit too far from the Link stations to the north and west. And NE 8th is a very wide crossing obstacle like a river or a freeway. It’s not so far that it needs a new transit investment like a streetcar but it’s not a negligible distance either.

        Adding underground passageways or aerial passageways would be helpful — but would also be expensive, disruptive and controversial. The same would be true for changing the roadway profiles to create unobstructed pedestrian connectivity (somewhat like how Chicago elevated Wacker Drive or Seattle elevated streets near Pioneer Square).

        I think Bellevue is currently too stingy and unimaginative to consider changing what’s there today to make walkability easier for the broader area.

        The issue is seemingly well-understood. Good solutions have just not emerged. Bellevue is still struggling to make a 405 lid for pedestrian connectivity to the east happen — and that to me seems rather obvious, less disruptive and straightforward.

        1. Aerial passageways are already in place. Bellevue Place and Lincoln Square developments include 2nd floor pedestrian bridges that are open to the public 24/7, even with the private space is closed. This is smart policy by city of Bellevue and can be extended with some of the other mega projects. Kemper may not have liked transit, but he did know how to design a welcoming pedestrian environment that extends across several arterials .
          https://www-djc-com.ezproxy.spl.org/stories/images/20260901/BellCol_Kemper%20map%202017_big.jpg

          As you mention, is the urban core needs to grow several blocks to the east and south, placing the the Link stations more central. Growing East is underway but could be a bit more ambitious; lidding 405 or at least providing ped crossings at all blocks (NE 2nd and SE 1st are missing) is good but not essential. Growing south is not on the table now but should once there is political will.

          Finally, to provide transport for those unable or unwilling to walk on foot. With autonomous vehicles, perhaps dust off the PRB concept for something that circulates downtown?
          https://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/belvue.htm

        2. Yes at least Kemper Freeman has provided pedestrian bridges and that’s a good thing. Still, they are intended to connect only the properties that they own and not tie into Link nor the Bellevue TC several blocks away.

          Downtown pedestrian systems have been built elsewhere to mixed success. Montreal, Edmonton and Toronto are good but their success is driven by brutal winters. Minneapolis is similar. Cincinnati’s lost its luster. Houston’s feels like a rat maze.

        3. Downtown Bellevue is not an awkward geometry. DT Issaquah, Renton, Lynnwood, and Tacoma are. But DT Bellevue, west of 405, is almost a perfect square. (Main to 12th, and 100th to 114th). And at just over a half a square mile, it’s fairly compact. The only question is how best to serve it with transit.

        4. “Downtown Bellevue is not an awkward geometry. DT Issaquah, Renton, Lynnwood, and Tacoma are.”

          I said “geography” and not “geometry”, Sam. I see them as different things. NE 8th is pretty wide and kind of scary to walk across, for example. The slope change on NE 6th west of the Bellevue TC is also awkward. Those are geographical challenges rather than geometrical ones.

          Renton and Issaquah are actually pretty flat. Tacoma has a steep hillside in Downtown. Lynnwood has huge stroads throughout. So they aren’t perfect — and are spread out. So I agree that they’re not great.

          From a transit hub, it’s the walking distance that matters — and it’s usually better as a circle rather than a square when it comes to geometry. And if two Link stations are close enough together, a better geometric shape is more like a peanut profile with overlapping circles.

        5. I do like your idea of adding underground of aerial passageways. Perhaps an aerial one could go from the Bellevue TC to the mall, but if it’s not a covered, movable walkway, I don’t see the point, as the NE 6th street pedestrian walkway is a pretty good way to make that walk.

          I was up at the BTC on Monday, and did overhear a couple of people at Bay 12 asking the route 270 driver how to get to Bellevue Square. He said he didn’t go there, and that they should take the route 249 (which they just missed, so they had a half hour wait).

        6. I meant to write geography, but it came out geometry. It may have auto suggested it. Not sure. Bellevue seems to be addressing some of the things you’re talking about, but they are going in the direction of partnerships with BellHop shuttle, Bellevue Light Rail Shuttle, and recently allowing Lime e-bikes and scooters.

        7. I have to say that the transit shuttles help. One problem is that there’s a certain distance where walking is more difficult but a transit shuttle isn’t far enough to justify waiting.

        8. A (relatively) cheap band-aid for walkability could be landscaped refuge medians, similar to Mercer & Fairview in Seattle. Not a perfect solution but they help cut a huge crosswalk into two medium crosswalks.

        9. “The only question is how best to serve it with transit.”

          Open BRT. That’s it.

        11. Downtown Bellevue is not an awkward geometry [or geography] … But DT Bellevue, west of 405, is almost a perfect square.

          Agreed. The geography is a bit more complicated than that though. Some of the roads go through, others don’t. The north-south corridor with the most potential is Bellevue Way. It goes for a long distance, much of it has good density. 112th isn’t that good from a density perspective but at least it goes. The square is pretty big so 112th can complement Bellevue Way. From an east-west perspective the best street is NE 8th, even though there is very little density to the west. It is reasonable for a frequent bus to turn as it reaches 100th, if not sooner. You would still need something to the south on 4th or maybe Main. It seems fairly straightforward if not for one thing: Link.

          The two downtown stations are on the same north-south corridor (112th). Neither station works well from an east-west perspective. The big station in the area (Bellevue Downtown) sits on 6th. There is an excellent connection to express buses coming from the freeway but 6th does not go through to the west. Thus the two stations do not work well from an east-west grid perspective and they sit on the same north-south corridor (the weaker of the two).

          This is why the situation is awkward. You can’t easily serve the downtown area while also connecting to the stations. Buses along Bellevue Way (arguably the strongest corridor in Bellevue) must leave it, right in the middle of downtown. They can overlap and loop around, but that is annoying for through-riders. They can turn early, but then riders are forced to walk farther. There is a similar issue with buses coming from the east. The RapidRide B serves NE 8th, a straightforward corridor with good density in places. It only has one stop in the main part of downtown. It crosses the freeway and just makes a beeline to the station (no pun intended). It doesn’t go farther west as that would delay through-riders.

          All of this goes back to the weakness of the East Main Station. It adds nothing from a network standpoint. The 220 and 240 both run by the station. But those buses (coming from the south) of course keep going and layover right next to the other station.

          ST had alternatives. One would be to put the East Main Station at Bellevue Way. That would get a lot more walk-up riders. It would complement the other downtown station quite well. It would also improve the network considerably. The buses that are on Bellevue Way would just stay on Bellevue Way until they go through the main part of downtown. Ideally we find layovers on the edge of downtown (just like in Seattle) but even with existing layovers it would work. The 270 could just keep going and layover at South Bellevue. The 556 would go through downtown and turn right on 8th; then right on 108th and layover at the transit center. The 240 could just go straight up 112th to the transit center. The 220 would stay on Main until Bellevue Way, then follow the 556 to the transit center. The B-Line could do a mirror image of that. From the east it would cross the freeway but then turn left on Bellevue Way. It would go at least as far as Main. It could always layover at South Bellevue or loop around to the transit center (via Main and 108th). You would have several buses on Bellevue Way — enough to form a spine. The 250 would go on 8th (just like the B Line). Thus you would have (at least) two frequent buses on NE 8th as well. Less frequent routes (like the 226 and 249) can contribute to the these big corridors or help out with the smaller ones (like 112th). Travel within downtown would be much better. Those taking a trip to Downtown Bellevue (via Link or a bus) would be much better off. It is just a much better network.

          But we don’t live in that world. Instead we have to figure out ways of making up for the poor station placement of East Main. It isn’t easy. It is awkward.

        12. I think Metro’s long term plan for Bellevue (assuming it holds) is fairly reasonable. The 270-B and the K form a rough grid across Bellevue TC. The remaining SW direction should get covered by a route like the 556, with a layover at the library.

        13. The 270-B and the K form a rough grid across Bellevue TC.

          Does it though? The 270 goes south on Bellevue Way and turns east on NE 8th before going to the transit center. The B-Line goes back to NE 8th. So the two buses combined barely go south of NE 8th (they only go south to serve the station). It looks like the K Link will follow the same basic route as the 250. This means it doesn’t share stops on NE 8th.

          The remaining SW direction should get covered by a route like the 556, with a layover at the library.

          That would help. But it would still be pretty limited. From the transit center you could take either the K Line or the 556 to get to the library. That is nice but it isn’t that far. Overall the options just aren’t that good.

          For example, imagine you are trying to get from NE 2nd to NE 10th. This is a far enough walk that you would definitely consider transit. I can’t see any corridor where this works. Bellevue Way requires a long walk — and only one bus. It isn’t worth it. At 108th you actually have a good option. The 249 makes that trip fairly quickly. But that bus runs every half hour. You can take the 240 but it ends by the transit center. Likewise you can walk up to the transit center and take a bus but by then you are half way there. The options to the east are similar. They just don’t work.

          What is true of NE 2nd to NE 10th is true of Main to NE 8th. There are plenty of bus stops with lots of buses that head that way but they all turn or end before connecting the two areas.

          Things are a bit better east-west but they still aren’t great. For example, this is a walk on NE 8th. You start next to a mall but on the other side of the street are skyscrapers. You end by skyscrapers as well. This is clearly a trip within Downtown Bellevue. It is also long enough that you would at least consider a bus. But it doesn’t work. The only bus by the mall is the 249. You have to move further east, to 106th. You also need a bus stop at about 111th. But even if they added that bus stop the only route that would work for that trip is the 270-B. For a trip that short you need lots of buses, otherwise people just walk. It will be an improvement for longer trips (NE 8th & 116th to Wilburton) but nothing like what you find on urban corridors in Seattle. Oh, and NE 8th is the best one. On NE 4th the bus only travels for a small section. This means a trip from apartment buildings to skyscrapers is best done as a long walk. Main is worse.

          We don’t have a grid, we have a hub network with Bellevue Transit Center as the hub. Given the size of Downtown Bellevue and the location of the transit center, that just isn’t very good. I’m not saying this is an easy thing to fix — I’m just saying it is a tough situation and I can understand why a lot of people just drive to Downtown Bellevue (or even within Downtown Bellevue) to avoid long walks.

        14. I don’t think there are easy solutions for Downtown Bellevue. It is a very tough nut to crack. I see a few choices:

          1) Detour the buses so that they provide more connections within Downtown Bellevue. This would delay riders that are headed to Link.

          2) Skip the Bellevue Downtown Station. This could work for the B Line, since it serves Wilburton. It could work for the 220 or 240 since they serve East Main. That is about it. There is some potential there, but not a lot.

          3) Extend a few routes after serving the transit center. This has potential. But unless you have more places to layover, it will still be a bit limited. Even with extensions, the location of the stations create a challenging situations.

          4) Run some sort of shuttle. These tend to be expensive and not that effective. You lose the advantage of just extending a route (riders are still transferring). One advantage though is that you can get Downtown Bellevue to pay for it (maybe) in ways that they wouldn’t pay for general transit.

          I see some combination of the first three but with additional layovers. For example, assume there is some sort of layover close to East Main. Now extend the 270 down Bellevue Way to Main. Turn left and serve the East Main Station. Extend the B Line to South Bellevue, via Bellevue Way. Have the 220 stay on Main (past the station) and then go up Bellevue Way NE 8th and layover where the 235 apparently lays over. While we are at it, have the 556 loop around (https://maps.app.goo.gl/8i8dZgTW5QXum7WcA). That would be four buses on Bellevue Way from Main to 8th (with several of them extending further). That is a fair amount of extra service but nothing crazy. You have a solid spine on Bellevue Way.

          That still isn’t great for East-West travel but it would still be an improvement. The B-Line serves NE 8th from Bellevue Way to Crossroads. At least Main Street would have two buses (the 220 and 270). But going east-west on NE 4th is still a challenge (there is nothing that would go far). So yeah, all that jumbling around and you have one spine (on Bellevue Way) and better service on Main. That may be about as good as you can get.

        15. For transit strategies, I lean toward’s Ross’ option 3 — extending routes that end at Bellevue TC. Buses cannot turn around at Bellevue TC unless they make a big loop anyway, having to go through several intersections with long signal waits.

          For example, RapidRide B could simply extend to Old Bellevue or Bellevue Downtown Park. There are already restrooms at 100th Ave NE and NE 1st St for driver layovers. Minor street restriping and on-street parking removal could create a good place to pause buses.

          But nothing would beat a better pedestrian environment there. Many sidewalks and crosswalks are not laid out to encourage walking.

          There really should be a grade separated path over or under NE 8th St near 110th Ave NE. It could even enliven the Bravern if it involved linking their empty pedestrian walkways into a new NE 8th overcrossing. The hard thing about doing these things is convincing developers that it’s good for their real estate investments (adding foot traffic) rather than just be for public benefit.

          A few parcels left for upcoming development could have diagonal second floor connections to make it a shorter walk to Link and the TC.

          Sometimes, something low-cost like covered walkways could go a long way to make walking easier as long as they don’t attract vagrants.

        16. “Run some sort of shuttle. These tend to be expensive and not that effective.”

          And downtown Bellevue has not just one, but two shuttles!

        17. “Skip the Bellevue Downtown Station. This could work for the B Line, since it serves Wilburton.”

          Not for people transferring to S1/560, S2/560, K/250, 240, etc.

        18. “RapidRide B could simply extend to Old Bellevue or Bellevue Downtown Park.”

          This makes the most sense. A lot of reasons for continuing west weren’t appreciated or anticipated in the 2000s when the B was designed. The primary motivation for the B was to get full-time 15 minute service between Bellevue TC, Crossroads, Overlake, and Redmond, and the faster travel time and next-arrival displays that come with RapidRide. NE 8th Street was the most built-up east-west corridor.

          I used 550+B to get to my relative’s apartment. Since I had already moved away from Bellevue, it never occurred to me the experience of riders from 8th or 156th going to Bellevue Square but the B terminates at the TC. I knew about the NE 6th Street pedestrian corridor, and I assumed everybody would enjoy walking it for the last half mile. In retrospect, the B should have continued further west to serve the entire downtown. The B+270 concept will do this someday, although with the turn at 8th & BW that people are complaining about.

          Going to the southwest corner of downtown (Old Bellevue) is an interesting concept. Really, Metro should serve that corridor and be ultra-frequent about it, and the City of Bellevue should recognize this need. But having the B do that would contradict the B+270 concept, so we’d lose that.

        19. “A lot of reasons for continuing west weren’t appreciated or anticipated in the 2000s when the B was designed.”

          What I’ve seen since 1990 is Bellevue Square expand multiple times, the other Bellevue Collection buildings go up, the Downtown Park built 75% and later the last quarter added, highrise offices/hotels/condos go up, activities like the Christmas Snowflake parades and winter ice-skating in the park, the wave of immigrant tech workers especially from India, and an “urban, pedestrian” culture emerging in downtown Bellevue that either lives downtown or takes transit to it.

          I don’t remember which part happened when or in what order, or how much was already in place when the B was designed, but the density, population, and urban/pedestrian activity culture has certainly grown since then. This in turn has made extending transit routes all the way through downtown and extending the B more necessary.

        20. On a map, 270 + B makes good sense. However I wonder about how the extended length would affect reliability. There are faster and more reliable ways to connect Overlake and Redmond with UW than go through Downtown Bellevue (including a jog to reach the Bellevue TC).

          The opening of 2 Line does diminish the role of the Bellevue TC. There are now 6 stations in Bellevue with high frequency Link trains. A rider can go from South Bellevue to BelRed in just 13 minutes per ST schedules.

          The trips between Redmond Technology and Bellevue Downtown stations is just 12 minutes. It takes RapidRide B 23 minutes to run between these stations per Metro schedules. So even if a rider just misses a Link train and a RR-B bus is approaching, the 10 minute frequency for 2 Line means that it would still generally be faster to ride Link.

        21. “There are faster and more reliable ways to connect Overlake and Redmond with UW than go through Downtown Bellevue”

          The B would be split at 8th & 156th. The B+270 concept is Crossroads-8th-Bellevue TC-Bellevue Way-520-District. So the primary purpose is the existing roles of Crossroads-Bellevue TC, UW-Bellevue TC, adding Crossroads-Bellevue Square, 8th-Bellevue Way, UW-8th, etc.

          The other half is a B+245 concept: Redmond-Overlake-Crossroads-Bellevue College+Eastgate. (Metro calls it B+226, but I think that’s been superceded by the 226’s move to fully 164th and its extension to South Bellevue.)

          Overlake to UW has the 542 and Link. It’s Crossroads and 8th that don’t have Link. A full UW-Crossroads trip might be less competitive than 542+245, but that’s OK, the primary purpose of RapidRide isn’t for end-to-end trips; it’s for trips to the middle.

        22. @Ross

          I don’t think we can reasonably expect bus service to replace every potential 10-minute walk in central Bellevue. Bellevue would need to grow dramatically for that type of service to generate a passable level of ridership. Even in Seattle, trips like Broadway/Republican to 19th/Republican or 5th/Mercer to MOHAI are common but will likely never have decent bus service.

          On the other hand I think it’s reasonable to expect bus service to cover most of central Bellevue from the TC. I think the 270-B, K, and 556 do a decent job at that, while also offering some useful through-routes.

          I do agree that it would be nice to have a layover somewhere in Old Bellevue and through-route some buses though.

          @Al S

          The 270-B opens up North Seattle for riders from Crossroads and vice versa. Crossroads is one of the larger rider markets on the eastside (larger than, for example, downtown Kirkland, downtown Bothell, or Totem Lake).

          The plan is to truncate the trip in Crossroads, though I think it should probably hook north to layover at Redmond Tech

        23. “Broadway/Republican to 19th/Republican or 5th/Mercer to MOHAI are common but will likely never have decent bus service.”

          Metro Connects has a Roy/Aloha route (3104). It would come from Uptown on Harrison, Eastlake, Lakeview Blvd, Roy, Aloha, 23rd to Madison. An earlier version went further to Garfield HS. 3xxx routes are targeted as 30-minute service.

    3. I don’t think the shift to Bellevue Way is because it’s supposed to be faster. I think it’s because there’s a low-income apartment complex there, so there’s more demand.

      1. Yeah, if they wanted a faster route they would just go via 405. Bellevue Way is just the logical choice for killing two birds with one stone. You cover a relatively dense area and you still provide a fairly fast, consistent route between Downtown Bellevue and the UW. There is also another advantage to the new routing: Riders can transfer at the freeway station. Consider someone trying to get from Redmond to the UW: https://maps.app.goo.gl/y3JNrE5fjthuxxhd7. Ideally they catch the 542. But when they showed up (ten minutes after noon) they have a long wait for that bus. They are better off taking the 545 and transferring to a bus headed to the UW. In this case they take the 255 but with the 270 running often they have more chances of a quick transfer.

        The routing really isn’t the problem. The service level is. This connects the second and third biggest destinations in the region and yet the bus isn’t that frequent.

        1. “The routing really isn’t the problem. The service level is. This connects the second and third biggest destinations in the region and yet the bus isn’t that frequent.”

          And, the reason why the service level is so poor is because, in the mind of Metro’s planners, it’s only unique coverage is Bellevue, therefore, it’s primary function is just a shortcut. The problem is, there are numerous other routes in Bellevue with evening/weekend service equal to or better than the 270, with much less ridership potential. On Saturday night, the 249 is running with the same hourly crap frequency as the 270, for example. Does Metro really believe that the 270 and 249 are of equal importance?

          I understand that, upgrading the 270 with the current service budget might mean that some other corridors might lose their evening service, but if it’s something like Medina, where everybody has plenty of money for cars and Uber, that seems like a very small price to pay. After all, Medina would still get service during the day to get the not-quite-old-enough-to-drive-but-have-parents-too-busy-to-drive-them teenage children to school and back.

        2. I cannot think of many reasons someone who frequently go to UW would lease an apartment somewhere outside Downtown Bellevue where rents are more expensive.
          Rental housings in the vicinity of Downtown Bellevue is only attractive for those who go to work/school in the eastside. Therefore, I don’t think it is a big deal for Bellevue Way north of NE 12th not having direct service to UW.

        3. I cannot think of many reasons someone who frequently go to UW would lease an apartment somewhere outside Downtown Bellevue where rents are more expensive.

          I can. One spouse works in Downtown Bellevue. The other goes to school or works at the UW. Or maybe their destination is not the UW. Maybe one of them works at Children’s Hospital. Or maybe it isn’t a couple. Maybe someone was working on the East Side but got laid off and now they work in Seattle. They can sell their condo but they would rather not. Or maybe they just like living in Bellevue and don’t want to move. That is where their friends or family are. Maybe work in Bellevue but frequently attend cultural activities at the UW. There are dozens of reasons why someone would be in that situation.

          That is why suburban office parks lead to bad traffic. It is a 1950s mindset (even though it took off in the 80s). Why commute when you can just move really close to the suburban job? You are going to work there for forty years — might as well move there. The argument is similar and doesn’t reflect reality. Not everyone wants to live in that suburb for whatever reason. Next thing you know, the “reverse commute” is about as bad as the regular commute.

        4. “the reason why the service level is so poor is because, in the mind of Metro’s planners, it’s only unique coverage is Bellevue, therefore, it’s primary function is just a shortcut.”

          We don’t know that, and it’s unlikely. Have you heard Metro planners or others who would know say that? Again, if Metro wanted the fastest shortcut, it would take 405 like the 556 did.

      2. “I don’t think the shift to Bellevue Way is because it’s supposed to be faster. I think it’s because there’s a low-income apartment complex there”

        It’s because there are a couple dozen apartment buildings all along Bellevue Way. They may be 2-story garden apartments but that’s still thousands of residents. I haven’t heard of a low-income apartment complex there, but there may be. Also the 270 should be faster because Bellevue Way has a higher speed limit, a larger percent of the trip is on 520, and you don’t get caught in the congestion at the 84th entrance.

  5. When the Jackson Street bridge over BSNF railway needs to be replaced, it will apparently need to be 3-7 feet taller: https://www.theurbanist.org/railroad-demands-cloud-seattles-path-to-replacing-aging-jackson-street-bridges/

    Future reconstruction of the bridge to be taller would apparently require reconstruction of the roadway in front of Union Station, as well, and probably impact 4th Avenue South.

    Reconstruction of this bridge (and associated difficulties coordinating with BNSF) were a major reason why the 4th Avenue Shallow option for BLE has largely been scrapped (https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/11/16/ballard-link-extension-4th-ave-shallow-is-dead-long-live-5th-ave-diagonal/).

    1. The vertical clearance at King Street Station should not need to be any different from the vertical clearance provided by the Great Northern Tunnel. It’s beyond time to nationalize the freight roads.

    2. I have to wonder if there’s any way to consider moving the freight tracks to a new tunnel. That would free up the existing GW tunnel for a complete overhaul for the next century — with it being exclusively used for passenger trains in some form.

      The advantage of moving freight tracks to a new tunnel is that they don’t need stations Downtown like passenger trains would. It’s the deep station vaults that make things like DSTT2 so costly.

      I get that there are no plans nor funds to do this. It would require sensitive negotiations with BNSF. There are no plans to how this would benefit train riders. But it certainly would change the discussions about Downtown Seattle rail transit — and with DSTT2 with Ballard Link the price tag is big enough ($15B-$20B) that a game-changing strategy could pencil out.

      1. BNSF isn’t even replacing the Salmon Bay Bridge, it’s just rehabbing it for another half-century of use. BNSF, as we know it, would never abandon the GN tunnel. If it were nationalized, though…

        1. There’s no way through Puget Sound from Everett to Auburn except the BNSF tunnel. NP’s line through Bellevue is a trail or gone. The waterfront trackage that the heritage trolley used is out of service. It’s important to move freight between Vancouver BC and points south of Seattle, and the “detour” through Spokane is at least 600 miles farther.

          So EVEN if BNSF were nationalized, that bore would still be very important.

        2. “There’s no way through Puget Sound from Everett to Auburn except the BNSF tunnel.”

          The WA HSR folks suggested a long bored tunnel under central and north Seattle.

          A wise engineer I once knew said most civil projects are not impossible; they’re just expensive.

    4. If it’s just the bridge, can’t the tracks be simply lowered by that 3-7 feet one at a time? It would hamper operations during construction but it looks less disruptive than elevating the roadway would be.

      1. You’d need 300-700 feet on each side to achieve 1% grade, and BNSF would never go for it. The whole point is that it’s flat between King Street and the waterfront, so forcing a 3-7 foot dip just for a bridge is an absolute non-starter.

    5. I would read that as BNSF’s initial negotiating position and a way to leverage the city in some other way. Those bridges have existed almost the entire time BNSF and their predecessors have had a railroad there, and the tunnel is right there so there’s not much in the way of a reasonable argument for raising them 3 to 7 feet. I think this is just BNSF saying “we aren’t interested in you doing this project”

      1. Absolutely true that BNSF has no interest in allowing a variance from their vertical clearance requirements for a new bridge. Possibly the most obstinant company in North America.

  8. Very happy to see the fare gates. It doesn’t matter if they call it a pilot or if the feelings crowd didn’t want to say what Bart already made clear: fare gates reduce crime and reduce maintenance which are cost savings on top of the added revenue. Sound Transit is too scared to collect the data because of what it will show but Bart did the country a favor by just saying the quiet part loud. That’s the type of leadership courage we need to see more of.

    2. SF Muni always had fare gates Downtown. They left them working even when they officially went to proof of payment. Of course, Muni also has station agents to approve paper transfers.

      1. Is there any future fare system improvement left to wait for before Metro can get rid of paper transfers?

        1. Er, since fare checkers will need some sort of proof-of-payment for those who look older than 18, I suppose Metro might have to go cashless to get rid of paper slips.

    1. You mean another puff piece in favor of merging Everett Transit into Community Transit? (Which I happen to support)

      He talks about general benefits of improved connectivity, without mentioning the sales tax increase (which I happen to support) that comes with the merger,

      ST could do some of the stuff on his list, if Everett would but ask.

      Instead, Everett wants to keep its wasteful express route to downtown Seattle (the bus, that is, not the train), at great expense.

    1. The announcement doesn’t appear to announce an opening day party. Will there be one? Wednesday is an odd day for a party.

      Maybe there will just be a ribbon cutting.

  13. Once again, a general election is just two months away. Yet I see only one station, Angle Lake, is listed with a ballot drop box. With 160K boardings each weekday (likely 75K of King County voters), not having drop boxes at busy Link stations is to me irresponsible. A voter should be able to drop their ballot and not have to leave a station.

    In contrast, many if not most drop boxes are designed for people to drive to them.

    With the USPS ballot return reliability being openly questioned, returning ballots at designated drop boxes becomes even more important this year.

    There are other drop boxes across the county reachable within a few blocks of Link stations — but it’s going to require a voter to leave the station for up to 10 minutes of walking round trip. The one at Seattle Central seems closest, just south of the Capitol Hill west entrance.

    I have no issue putting drop boxes at drop off areas for the more suburban Link stations. They actually seem to me to be a more natural fit for a drop box than where many nearby boxes are now placed.

    With the huge surge in Link ridership this past year, it’s beyond time for King County Elections and Sound Transit to coordinate putting more drop boxes at key stations and to then promote their use. That’s particularly true for East Link station areas.

    1. The main problem with mail ballots is not whether USPS will deliver voted ballots back to vote counting centers. The problem is whether USPS will deliver ballots to all registered voters.

      King County traditionally sets up in-person voting at ST’s headquarters in Union Station, next to International District / Chinatown Station. Ballots can also be dropped off there.

      Hopefully the USPS follows the law and gives the state back the ballots USPS refuses to deliver, which the state could then deliver by courier service or other means.

      The USPS still has to deliver all the Voters’ Guides, which will hopefully have info on what to do if you don’t receive your ballot by a certain date.

      But I agree that having more transit-accessible places to drop off ballots would be a good idea.

      The state saves the cost of returning your ballot by mail if you drop your ballot at a drop box. This year, your ballot will be more secure if you use a drop box than if you mail your ballot.

    3. The best place for a Link ballot dropbox inside a station would be at Westlake station, where so many people transfer or pass through or use the mezzanine. It could be near the part-time pass sales booth.

      Otherwise I’d guess the best place is just outside station entrances, so that people outside can drop off ballots without having to go in. The one at Capitol Hill station is almost that close, just a block away, and no street in between. I’m not sure if one inside would get as much use as one just outside the entrance.

      Do other cities have dropboxes inside stations or at entrances? Which ones?

      1. The places that I would consider would be:

        UW Station
        Northgate Station
        Mt Baker Station
        Federal Way Station
        Union Station next to Link
        South Bellevue Station
        Downtown Redmond Station
        Bellevue Downtown Station or City Hall plaza
        TIBS Station

        Several of these could be next to existing drop off zones.

        And every station with a ballot drop box nearby should have temporary signs that show where each is and how to get there.

        It’s amazing to me that King County Elections has not worked with Sound Transit to put drop boxes. There will have been 19 new Link stations since early 2021 until this fall’s elections. Link boardings in King County have roughly doubled since 2019. And Metro has restructured many routes to also reach these stations.

Comments are closed.