Today Sound Transit announced Pinehurst station will open September 30, 2026. Located between Shoreline South and Northgate stations, Pinehurst is the first ever Link infill station. The area around the station has been slow to develop as it is primarily occupied by Jackson Park Golf Course and I-5. The new King County Metro Route 77 stops next to Pinehurst station and provides east/west service along N 130th St and NE 125th St.
Pinehurst station was approved as part of ST3 in 2016 and was accelerated to open 5 years before its original projected opening in 2031.
Trains on the 1 Line and 2 Line will begin serving Pinehurst station at 5am on September 30 and a community celebration will take place later in the day.
ST promised to open the station in Q3 of this year. It looks like they will make it.
Barely. It’s the final Q3 day.
I dislike starting rail lines just to meet a timeline projection, promise, or politically-imposed deadline, especially since the Point Defiance Bypass disaster.
Even just for a new station, vertical conveyances, signals, restrooms, pedestrian gates, and other miscellaneous stuff have to be tested. Getting a key safety-sensitive issue fixed ought to trump political deadlines.
It would have been better to have built the structure spanning 130th so riders to and from eastbound buses wouldn’t have to cross it, but the station should expand Link’s catchment area west of I-5 significantly. I would suggest extending the 28 from Carkeek Park to Lake City via Greenwood, 130th and 125th. The 28 is pretty quick through West Greenwood and crosses the 44 while it’s still at Market Street, so no double back is necessary to use it to get to this station from “North Greenwood”. The catchment for a stop at 105th and Greenwood would reach down to 100th.
Yes, I don’t know why it was moved north to 148th.
Is the ped bridge west toward Twin Ponds Park open yet?
Mike, I believe the truss structure is partially completed and currently sitting in the southbound shoulder of I-5. Shoreline city’s project page says opening will be in November
https://www.shorelinewa.gov/government/projects-initiatives/148th-street-pedestrian-bicycle-bridge
oops, full closure of I-5 to put the structure in place is in November. Opening day is Spring 2027!
Yes. When I saw the post below, my first reaction was oooo another I-5 mainline closure. Hopefully they can pull it off within one night so it won’t have to be a full weekend closure.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/kraemer-north-america_kraemernorthamerica-kraemerna-kna-activity-7498137154062012416-PN7W?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAACkcd0YBxEiv0BEpJg72N4mBKLwGMUmofuY
it was discussed back in 2016
https://www.theurbanist.org/shorelines-145th-street-station-is-moving-north/
I don’t quite remember the timeline completely but I think basically when they shifted the stride 3 brt from heading further south towards northgate and instead to 145th station they need a bigger station bay.
Yes, it has a weird history. Just to back up here, a lot of transit advocates wanted the station at 155th. That would make the two Shoreline stations quite similar. They would be on cross streets that don’t have on-ramps or exits. As a result, those streets don’t have as much traffic. A bus from the east would go up 15th and then west on 155th. It could keep going until it got to Shoreline College (https://maps.app.goo.gl/NfiZJ3qPC7EyRaG77). From a network standpoint this is about as good as you are going to get. Not only do you avoid traffic but you cover more density by making the dogleg. Instead of the bus going by the golf course the bus is covering apartments and other areas. Similarly, there is much better TOD potential on 155th rather than 145th since you aren’t next to the golf course or all the freeway ramps.
But people wanted 145th. Those coming from the east (e. g. Kenmore) didn’t want to “backtrack” if driving to the station. Or maybe they assumed the buses were going to go on 145th and they wanted them to stay on 145th (traffic be damned). Fair enough.
But then they moved the station to 148th, which means the buses have to turn anyway. But unlike 155th, it really doesn’t make sense to turn on 15th. So now the buses are going on the street with a lot of freeway traffic and a lot less development (145th). Yet the buses still have to turn (along with the freeway traffic). The buses all seem to end there, like it is Northgate. This is a clear flaw in the routing. If a bus is going east-west (like the 65, 72, 333 or 522) then it should not just stop in the middle of the city. It should continue to go east-west until it reaches the edge (e. g. Shoreline Community College, Bitter Lake, etc.). That would mean the bus has to detour to the station and back but that is a small price to pay compared to a forced transfer. From a network perspective the station is poor but the routing is worse. In terms of walk-up ridership it is a little bit better but not as good as if it was at 155th. They should have put the station at 155th, as folks suggested. Oh well.
Interface with freeway on ramp
Yeah, it would have been better to span 130th. It might have even been cheaper. Keep in mind how they build the station. Initially they planned to build it to the north. Then they realized that it was steeper there than they originally thought (I kid you not). So, it turns out that the station would be more expensive than the original estimate, despite its minimalist design. Thus it might have actually been cheaper to build it straddling 130th. Of course that would have meant designing it with that mind when they built Lynnwood Link. By the time they actually worked on the station, it was too late. That was the big mistake: It should have been built with the rest of Lynnwood Link.
I would suggest extending the 28 from Carkeek Park to Lake City via Greenwood, 130th and 125th.
I think this combination would be better: https://seattletransitblog.com/2025/10/14/better-bus-service-to-pinehurst-station/. The 5 turns and goes to Lake City. (It would split from the 21.) The 75 goes to Shoreline Community College. The two buses are timed to work together to provide 7.5 minute headways from Bitter Lake to Lake City. The 77 just runs from Lake City to the UW.
Yes, I thought of that first; it’s elegant and simple. The 5 is more of a trunk route, and you get a two-seat ride on Link to the north from all the way south to 39th. But, there are a LOT of people who live in the Greenwood corridor who attend Shoreline College. At least, there were when I lived there. And, to come from or go to Ballard along the 44 means a nine block double-back.
So, I suggested the 28 because it has a very weak terminal, it’s the fastest bus between 55th and 85th, and it can catch the section of Greenwood from 105th to 130th and take riders to and from Bitter Lake Station,. Having some bus do that seems very useful.
I was assuming that thr 75 or 77 would turn north at Greenwood to the college, as you suggest.
But now I see that the 77 is going to turn around at 145th using the old 28 loop at Linden. Boo! I guess the 333 is supposed to be the Link to Shoreline bus. I guess that’s OK for those folks, but it leaves Lake City folks who want to get to Shoreline College fifteen blocks south of their goal. Poor.
But, there are a LOT of people who live in the Greenwood corridor who attend Shoreline College
Not as many as I thought. About 150 get off the bus at Shoreline Community College. Some of those riders board at 130th or places north (they would be unaffected). Meanwhile, the old 330 — a bus that used to run only a few times every day — had about 125 riders at Shoreline Community College despite only going from Lake City to the college. Thus it is quite likely you would get more one-seat riders to the college from the 75. It isn’t like folks along Greenwood wouldn’t be able to get to the college. They would still have a straightforward transfer.
It is also quite likely you get more riders on the 5. Think about someone in Phinney Ridge or on Greenwood north of 85th. They ride the 5 northbound. Which way would they rather go? Up to Shoreline Community College or take a right, connecting to Link and Lake City. My guess is the majority would rather go to the right.
But mostly it is about the network. This would force riders to transfer if they are just going straight up Greenwood. I don’t like that. But there aren’t that many that are continuing and by turning east you connect to a lot more transit (including Link). We have made progress with routes like the 61 and 77 (as flawed as they are) but there are still crazy transfers for relatively common trips, like this:
1) Sand Point to Shoreline Community College — https://maps.app.goo.gl/45nkHee3ZYJDPPYu9. This is a three-seat ride that takes almost an hour (not counting the initial wait time). You can drive there in about twenty minutes. If the 75 was sent to the college it would make this trip dramatically faster.
2) Lake City to Ballard — https://maps.app.goo.gl/3GQRoxf83ds1yvrDA. Again, almost an hour. It is a two-seat ride but it involves so much back and forth on the 40 that it takes a really long time. If the 5 was sent to Lake City this trip would be a lot faster.
3) Greenwood Avenue to the U-District — https://maps.app.goo.gl/ybs3mMNtRfdc8caEA. Wow. So many options, none of them good. Notice that one of the fastest option is to actually take the 5 all the way to the Shoreline College, then transfer to a bus to get to 148th Station before taking Link. In contrast, riders along Greenwood (north of 85th) would be connected to Link with one bus. It would involve a little backtracking but it would still save them a huge amount of time.
4) Kenmore to Phinney Ridge — https://maps.app.goo.gl/cNf1ssMrtm8qxQfi7. OK, this isn’t that common. Lake City to Phinney Ridge is a lot more common and it isn’t quite as bad (https://maps.app.goo.gl/C319sfoXFKn5kjFVA). But this just shows the side benefits that come from connecting Lake City to Phinney Ridge via Link. Just about every bus in the north end connects to Link so folks from Kenmore would take it (from 148th to Pinehurst) and then continue the trip from there. No one likes three-seat rides but they are common with Link and really not that bad. Link is fast and now very frequent in the north end. Pinehurst Station becomes more than the gateway to Lake City and Bitter Lake. For riders from the north it would be the gateway to Greenwood Avenue and Phinney Ridge as well.
The network benefits from sending the 5 to Lake City (and the 75 to Shoreline Community College) are substantial. You would have more one-seat trips as well. But one of the big benefits is that the 125th/130th corridor — the fastest way to reach Link for a lot of people — would get more frequent and more reliable service.
When I was considering a route 77 ride on Saturday, one of my issues was how to get to 143rd & Linden from Capitol Hill or the Eastside without going the slow way on the 5 or E.. Because Pinehurst station wasn’t available and I didn’t want to ride a small part of the route and spoil the surprise of seeing the whole thing in order. My first thought was to transfer to the 40 at Northgate or the route north of 145th and then transfer to the E, but I wasn’t enthusiastic about that. There hadn’t been a route on 145th west of the station and I wasn’t sure if there was one now. I finally looked at the system map and saw that the 333 goes on western 145th and runs every 15 minutes, so that was going to be my strategy. In the end I didn’t have enough time after my Eastside trip to get to the 77 before dark, and after dark I couldn’t see the landscape I wanted to see, so I left it for another day.
The transfer at 130th isn’t yet clear, but I expect it won’t be too bad. The 5 currently stops farside both directions, so if the 75/77 is extended to the college — currently the 77 is planned to loop at 143/145, forcing another transfer or 15 block walk to the college — and a southbound stop just east of Greenwood is added, the transfers would be reasonable. Southbound riders continuing on Greenwood would only have to walk a bit more than a bus length back to Greenwood and then cross it. Northbound they’d walk that same stretch and then cross 130th and walk a little way north to the existing (no shelter) bus stop.
So, if the 75 or 77 were extended to Shoreline, then it would be pretty OK for riders to or from south of 130th on Greenwood headed to or from the college.
But that’s not the plan today, and it would be more expensive to extend the 5 to Lake City and the 75/77 on to the college than to extend the less-frequent 28 to Lake City.
That’s true for many stations.
This station will be an interesting bellwether of whether or not a freeway-RoW station can be adequately served without a parking garage.
I’m skeptical that the station will actually induce greater system-level ridership simply due to poor walkshed
I think the 77 will be the key part of how much ridership Pinehurst draws. It will be about 10 minutes faster to go via the 77/Link that it is to go via the 5 or E from the vicinity of Greenwood/Aurora/130th, and that trip will probably be more reliable than the E (though not sure how the 77 has been doing since it entered service). Not sure if it’ll be faster from Lake City to go via Pinehurst or Roosevelt, but it will surely be faster to do the 77 via Pinehurst rather than the 75 via Northgate if you’re at 125th/15th.
I doubt much walk up traffic will happen, but Link is so fast from Northgate to UW and downtown, I think it will draw transit riders who currently go to other stations or who are on the E.
Riders along the Lake City Way portion of route 77 are more likely to just ride down to Roosevelt Station. Having route 75 do the east-west portion of route 77 would give Pinehurst Station a larger rideshed.
Yep, but since Metro didn’t do that, I’ll continue to drive to Northgate rather than take a bus (75) that would take half the time if it served Pinehurst.
Since in their infinite wisdom they also altered the 65 so it no longer serves 148th station directly, but winds around to get to it, nobody between NE 75th and NE 120th and between Lake City Way and the lake has direct service to the closest station on Link. I’ll leave my car at home if they ever fix the 75 to serve Pinehurst – until then, no bus for me.
Riders along the Lake City Way portion of route 77 are more likely to just ride down to Roosevelt Station.
Why? The 77 doesn’t start run on Lake City Way until 120th. For stops north of there they have the have the 61, to Northgate or the 72 to the UW. The 72 is more frequent but a lot slower to Link. The 61 is as frequent as the 77 but still slower. Roosevelt is no longer an obvious choice for those in Lake City. Many will take the 65 and 75 to 148th Station. Many will take the 61 to Northgate. But my guess is a significant number — especially those that are in a hurry — will take the bus to Pinehurst just because it is so much faster.
“Riders along the Lake City Way portion of route 77 are more likely to just ride down to Roosevelt Station.”
“Why? The 77 doesn’t start run on Lake City Way until 120th.”
This is where going all the way through a neighborhood will be better, as we’ve been discussing with downtown Bellevue. The 75 has to turn at 125th & Sand Point Way because it’s the corner of the street grid. So it’s perfectly positioned to continue west on 125th/130th to Pinehurst Station, Aurora, and Shoreline CC. That would give the eastern half of Lake City direct access to Pinehurst station. It would also improve east-west travel in general, which has been a challenge in north Seattle.
The best north-south route would be on Lake City Way as far as at least Roosevelt Station and 145th & LCW. This would give northern Lake City direct access to Roosevelt station and neighborhood.
Instead of those sensible grid routes, the 77 makes a “7” shape, serving only the west and south sides. That leaves out the northern and eastern halves. Fewer people want to make that turn than go straight. So who is this turn serving? Why is Metro doing it?
My best guess is Metro is trying to minimize its limited service hours by having one route do both jobs. It identified a need to connect Lake City to Pinehurst station on 130th, and to backfill the loss of the 522 between Lake City and Roosevelt. But it missed the need to do that for all of Lake City, not just the nearest halves. It responded to two politically-loud demands without stepping back and thinking what’s best for the whole, what’s a win-win. And it didn’t want to eliminate service on 5th Ave NE between 110th and 125th, which rerouting the 75 would do. That’s a tradeoff there, because what other route could backfill 5th? How critical is it in terms of coverage? It’s hard to see how it’s more important than giving the eastern half of Lake City a one-seat ride to Pinehurst station (i.e., their own and closest Link station). The Roosevelt-to-145th route may require more service hours if the 72 can’t be truncated and both routes overlap between 125th and 145th. But it’s what would be best for the most people’s mobility and convenience.
Route 67 could take over serving the portion of 5th Ave NE between Northgate Way and NE 125th St, by turning north at Northgate and 5th instead of completing the u-turn by turning south.
Alternatively, route 348 could stay on 5th up to 125th before jogging over to 15th, while route 67 could stay on Roosevelt up to 125th before turning west to Pinehurst Station.
There are other variations, but Metro tied a Gordion Knot among routes 67, 75, 77, and 348 that really does not require a Sword of Damocles to unwind.
This is where going all the way through a neighborhood will be better
Yes, it is a really messed up situation, as I explained here. That is a complicated post with various maps that require explanation. But the long and short of is this: It is not easy to get to Link from Lake City despite the fact that there a lot of buses that go there. The fastest options are not well served. Buses don’t combine very well to common destinations.
If you are headed north (to Lynnwood) it is quite good. There are two buses that head towards 148th Station. They cover the area quite well. They don’t overlap each other. But the 72 overlaps the 77 along much of Lake City Way. Thus riders can take either bus heading north. Even on 125th riders can take the 75 (to Northgate) along with the 65. This gives them an obvious backup. There has never been a better time to get from Lake City to Lynnwood. Unfortunately, most of the Lake City riders want to go south, not north.
The two fastest ways to go south are Pinehurst or Roosevelt. Both are served by only one bus — the 77. It barely skirts Lake City. Riders in much of Lake City have a long walk to any stop served by this bus. Because it makes that really awkward turn it has a unique bus stop in the heart of Lake City (on 30th). That means the combination isn’t good either. It is quite reasonable to want to take a bus on Lake City south to a Link Station. There are three buses on the corridor. But the 72 takes a really long time. That still leaves two. Unfortunately the 61 and 77 don’t combine (for service to Northgate/Roosevelt) until you get all the way south to 120th. It is a complete mess.
I think they painted themselves into a corner. One thing led to another and they came up with the 77 idea. It is a terrible combination. A bus coming from Pinehurst Station should not then turn southwest and head towards Roosevelt Station. That is the worst possible direction. It should keep going straight until at least 30th. From there it can go south or keep going straight (which means it eventually curves southward). Hell, it can go north! This isn’t bad at all especially if the bus came from the south (on Greenwood). Anything but the direction they chose. The same thing is true if you are going the other direction. As you head up Lake City Way you should continue straight. At most you can go true north on 30th. But taking a hairpin turn is a really bad idea but that was the choice they made.
They thus screwed up two corridors (U-District/Roosevelt/Lake City and Lake City/Pinehurst/Bitter Lake). The buses don’t work together well either. Oops.
Route 67 could take over serving the portion of 5th Ave NE between Northgate Way and NE 125th St
It is not clear that this section of 5th Avenue NE is even the issue. Metro’s initial proposal had no service there. But then again, they didn’t have service on much of Lake City, either. Maybe they got pushback on both. Maybe enough people on 5th complained and that is why they changed it. I can see three reasons why they send the 75 there:
1) It gives riders along the corridor a way to get to Northgate. For many, this is not their only option. In Lake City they have the 61. In Pinehurst (at 15th NE) they have the 348. These are the areas with the most density. Thus not that many people would lose their one-seat ride to Northgate.
2) It provides service along that part of 5th.
3) It provides additional service along the rest of 5th to the station. Given the density I can see value in this.
A small circulator (the green route I call the 76 on this map) fixes the second and third problem while making a huge dent in the first. At that point there is really only a tiny section of the existing route that has to walk very far to get a one-seat ride to Northgate. That is in the area around 20th NE. There is nothing but single family homes there (typically on big lots). Of course the “76” is not a great route. Ideally the bus would not do a live loop but keep going, to Shoreline. It could branch as it went further north. There are all sorts of possibilities and given that ridership in Shoreline has gone downhill quite a bit since the last restructure there is plenty of potential there.
But even if you insist on running a bus from Lake City to Northgate via 125th and 5th they could do better. Just run a bus like so. This isolates that part of the route. Now do the rest of it. Send the 77 up the same layover. Send the 75 to Bitter Lake. This doesn’t save a lot of money but it doesn’t cost that much either. You have much better service to both Pinehurst and Roosevelt stations. You have much better combinations. Of course this is wasteful routing. But it is still much, much better than what they chose.
I live one block west of 15th Ave NE on NE 125th. Once Pinehurst station opens, I will likely walk up there unless it’s raining hard. It’s just 12-13 minutes on foot. I do like that the 77 has been added. I took it to the U-District (the Ave around NE 52nd) on Sunday. It’s not as direct as the old 73 was, but still faster than taking the 75/348 to Northgate, the Link to the U-District station, and walk 8-9 blocks.
Yeah, we could really use something like the old 73. I’ve suggested we combine the 348 and 67. Have the 348 (coming from the north) just keep going straight on Roosevelt and head to the UW. This would save a lot of service hours and provide a much more straightforward routing. I wonder how many people are going to take that turn once Pinehurst Station opens. My wife suggested it (as a way to get to the Roosevelt neighborhood) but I would be tempted to go the other way and just transfer to Link. Maybe I’ll just get to the bus stop, check OneBusAway and then figure it out.
Making the 348 go straight down Maple Leaf instead of turning to Northgate is a great suggestion. That would more than cover the discontinued 73, and as you pointed out, provide a much more direct route to the U-District.
I’m skeptical if the station’s ridership potential, too.
There are five ways to access a station (Pinehurst condition in parenthesis):
Walk (limited walkshed)
Bicycle (decent but not going to be much)
Drop off/ Pick up (some activity but there are nearby stations that will be easier for many to reach)
Drive and park (no spaces)
Ride a bus (just Route 77 four times an hour per direction or eight times total per hour, with denser areas to the east and west having other bus routes that go to other nearby stations)
The first question in my mind is whether or not it will unseat Least Main as the lowest demand Link station. The other question I’m wondering is how many of the boardings are new Link riders versus ones that merely switch from another nearby station.
There won’t be initial answers until mid-November. And it usually takes 6-12 months for station ridership to build.
Every station north of Roosevelt is highly dependent on bus service. Every single one. That is why Lynnwood Station has so many riders. It is the northern terminus for all the feeder buses. It is why Northgate Station used to have very high ridership when it was the terminus. It is why ridership dropped dramatically when it wasn’t. The buses went to other places. This is just another freeway station that is part of Lynnwood Link.
Right now Metro/Sound Transit are running too many buses to the other stations and not enough to Pinehurst. It is a big mistake. But that is likely to change as they get better planners. But the fundamentals are strong. It is by far the fastest way to get from Lake City to Link. There are plenty of people in Lake City and it is also a major hub as the streets converge there. Bitter Lake is also a major community. The time savings for someone in Bitter Lake are huge — even larger than those for Lake City. Metro is serving the area about as poorly as you can imagine (it barely skims the edge of Lake City) but that should change at some point. Metro has terrible routing in Shoreline as well — that should change over time as well.
“I’m skeptical that the station will actually induce greater system-level ridership simply due to poor walkshed”
This issue is better access to Lake City and Bitter Lake. It matters to people who live there or go there even if it doesn’t increase systemwide ridership. Lake City is Seattle’s fourth-largest urban village. We need it to be part of Seattle’s housing solution, not have people avoiding Lake City because it’s hard to get to or you have to detour out-of-direction to get to Link. Bitter Lake has several large apartment buildings now, at least one dedicated to senior housing, and underused big-box lots that have the potential for significant growth.
We thought Lake City would be left out of Link and there was nothing that could be done about it. But the Aurora alternative had an extra station at 130th. So when ST chose the I-5 alternative, some people realized that if there could be a 130th station there, and that would make Lake City and Bitter Lake access less bad.
We also suggested replacing 145th station with 130th and 155, but ST didn’t like that.
ST thinks Pinehurst station won’t add net new riders because it will just divert them from Shoreline South or Northgate. But that isn’t plausible. If a station is more conveniently close, more people will take transit, and more transit riders will move to Lake City or Bitter Lake who wouldn’t have considered it otherwise. All that will happen over over the long term, and total ridership will probably eventually exceed ST’s expectations. There’s also the possibility of larger upzones in the future. ST’s project estimates couldn’t include upzones that weren’t already approved or close to it, but that doesn’t mean a future city government won’t implement them.
I’m skeptical that the station will actually induce greater system-level ridership simply due to poor walkshed
If so, then you should be skeptical that most of the Link expansions since Northgate Link has induced — or will induce — greater system-level ridership. Lynnwood Link and Federal Way Link have very poor walkshed as well. Maybe we should have just stuck with what we had and run buses more often.
I think I’m mostly just skeptical of any I-5 routing along the Spine. I’d much rather see a 99 Spine outside of Seattle because I imagine 99 will be more compatible with TOD long term
Yeah, choosing to run along the freeway north of Roosevelt was a big mistake. But Lynnwood Link should at least include stations along the way and that definitely includes one at 130th.
Yes, Aurora would have been better. There’s housing and retail growth potential all along it, people who could walk to Link stations. We argued that throughout the EIS process and when the decision was being made. We couldn’t convince ST to do it.
ST said its reasons were: (1) The I-5 alternative had lower capital cost. (It wasn’t as low as expected because the freeway was so old and fragile.) (2) The Aurora alternative would be “4 minutes longer” travel time, which would lose more riders in Lynnwood than it would gain on Aurora. (3) The I-5 alternative was the representative alignment in the ballot measure, and there wasn’t a compelling enough reason to deviate from it.
#2 is as ridiculous as saying Pinehurst station won’t add any riders. If you build rapid transit in a corridor like Aurora, people will flock to it, people will move to it, the advantages of walking from the station to a business or home will be compelling, and there will likely be more density than current zoning allows even if ST couldn’t include it in its ridership estimate (because it’s not approved yet). In any city, you have to look at a city and say, “Of course we should serve all the largest urban villages, and high-walkshed potential corridors like Aurora.” That’s what the most transit-oriented design is.
@lurker, 100% this. For those keeping score at home, the DEIS forecast estimated the station would add 500 riders to the system. That’s not boardings at the station, that’s the net increase after accounting for folks pulled from 145th and Northgate. Pretty expensive investment where the 1/4-mile walk shed is a freeway, a park, a gold course, and several dozen post-war single family homes. Let’s find out.
Let’s find out.
Yep. It may take a long time though. First you have to make the upzone official. Then you actually have to build the buildings next to it. At some point you have to have a decent bus restructure that serves Lake City let alone provides really frequent service along the 125th/130 corridor. After all that we can look at the ridership.
I think the U-Link restructure spoiled us. Ridership soared after they added only two stations. (I think it doubled.) This was much higher than expected. Overall transit ridership also went up. But that was due to the aggressive — and controversial — changes to the bus network. If Metro had just kept running the 71/72/73 to downtown then ridership on Link would have been pretty small. A few people would change from using the (frequent) buses to Link but not that many. With no truncation the buses would continue to be infrequent. This means fewer people would ride them if they are headed to the UW. Thus overall ridership wouldn’t change much at all. Even a station like the UW — a major destination — is highly dependent on the buses.
This is still true today. If the 255 went to downtown (instead of the UW) then Link ridership would be lower. Speaking of which, consider the 545. It runs from Redmond to Downtown. It still gets about 4,500 riders, even after Link opened. Almost all of those riders are heading downtown. If they sent those buses to the UW then Link ridership would go up by about 4,000 new riders. Whether that translates into a net increase in transit ridership depends on what ST did with the savings.
It is all about the bus network. That may seem like a gross oversimplification but it helps explain why these major improvements haven’t led to an increase in overall ridership (we are actually down from 2019 despite more people in the region). The trains have been getting better while the buses are getting worse. I’m not talking about eliminating one-seat rides either. I’m talking about less frequent or more convoluted bus routes.
The good news is that stations like Pinehurst allow for a much better network. Hopefully the planners — or an outside firm — can actually build one someday.
U Link rapid ridership growth was due to it being for university students. They don’t have defined travel patterns like someone making the same commute for 10-20 years. They are more flexible. So makes sense the surge happened quickly.
It’s actually why it’s going to take several months for Pinehurst Link station boardings to stabilize. The Lynnwood Link station boardings over several months have moved around as an example . Riders seemed to shift away from Lynnwood City Center Station and towards the other three.
28 needs to be extended to the N 145th station or N 185th station and 77 should be extended to downtown seattle only and 166 and 164 are really weird routes I thought the 166 is the last stop in DM station and then it changes the route to 164 to Green River college this is making me confused.
By what path would you extend route 28?
I would say like downtown seattle to N 145th Station, maybe even though N 185th Station but the route 333 should be cutting back to N 145th St station and then transfer to the 28 to downtown seattle.
You didn’t answer the question. The 28 ends at Holman Road. I assume you would extend it up Holman Road (overlapping the 40). Then what? Head up Greenwood? Keep going and then head up Aurora? Both options would be expensive and not add much. You are overlapping an existing route (either the 5 or E) but not adding much. Folks seem to be very confused about this: The 28 is a coverage route.. That is why it runs every half hour. But running on Aurora or Greenwood doesn’t add any coverage.
It is considerably quicker from its connection with the 44 to 105th and Greenwood than is the 5 which is nine blocks farther south when it crosses the 44, giving riders between the Ballard east of 20th NE and Lower Frelard a considerably quicker ride to Link northbound and Lake City. It stops less frequently and encounters fewer stoplights along its trip to 100th. And it still captures all the folks along Greenwood front 105th to 130th, a strip of many apartments.
Yes, the 5 gets apartments all the way southto 65th, and that’s a genuine argument for the 5. But unless you can get the 77 (or the extended 75 that you want to replace it) officially extended to Shoreline College the 28 is a better choice for hooking east to Lake City from the southwest of Pinehurst Station. It much cheaper.
.
The easiest extension would be north on 3rd Ave NW, then east on 145th St to Shoreline South Station.
An alternate would be to turn on 130th St to 1st Ave NE; then north to NE 145th St as suggested elsewhere in this conversation. With a stop on 1st Ave NE at NE 130th St, one could easily walk to the new station. The major reason to serve the private schools along 1st Ave NE. I have seen some students walking from the school to Shoreline South Station. While it’s close to the high school, it would provide service to the middle school at NE 135th Street.
Do not re-create the old 28 through Broadview. Nobody rode it, and Wedgewood will be the last neighborhood in the city to be densified, except Laurelhurst and Magnolia.m It has some utility as an overlay on Greenwood between 105th and 130th and on to Lake City as the quickest route from just north of the Ship Canal to Lake City. Since it’s half-hourly it’s also less expensive than other alternatives.
I like the idea of extending the 28, although there are multiple ways to do it. For instance, the 28 could go to 130th and replace the 77 to Lake City.
Or, maybe you have the 5 bend Eastward to Link and Lake City, while the 28 takes over the 5’s tail at Shoreline Community College. There are many possibilities.
Some of you brought up extending the 28. Isn’t a longer route likely to cause more delays? I personally believe that the 77 should have been just an east-west route that serves the corridor between Bitter Lake / Greenwood and Lake City without extending south to the U-District. Part of the reason Metro decided to include the Lake City to the U-District portion via LCW was to compensate for the loss of ST 522, but IMO, they should have created a separate route for that purpose.
“Isn’t a longer route likely to cause more delays?”
Length doesn’t cause delays; congestion does. Length just exacerbates congestion-caused delays by transmitting them to the other half of the route, and when that happens it’s harder for the longer route to recover the time.
So the first question is, “Is the 26 reliable?” I know it isn’t because it’s through-routed with the 131/132, which I ride, and it’s almost always 5-15 minutes late every day between 10am and 7pm. But where is that delay coming from? I don’t see a specific bottleneck: there’s no freeway entrance with cars queued up. The Aurora Bridge doesn’t open, and the rechannelization for the tunnel makes the Denny Way-Bridge Way segment consistently fast. So there’s no obvious bottleneck to target, so it must be a thousand paper cuts adding up.
So if you extend the 28 north, it wouldn’t be a downtown-Pinehurst route, it would be a Burien-Pinehurst route, unless you split the existing through-route.
Mike, the same criticism can be leveled at Ross’s 5 alternative which is through-routed with the 21. If through-routing is a reason not to choose a north Seattle route for enhancement, there won’t be many opportunities for betterment.
“I thought the 166 is the last stop in DM station and then it changes the route to 164 to Green River college this is making me confused.”
Through-routing improves the network because some trips go from a couple miles west of the middle to a couple miles east of the middle. It lowers operational costs by having fewer buses, drivers, and layover spaces. An hour-long route is within the range of not too short and not too long, assuming there are no major congestion bottlenecks.
So why two numbers instead of one? It increases flexibility in case Metro someday wants to attach the 166 to a different route, and the 164 to a different route, or split the through-route. Then it won’t have to change the number in those neighborhoods. Changing numbers confuses people, especially visitors. This now is a number change. I think Metro is hoping it will be the last number change until RapidRide 164. (I mean the eastern route. It’s still not in Metro’s online schedule, so I’m not sure which route is which.)
You are the second person on this post to suggest extending the 28. I really don’t get it. The 28 is an infrequent bus. It follows a weak corridor. Yes, ideally it should run every fifteen minutes (like every other bus in the area) but that is obviously a stretch. The corridor it serves — 8th Avenue NW — ends at Holman Road. The bus has a solid layover. I see no reason why it should be extended. Doing so would mean overlapping the 40 and then the 5 (or RapidRide E) to get to 130th. That seems silly for a bus that struggles to get enough riders to justify decent frequency.
In contrast, sending the 5 to Lake City makes a lot of sense. Greenwood/Phinney is a major corridor. It is also a corridor with very few cross streets. By making an ‘L’ it connects to a major destination in the north end (Lake City) while also doubling headways on the Bitter Lake-Lake City corridor. The 75 would serve Shoreline College. While some riders would miss their one-seat ride to the college, there are plenty of people from Lake City, Sand Point and yes, the UW, that would appreciate that straightforward one-seat ride to Shoreline College. There are other combinations that would suddenly be much better. For example Lake City to Ballard is easy and straight forward. You go along one of the faster east-west corridors (125th/130th) turn on Greenwood (also fast) and then connect to the 40. Sending the 5 to Lake City and the 75 to Shoreline Community College is the way to go.
The 28 also serves a lower-density area with no retail centers. It manages to bypass the centers of both Ballard and Fremont. This is a problem with Seattle in general: why is 8th Ave NW so low density and has so little retail? This means if you’re at Pinehurst station, you have little reason to go to 8th Ave NE if you don’t live there, so that drags down ridership. And that in turn is why it’s half hourly while surrounding routes are 10-15 minutes.
While I do question the bus configurations in this area, as someone in the walkshed / 77 route, this now saves me ever having to drive to Northgate or Shoreline South and find parking. I’m pretty excited and will be at opening day!
Why did they make opening day a Wednesday? Why not a weekend since I’ll have school that day and people won’t even be there at 5 am let alone a weekday because they have to go to work. I mean they could skip the first trip out of Pinehurst and go to the celebration but still isn’t something Sound Transit normally does.
I wish we had info on opening day! Like if there’s gonna be a ribbon cutting (which there has to be one) or what the opening day activities will look like on a map. And what will happen to 5th Ave NE north of 130th? Will it open all the way to 145th or just to the station (an odd thing to do)?
A weekday celebration will probably be in the early evening so that people with 9-5 jobs can go to it. That’s what happened with the Lynnwood Link opening: there was a ceremony midday, and then a gap until the late afternoon celebrations.
I guess someone promised it would open in the third quarter of this year, and that’s the last day of the quarter.
Makes me wonder what corners were cut to make that date…
Why so negative? I’m glad it’s opening just a month after the launch of the 77. We were lamenting how much harder it is to use the 77 without Pinehurst station open, and now it’s opening just a month later?
Who cares if it opens on a weekday or you can’t get to the first run or to the celebration? Some do but I don’t anymore. I’m just glad if a station and a feeder bus is running and people can use them, and I’ll see it when it’s convenient for me. The festival will probably be a few mostly uninteresting booth and children’s activities.
The festivities don’t have to happen when things open. The sooner the station can open the better. No one is quite sure when the celebration will be (or what it will be like). It is quite possible that happens on Saturday even though the station will be open on Wednesday. They actually should have done that with East Link as well so maybe they are learning their lesson.
The last paragraph of the article says the celebration will be later on Wednesday. We’d have to confer with Michael whether he heard that from an official or inadvertently assumed it. The Times article by Mike Lindblom says there will be a celebration but doesn’t commit to a day and time.
More bits from the Times article:
“Sept. 30 turned out to be the “earliest possible date” the station could open, and some aesthetic features won’t be done yet, said spokesperson Henry Bendon.”
“Early studies projected a paltry 1,100 daily boardings. That figure’s been boosted to 3,350 boardings, comparable to Mountlake Terrace Station three stops north. Those include people who will shift to Pinehurst from the neighboring Shoreline South/148th or Northgate stations.”
“Those include people who will shift…”. And how many new riders?
“The festivities don’t have to happen when things open. ”
I think a Wednesday is a horrible day for the celebration. I think Saturdays are best. If they do leave it on a Wednesday it should start about 4-5 pm.
Unlike other celebrations I don’t expect this one to draw huge crowds. It’s just one station and there are no new tracks associated with it.
Generally, ST celebrations are fun and well-attended. Since it will be probably 9-10 years until the next one, ST could instead plan and hold an annual systemwide celebration. Central Link opened on July 18, 2009 — so an annual Link birthday party the third weekend in July would seem to be a great thing to have! And they could do a second birthday event for T-Link the third weekend in August (opened August 22, 2003).
What are the projected boardings for Pinehurst, and where does that put it on the list of 1 and 2 Line station boardings?
Supposedly 3,400, but it doesn’t give the projected year that mark is supposed to be.
https://www.theurbanist.org/seattles-pinehurst-light-rail-station-will-open-september-30/
What are the boardings for Shoreline South?
Fawaiaw. A few years ago it was 1800 boardings for Pinehurst and 9300 for Shoreline South in 2040.
https://seattletransitblog.com/2020/01/27/sound-transits-station-ridership-in-2040/
FWIW!
Remember that Jackson Park golf course is a terrible misuse of land in the walkshed of 2 light rail stations! We must fix this! At the bare minimum it should be a freely traversable park 🙏
I agree. There is a group trying to do just that: https://jp4all.org/about-us/. This is a relatively low income part of Seattle. It also lacks large, high-quality parks. There are plenty of small parks, but nothing like what is found in much of Seattle. By adding the park you make the neighborhood a lot more attractive. This in turn would make it much easier to develop with more middle-class housing.
Personally I think it is unrealistic to expect them to add much housing inside the actual park. I also think they should retain the driving range as well as the putting green. Neither take up that much space and both make money. It would just be part of the park (much like the putting green is part of Woodland Park).
As someone who enjoys the golfing experience, and is a regular use of the Jackson Park facility, allow me to clarify. The driving range was refurbished fairly recently, and I’m sure it is significant revenue source. However, the putting/chipping area is completely free to use, and would be very difficult to restrict to paying customers only.
As far as repurposing the golf course, I of course would disagree. It is a parks facility that is used by a diverse group of people, and allows affordable, entry-level golf as a public amenity. Jackson Park golf is not a “country club” experience, and is not intended to be. I won’t be surprised if this comment elicits howls of protest and comments about wealthy, elitist privilege, but that is NOT what Jackson Park is about.
That all being said, adding the Pinehurst Station is a valuable addition, and Metro bus service should absolutely focus on transporting people from Bitter Lake and Lake City to the new station.
I’m surprised the putting/chipping area is free. In any event I would keep it since (I think) it takes up a fairly small area.
I know some golfers and I’ve heard good things about the golf course. The guy who ran Beer Authority used to golf and he was certainly not a “country club” kinda guy (quite the opposite). I am sympathetic to those who would miss the golf course.
This is not about some hatred of golfers. There are several reasons I want to modify things. The first is the potential as a park. If the course was out in the boonies this wouldn’t matter (I’m sure when the golf course was created this was the boonies). But there are a lot of people that live nearby and the area is growing. It makes sense to grow there as well, given the proximity to light rail. It is also an area without large parks. If this was adjacent to the arboretum or Discovery, Carkeek, Lincoln or any of the premier parks in the city it wouldn’t be a big deal. But there is nothing like it in the area. I don’t golf so I’ve only been there when it snows but it is quite nice. I think a lot more people would benefit from a general purpose park.
Another issue is tree canopy. This is a big deal in Seattle. So much so that they have put regulations on development. The course has plenty of trees but it also has huge lawns. Planting trees in those areas (as they’ve done in Discovery Park) would benefit the city ecologically. You could still retain plenty of walking paths.
The other issue is egress. This gets to Cam’s point. Right now you can’t walk across the area. There isn’t much point in walking east-west because there is a freeway there. But it is quite reasonable to want to walk or bike north-south. But right now people have to go around (https://maps.app.goo.gl/yquUZG8GRjoL4vVy7).
I could definitely see some sort of compromise although I think it would likely upset both sides. You could have a smaller course in the middle (or on the outside) of a more general-purpose park. My guess is golfers would not be happy with that though. Jackson Park is a full golf course and golfers like that.
It obviously sucks if your sport requires a huge amount of land but in this case I think there are much better uses for that land.
Yeah, you could cut it to a 9-hole or par 3, but I suspect it would lose a good portion of it’s golfers. I also knew a bunch of people who used to use the course. Mostly gamblers I met playing poker on Aurora. So yeah, not a country club. The gamblers would gamble on their play, and a little rain wouldn’t stop them. They played year-round. Those poker rooms are all gone now, so I don’t know if that contingent still contingent.
I’ve golfed all my life. My dad claims he was good enough to go pro, back in his youth. I understand the sport’s allure, particularly for courses that don’t price-out poorer folk.
But I stopped golfing, partly because of my incurable slice, and partly because the land-use, particularly for urban courses like this, simply doesn’t make sense. It’s a really shitty use of land. Having raised a kid in Lake City, I know first hand that there are very few parks in the area. Cedar Park, before it became a school, was pretty solid. But now it’s access is limited. Virgil Flame was pretty spartan before we moved away, and almost no kids would go there. It looks like they’ve added a skate park and redid the structure. Perhaps that activated it. That small park across from the library is nice. But that’s about it.
I would strongly support closing the golf course and turning it into a mix of housing (nearer the stations) and a more mixed use park, depending on the wants of the local residents. But if that is untenable, than at least share it with non-golfers.
The University of New Mexico has a golf course that functions as a low-cost urban course, but also goes out of the way to make it accessible to non-golfers. What that looks like is different at different spots on the course. Sometimes double fencing, with a safe walking path. Sometimes a berm, or treed internal path, similar to what is done in the NW of Chambers Bay, near Tacoma.
It also turns into an off-leash dog park when they pull the pins at dusk, with the obvious controversy that creates.
They may use that as a model to make Jackson Park more accessible to people beyond those who golf. Just because it isn’t a Country Club doesn’t mean it isn’t exclusive .
Reroute the route 5 ? Why can’t one of the oldest streets in the north end keep one bus route running on it ? It reminds me of the recent decision to eliminate the route 372, and with its demise one route coverage of the other original north end road, Lake City / Bothell Way.
If the 5 was rerouted it would still serve Greenwood. It would just turn on 130th. Meanwhile, a different bus (the 75) would serve the section of Greenwood between Shoreline College and 130th. So you would still have buses on Greenwood. It is a trade-off. You would have to transfer if you wanted to keep going on Greenwood (from say, 100th to 145th). But people from both ends of Greenwood would have a connection to Link and Lake City. Some people would be worse off (since they would have to transfer) but a lot more people would be better off.
This station (and the new infill station on MLK) will be good, if for no other reason than that state law now requires the area around the station to be upzoned.
Seattle was upzoning the Pinehurst station area anyway. It will still be a small village, but there are some existing apartment buildings on the east side, and now more will come.
It is really crazy that it has taken them so long to upzone that area. They have been talking about if for years. There is no organized opposition. Just do it! But instead it got wrapped up in other changes and the city council has dragged their feet.
How do the sidewalks east of Pinehurst Station compare with the sidewalks east of 148th St station on 145th?
Probably better with this construction completed. The roundabout has partially opened about a month ago.
https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/programs/transportation-planning/ne-130th-and-125th-mobility-and-safety-project
NE 145th is a WSDOT state route. There doesn’t seem to be an ongoing project beyond I-5 interchange. Maybe there will be some Sound Transit Improvement as part of S3.
The sidewalks along the main corridor (125th/Roosevelt/130th) are good. They have been for years. The only really tricky part is this, close to the freeway. You can walk on that side of the road (the south side of 130th) but I wouldn’t recommend it. You are better off crossing the street on 1st (which has a good set of crosswalks with walk signals) and walking on the north side of the street. The bridge over the freeway is not as wide as it should be but it still works (and it isn’t that long). Unlike in Shoreline it would be pretty cheap to widen the bridge (by adding a second pedestrian bridge next to the existing one) but they focused on the bike path.
Everything is being torn up now as they add bike lanes. The bike lanes really shouldn’t be on 130th but the Bike Master Plan was designed before they officially signed off on the station. Back then it made no sense as a transit corridor. Now it is one of the most important in Seattle. Given the mess that occurred in Wedgwood, Harrell didn’t want to deviate from that plan even though bike lanes on 128th and Roosevelt (east of the station) would have been much better for everyone. That would have allowed them to add BAT lanes along parts of 130th, speeding up the buses.
Those sidewalks on 145th are extremely narrow — really crazy. The sidewalks on 125th/Roosevelt/130th are much better. Some of the side streets lack sidewalks though. First Avenue NE is getting a very nice upgrade. The worst pedestrian corridor in the area is Roosevelt, between Aurora and 1st NE. It is an arterial with no sidewalk (but plenty of ditches). We walked that section with Cathy Moore (when she represented the area on the city council). It was some of the worst walking I’ve ever done. It definitely needs an overhaul. They talked about doing some things but a lot of the community members were ignored in the process. I think they focused on tearing up the street (since they probably needed to anyway) and now there will be bike lanes (although not where you need them the most).
I think part of the problem was the churn in both the mayors office and the city council. Juarez was the rep, then Moore for a bit, then Juarez. Moore just wasn’t very responsive. Now Juarez is in a caretaker role. Consider this little example: Third Avenue NE intersects 130th. This is very close to the station. For those coming from the east, it is the last intersection before you get to the station. People from the neighborhood wanted to close off that intersection, turning that road into a dead end. They talked to the neighbors and the vast majority of people were excited about that. People like living on a dead-end street. This type of thing is common across America. But the city didn’t respond. It will be “right turn, exit only” (a big improvement) but it would have been so much better (and dirt cheap) to just close it off. Maybe someday.
We’ve talked about this before, and you know we have different opinions on the cycle lanes on N 130th. As someone who rides east-west very frequently, the new cycle lanes on N 130th are a godsend. I no longer need to zigzag between 131st and 135th to go to Asian Family Mart, Bitter Lake Community Centre or Ross (no pun intended). I can just ride straight in the corridor. N 128th can work west of 1st Ave NE, but using that as a bike corridor would have required a traffic signal at Aurora, which I assume SDOT (or WSDOT) didn’t want to add.
Yes, it would have required a traffic signal at Aurora and 128th. That would have been trivial. There are numerous signals like that on Aurora. They are adding one for 137th. Is there a bike-only traffic signal at 130th? Of course not. Bikes are stuck with nothing. Of course the bike lanes to the east of Aurora are better than nothing but they are not nearly as good as if they built a proper bike path from the Interurban to 1st on 128th. It could have doglegged and continued west as well (with a similar bike-only crossing of Greenwood at 127th). A similar set of pathways could have been built to the north. It would have been better for those biking.
Meanwhile, the buses are stuck in traffic.
The “N 130th St – Bitter Lake to Haller Lake Mobility Improvement” page says “Protected bike lanes at sidewalk level from Greenwood Ave N to 1st Ave NE, with bike signals in select locations.” I hope the “select locations” include the intersection at Aurora.
It should also be noted that SDOT reduced lanes on NE 125th east of Roosevelt Way NE to reduce speeding and collisions, not to accommodate bike lanes. I think they applied the same principle to N 130th. I agree N 128th would have made a good candidate for a cycle lane connecting Bitter Lake and 1st Ave NE, but being able to ride straight between Pinehurst and Bitter Lake is a huge deal, at least to me.
My dream of taking the light rail from one end of the golf course to the other is a reality. Not the best use of public funds but Seattle created transit oriented golf like nobody else can. Oh ridership? well a shuttles would have done the same job but this is way cooler
You’re acting like walk-ups from the existing and future apartments in the station area don’t exist, that Lake City and Bitter Lake don’t exist, or that the 522/S3 doesn’t exist. All that is thousands of riders to the two stations. Even if the golf course displaces a quarter of each station’s walkshed. In any case, we wanted the station at 130th & Aurora.
People also go to Jackson Park to walk the trail around the periphery, and through the natural area on the west side. A few may ride Link to golf, if the course has club rentals so they don’t have to carry them.
We’ve also discussed shrinking the golf course to install more active park amenities and more varied plantscape that more people from everywhere would take Link to. The city hasn’t been willing to, but a future administration might.
Mike,
Link should only go to and from the places I want to go. Anything else is a waste of my time, not to mention public funding!
You win the prize for the least un-funny snark on the Blog this year! Please send in your stampedself-addressed envelope so we can send your Award immediately.
Terrible. “Least funny”, not “least un-funny”.
I think golf courses could be great park and ride lots. Grass doesn’t need deep roots, so it doesn’t matter that much what’s under it. Just dig it up, put the parking structure underground, and put the golf course back on top.
Several surface plazas in downtown Portland have such parking lots under them. It helps get two different uses out of the same plot of land, while not making the parking overly expensive to build by putting an actual structure on top.
“You’re acting like walk-ups from the existing and future apartments in the station area don’t exist, that Lake City and Bitter Lake don’t exist, or that the 522/S3 doesn’t exist. ”
The struggle of making Pinehurst attract riders is that there won’t be anything special there. It will be like the other four Lynnwood Link stations (minus the parking) with modest residential TOD and maybe some minor retail at the station and that’s it. Even getting to Link from Lake City or Bitter Lake is possible by using other Metro routes — and their off-street transit centers will have the feel of a safer place to wait.
It will be like the other four Lynnwood Link stations
Exactly!
Every station is similar. They all have very little potential for walk-up ridership. That’s in part because they are all close to the freeway. 185th is the only station that isn’t adjacent to a green belt. Most of the stations (Pinehurst, 145th and Mountlake Terrace) are close to a golf course. The negative similarities are quite striking. So why build Lynnwood Link in the first place, given such terrible walk-up potential?
You have to consider the network. Again, every station is similar. They all lie on major east-west arterials (unlike Northgate Station). Thus you have “ribs” for your “spine”. Buses from the east and west should serve each and every station. Since the stations are in the middle (from an east-west perspective) the buses should keep going. This provides good east-west service to go along with the good north-south transit. North-south service was good long before Link (a north-south line) got past the ship canal. By adding the stations you create a useful network that mimics far more successful ones, like those in our nearest neighbor, Vancouver. Of course it would be better if the stations had more walk-up potential. But we had no chance of that once ST decided to follow the freeway (instead of Aurora).
What is striking is that you can argue for or against any individual station in the same manner. Just swap out a different station name. Replace “Pinehurst” with “Mountlake Terrace” and every argument applies. Does that mean it was a mistake to build Mountlake Terrace Station? Hell No! If you are going to run a line to Lynnwood you should have stations along the way. Doing otherwise is just penny wise but pound foolish. Of course people will argue about the details. Maybe the 148th station should be at 155th. Maybe we should serve both 145th and 155th. But we should (and hopefully will) build the station at 220th in Lynnwood. You sure as hell don’t want to skip a corridor as important as 125/130th.
Oh, and about parking. Would it really make any difference at all if the station had parking? Would people look at it and think “Thank God there is a station there with parking” given every single station from Northgate to Lynnwood has a ton of parking. Hell, even Roosevelt has parking. There is more than enough parking. You don’t need parking close to your neighborhood. By their very nature they don’t need to be close. If 185th Station didn’t have parking people would just drive to another station. It would still be a worthy station. That’s because of the network.
I agree that there is an intercept case that can be made, Ross. I’m simply pointing out that I have low expectations for this station seeing lots of boardings.
The bigger corridor issue I see is that the various cities are approaching Link station areas almost identically . Having residential TOD with supporting retail is great — but these are five stations in a row!
A problem with this approach is that there isn’t a big market to travel between two residences. When people travel on transit, they mostly have a purpose and a destination (ideally walkable) in mind.
Certainly the next Link station will be Alderwood and that’s a different kind of station area. So is Northgate. These are all-day destination stations. The ones in between are not. Shoreline South and Lynnwood Center are regional transfer hubs so that’s some additional functionality, but they’re still lacking in walkable, strong nearby destinations.
What happens around stations is actually a result of local land use control as well as the real estate market. ST and the cities are not permitted to acquire several hundred acres of residential housing and create a new office complex, a new hospital / medical campus or an amusement park.
To this point, I would have been more hopeful for Pinehurst ridership if there was a destination adjacent to the station. I can’t say what that destination could be. But with no parking garage, its best land use strategy to maximize ridership would have been to have a destination like UW or Capitol Hill next to the station.
Overall, Link has managed to serve a varied mix of station area types. The result has been a success at creating high demand overall. Still, I think it would have been better if there was a more powerful destination at one or two of these five stations.
I finally don’t have a problem with Pinehurst missing a parking garage. Parking garages exist at the four stations to the north and the one to the south. Garages seem to result in Link crowding for an hour or two each way on the train but little ridership the remainder of the day. Instead, I hope that its future upzoning has creating a destination as a primary objective. I see that as the best way to achieve more boardings in the future.
I may be missing something here, but why does every train station need to be a destination? A train station can serve as a starting point of a trip, and that’s what most Link stations are, and Pinehurst Station will be one such station. I live within walking distance to it, and there are LR zones closer to the station. If they take the light rail, they will be going to Pinehurst Station.
“ I may be missing something here, but why does every train station need to be a destination?”
I’m not saying that they do. But when five stations in a row over a stretch of 8 miles have no major destinations, it’s just not going attract many trips to ride in between them. And most trips over those eight miles are only going to be people going to work — or maybe a university or a medical appointment.
These stations are not at mixed use hubs like Downtown Bellevue or Downtown Redmond or many other Link stations around. Those five stations have long been mostly residential areas with much of the recent change just being the addition of station parking and nearby higher residential density.
“And most trips over those eight miles are only going to be people going to work — or maybe a university or a medical appointment.”
I don’t see any problem with that. Do you? The more stations in the same eight-mile stretch means more people will be able to access them more easily, which will in turn (hopefully!) increase ridership.
Certainly the next Link station will be Alderwood and that’s a different kind of station area. So is Northgate. These are all-day destination stations.
Are they? I can see Northgate because of the medical clinics. But what is in Alderwood? At best it is a local destination.
This is a common challenge for suburban transit. Everything works against it. The destinations are small. The distance between them tends be big. It is usually easy to drive to them. This makes it especially inappropriate for a metro (which thrives on the opposite).
But as it leaves the city, Link just gives up on that anyway. Look at the very wide stop spacing north of 148th. That is no longer a metro, it is regional transit. So yeah, you need regional destinations to serve regional transit. Alderwood is a local attraction, not a regional one. North of Seattle, Link isn’t designed for that. Of course there are some people in Shoreline who work at Alderwood but not that many. The type of jobs that exist in Alderwood are found all over the region and people tend to minimize their commute.
There are some regional destinations in Lynnwood like Edmonds College and Swedish Edmonds. Oh, and of course Downtown Edmonds is a destination. If transit was better I could definitely see folks from Seattle (including me) just heading up there to walk around. But Link won’t get close to any of those areas. Boeing is a regional destination for sure. But employment there sprawls. Folks will have to take a bus after taking the train. You might as well just run buses from Lynnwood Transit Center.
This makes it tough to justify the Lynnwood extension. But consider the alternatives:
1) Just end at Northgate. The problem is, Northgate is a terrible terminus. With a substantial investment you could improve the connection to I-5 but that isn’t the biggest problem. The north end has urban areas like Lake City and Bitter Lake. These are dense enough and close enough to the rest of the city to generate good ridership. Yet Northgate doesn’t serve these areas well. It takes a really long time to get there, especially from the west.
2) Go a little farther, to say, 148th. I could definitely see this. You would just extend Link a couple stations. This is not very expensive and dirt cheap from a operations standpoint. You would need to do work on the freeway. You would need new HOV ramps (both directions) for the buses. That would not be trivial. This would push up the cost of the project but it would be essential. My guess is this would be the best value.
3) Go to Mountlake Terrace. There is already a freeway stop there. On the other hand there is no easy place for the buses to turn around. This pushes up operational costs (for the buses). If you are going to go all the way to Mountlake Terrace you might as well go to Lynnwood TC. Lynnwood already had bidirection HOV ramps. That is the big selling point. By ending there you can connect to all of the freeway buses. It is quite likely they could have saved a lot of money by ending sooner but since the goal was Everett it wasn’t even considered.
By the way, the same thing is true for the south end. The last big destination is SeaTac. But SeaTac makes for a terrible terminus. You need to connect to the freeway. They could have done so for a lot less money (and a lot sooner) but Federal Way already had the ramps and so they kept going. You do pickup Highline College along the way (so there is that) but it is hard to say it was worth the money. You still have a lot of stations close to the freeway with not much there.
But there are significant differences. Lynnwood Link serves a couple purposed. For the most part it is designed to give the far northern suburbs a good way to get to Seattle. But it also connects north Seattle and the inner suburbs. Critics of this station have it backwards in part because so much of ST is backwards. We should have built that first step, to 148th. Two stations, not that many miles of track but a major difference in a part of the city that isn’t that far from the UW (or Capitol Hill, or downtown, etc.). In other words, an area within or at worst just outside the urban core. This adds tremendous value, whether Metro planners are willing to take advantage of or not.
At that point it would have been valid to question whether it is worth it to keep going north. But we did, so not much we can to about it now.
Guys! The stations are built and the trains will stop at Pinehurst in a few weeks. I think it’s useless to talk about station locations at this point.
And within a few months we will begin to see station boarding data. God also knows that ST just accept what boardings will be and not reduce train operations if they’re low — like they’ve done with T Link.
However that doesn’t mean that there’s a need for a different approach to the surrounding land use. Every station area land use being talked about is very similar — mostly residential with supporting retail. There’s not even a supermarket within 1000 feet of any one of these five stations! There are no pharmacies, few restaurants and no big activity hubs next to any station.
As these station areas build out, redevelopment should not just be more of the same thing. Better yet, something like medical office buildings or hotels would help attract more riders. I see that what’s missing is an emphasis to attract more riders — and encourage less driving by all those new station area residents to get to basic things. The station areas need to be somewhat sustainable villages if not a destination for residents the next station away. The station area TODs as now envisioned won’t even support much retail with just their planned populations. Without planning for villages rather than just buildings, it’s just more vertical residential sprawl.
Guys! The stations are built and the trains will stop at Pinehurst in a few weeks. I think it’s useless to talk about station locations at this point.
You brought it up! You were the one saying the Pinehurst location isn’t very good. All we are saying is that you are ignoring what exists to the east and west. For every station next to the freeway that is the most important factor. That includes Northgate Station by the way. A very large portion of the riders get off the train and immediately head for the buses. Northgate gets good ridership because of all the places to the east and west that are accessible by a bus (including Lake City).
There are no pharmacies, few restaurants and no big activity hubs next to any station.
So you are saying the stations that are next to the freeway don’t have much. Hmmm. Maybe it is because they are next to the freeway! Of course Pinehurst will eventually have more apartments, restaurants, and the rest of it. But there is a limit because when push comes to shove, people don’t want to live next to the freeway.
Northgate also gets walk-up ridership from NSC and the medical buildings across the freeway and from the developments along Fifth NE.
It is the best station site between Roosevelt and Lynnwood, and always will be, because the others are surrounded by seas of SFH. Unless ClimatecChange brings large numbers of “refugees”, Washington will slowly strangle on a lack of high-enough paying jobs.
Northgate also gets walk-up ridership from NSC and the medical buildings across the freeway and from the developments along Fifth NE.
Yes, but it is a really long walk. A lot of people still take the 41/345/365 to College Way or Meridian even though it involves wrapping around. Likewise there are a lot of people who don’t walk to Fifth but instead just hop on a bus. There actually isn’t that much right by the station (other than the parking lots) which is why ridership collapsed when Lynnwood Link opened. A lot of the buses went to other places. Even now you can see very high ridership at the buses outside the station. There are still a lot of people who get off the train and immediately look to catch a bus.
But if anything, the existence of the bridge over the freeway makes the case for sending buses there even weaker. Imagine you are headed to class at North Seattle College and you are running late. You just missed the 61. What do you do? Take the 75 as it zig-zags its way to Northgate. That works, but then you have to either go up and over the bridge or take the 41/345/365 around. Taking a bus to Pinehurst Station is quite reasonable now that the train is frequent in the north end. If the 75 and 77 left at the same time you would probably get to Northgate sooner. You would definitely be on the bridge sooner. Thus if you are in a hurry and don’t mind walking so far, heading to Pinehurst is second-only to a direct bus to the campus.
Either way, the main benefit to running buses like the 61 is that you get to serve places along the way as well as connecting to a Link station. There really isn’t that much right there (unlike a lot of stations). This is fine. Serving areas before and after the station (which the 61 does quite well) is great. But the same thing is true with the 77 between Lake City and Bitter Lake. It serves places before and after — they just happen to be a bit farther away (right now).
“The struggle of making Pinehurst attract riders is that there won’t be anything special there”
You don’t need to make it attract riders, you just need to serve the existing demand. That demand is short feeder from Lake City and Bitter Lake, and the existing and future apartments in the station area. Adding Seattle’s fifth-largest urban village to the Link network is a big deal, and put tens of thousands of more residents within easy reach of Link. The 77 isn’t ideal: it doesn’t reach eastern Lake City. But the station and the 77 are a start, and we can improve it later.
The politicians need to stop chasing so much speculative future development, and address the existing ridership demand it’s neglecting. Lake City is one example that was neglected. Ballard is another: it takes 30-45 minutes on existing buses to get from Ballard’s core to a regional transfer point (Westlake or U-District). It should take 10-15 minutes, or to be generous 20. That leaves 10-25 minutes of inefficient overhead that wastes people’s time and makes them less willing to live or work in Ballard. Ballard Link is supposed to address this, but now it’s at least 25 years away, but the need is now and for the past two decades. So address that! Speed up the 44! Speed up the D and 40! Run the 15 as an all-day frequent route if you won’t reroute the D! Not just a little but, but a lot!
“You don’t need to make it attract riders, you just need to serve the existing demand.”
We will know in the next few months what Pinehurst demand will be. So it’s a rather academic debate at this point. It’s going to open.
That said, I don’t see that Bitter Lake and Lake City connectivity will make much of a difference in Link ridership as a whole. There are plenty of Metro buses already serving nearby Link stations from these areas and the travel time savings from Route 77 will not be significant. I expect most Pinehurst boardings arriving by transit to come from station switching — so that Shoreline South and Northgate boardings will fall next month. It won’t be 1:1 because there are other ways people can start using Pinehurst station that aren’t available today.
As an example, if I’m riding Link from Downtown Seattle and going to Lake City, I can board Route 77 at Roosevelt or Pinehurst. Pinehurst may be a shorter bus ride but it’s an extra 7 minutes on the train. Or at Northgate there’s two routes at 15 minute frequencies (Routes 61 and 75) running to Lake City as opposed to one (Route 77) plus three minutes less time on Link. Route 77 may be a quicker ride but the average wait time is higher that erases the travel time savings.
Pinehurst demand to Bitter Lake won’t be anywhere as time competitive as Pinehurst to Lake City. The Pinehurst station opening will benefit Bitter Lake much more. But the Lake City market for Pinehurst station looks useful mainly if the Link destination is further north.
Al, great analysis. I also agree with your conclusion that Pinehurst will draw riders from Lake City mostly headed to the north on Link, not the south, a rider is choosing between legs of a tall nearly isoceles triangle with an apex at Roosevelt. Taking the 77 southbound traverses only one side of the triangle. Going west requires the other two. Yes one leg is lickety-split, but not super-sonic.
There are plenty of Metro buses already serving nearby Link stations from these areas and the travel time savings from Route 77 will not be significant.
Bullshit. Consider someone at 130th & Aurora. For perspective, the nearby bus stops for the E Line get around 450 riders (300 heading south, 150 heading north). So what is it like to head to a Link destination like Capitol Hill at noon? Let’s ask Google Maps:
Wow, it sucks. The fastest option is to actually take the new 77 and ride past the new station until the bus gets to Lake City; then stay on the bus as it makes the infamous hairpin turn and heads back towards Roosevelt. You can also just take the E Line downtown and take light rail going north. Or you can walk over to Haller Lake (a ten minute, largely unpleasant walk) and then catch the 365. It will take another fifteen minutes before it gets to Northgate Station. Or you can wait for almost twenty minutes and catch the 345. Riding the bus will take almost twenty minutes before it gets Shoreline South Station. All these options are bad. The earliest option gets you there at about ten minutes to 1:00. Some of the options get you a full hour after you started your trip.
Now consider what it will be like when Pinehurst Station opens. You take the 77 and ride the bus for about five minutes. Figure some time getting from the bus stop to the platform and some waiting for the train (like all options). Then it is about a fifteen minute ride. My guess is, you get there before 12:30 — a time savings of about twenty minutes, if not more.
This is definitely significant!
What is true of Capitol Hill is true of the UW — even the U-District. Sure, someone could just stay on the 77. But if they value their time they will transfer to Link. From Pinehurst Station to U-District Station takes over a half hour. It will take less than ten minutes on the train. So you save over twenty minutes travel time. This is more than enough to make up for the transfer. Even if everything goes wrong (the traffic light says “Don’t Walk”, the train pulls away as you get there, the escalators are broken) you still save a huge amount of time.
Or consider downtown. The E Line is quite fast. It takes about a half hour to get to Westlake. Link and the 77 take about 25 minutes not counting the wait. So it is basically a wash. My guess is folks will just take the E Line if they are headed to the north end of downtown. But once you get to CID the train is faster. For every Link destination south of there, Pinehurst Station saves time. The transfer downtown is similar — if not worse — than the transfer at Pinehurst. Google recommends Symphony Station. Link will get there over ten minutes faster.
If you are to the west, the only weakness with Pinehurst Station is the lack of frequency and reliability of the 77. If there was service from Lake City to Bitter Lake every 7.5 minutes (and there should be) then alternatives wouldn’t come close. But with the E running that often (and the 77 not) some people will continue to use the E Line for some trips they could otherwise use Link for.
What about Lake City? Again, the problem is the 77. It doesn’t cover Lake City very well. But it takes 5 minutes to get from Pinehurst Station to the hairpin turn*. If you are at 120th (past the hairpin turn) it takes the 17 minutes to get to Roosevelt. So going to Pinehurst saves 12 minutes on the bus but you spend an extra 6 minutes or so on the train. That is still a savings of 7 minutes (give or take). It takes the 61 about 11 minutes to get to Northgate. That is 6 minutes longer but a couple minutes less on the train. So the 61 is competitive — just a little bit slower. The 75 also goes to Northgate but it takes 6 minutes (a full five minutes longer than the 61). The fastest option to 148th Station is the 72 but that takes 13 minutes — it really can’t compete if you are heading south.
It really depends on where you are. If you are close to the Lake City Library then the 77 to Pinehurst is much faster. The 61 is a good option if you are close to Lake City Way. The 77 to Roosevelt works but is a bit slower than the 61. You can combine the 61 and 77 but not until you get as far south as 120th. So the fastest way is still to go to Pinehurst but it isn’t clear how many riders are willing to walk that far.
This goes back to the poor routing. Pinehurst is the fastest option but Metro isn’t taking full advantage of it. Just by sending the 75 to Pinehurst (instead of the 77) you change the dynamic. Then folks to the east (at 33rd and 35th) would have a fast way to get to Link without having to walk so far. The only time it would make sense to head south would be if you are significantly north or south of 125th and close to Lake City Way. Then you could take the 77 and 61 heading south — a bit improvement over today.
Consider someone who lives on 33rd, north of 125th. There are big apartments there and a little park I’ll use as the starting point. It is a very short walk to the 65 or 75. But it takes a long time for the 75 to get to Northgate and even longer for the 65 to get to 148th Station. The best option is probably the 61 — it is about a five minute walk. It takes only a couple minutes longer to catch the 77 westbound which is about as long as takes to walk to the 77 southbound. The fastest option is probably to walk the furthest (and catch the 77 westbound). The slowest option is to walk the least.
If the 75 went to Pinehurst the dynamic would change completely. Not only for those riders but anyone on 33rd, unless you are very close to 130th or 120th. You would give riders in various parts of Lake City much better options than they will have the day the station opens.
That is really the main theme with Pinehurst Station. It is a good station with a lot of potential that Metro is currently wasting. It is quite likely over time that Metro (with the help of Seattle) will invest further in the corridor, given its huge time savings and high potential ridership.
*I didn’t calculate things at the bus stop by the hairpin turn because of construction. Instead I estimated time on either side of it.
Yes, easy connection to Aurora is a huge benefit that comes with the 77. I took it yesterday to go to Asian Family Mart at Aurora and 130th, and as I got off the bus, I suddenly realized that I can now transfer directly to the E. This gives me a whole new set of destinations I can travel to without transferring multiple times or taking a route that zigzags through the neighbourhood like the 40. For example, I can now go to Oaktree faster via the 77 and E than the 75/348 and the 40.
I don’t see that Bitter Lake and Lake City connectivity will make much of a difference in Link ridership as a whole.
Who cares? That misses the point. There is clear value in connecting Bitter Lake and Lake City that has nothing to do with Link. Yet there was no bus connecting Bitter Lake and Lake City, despite the obvious advantages of such a route. Why is that? Any idea? Hmmmmm. Let me think. Because there is no station there! All the buses have to connect to Link. That is a given. As a result, we have way too many buses going to Northgate and (until recently) way too few buses going across.
The station changes everything. You can connect to Link AND connect the two side of the city. Amazing! What an idea. It is like … oh, what is the word … a network! Yeah, that’s it — a real network for the area, all because they added an infill station that should have been built with the rest of the Lynnwood Link stations.
Now obviously the 77 is flawed. It should be better. But since the station exists we are no longer stuck between funneling buses to a station or having a straightforward network. (At least not in that neck of the woods. The 40 still has to spend a huge amount of time backtracking before getting to Northgate since the station is in a stupid location.)
@ Ross:
From Metro’s perspective, I can see why they think it’s better to run a bus to Northgate than to Pinehurst. That’s because Northgate has many other activity destinations — from supermarkets to retail to cinemas to a hotel to a college to recreational and medical facilities. What’s at Pinehurst?
Certainly Metro could move more routes by Pinehurst station — but the station is currently its only attraction. If someone doesn’t have a car, they want to be able to get to other places directly on transit, so bus service directly to Northgate will always be better for their car-free lifestyle even though Pinehurst may be a bit quicker to reach.
If someone really believes that Metro should run more buses to Pinehurst, they should be advocating for two other things: A bigger bus stop zone at Pinehurst and a surrounding redeveloped station area with actual activity surrounding it.
We will know in the next few months what Pinehurst demand will be. So it’s a rather academic debate at this point. It’s going to open.
Yes, but it will open with a flawed set of buses. It could be worse but it could also be a lot better. Consider the proposal I made a while back. Now consider a rider heading to downtown from Lake City.
If they are up at 130th & Lake City Way they will use that bus stop. They will be able to catch the 5, 61 and 77 (to go to Pinehurst, Northgate and Roosevelt Station, respectively). The 5 is probably fastest but not enough to make a difference — whatever bus shows up first is the bus they take. The next stop on Lake City Way is just south of 125th. That would be served by the 61 and 77. But if they are going there they might as well use the bus stop on 125th just west of Lake City Way. That would be served by the 5 and 75 (both headed to Pinehurst Station). If you are closer to the library then the best option is obviously the stops along 125th (with two buses going to Pinehurst). As you go east you either walk to Lake City Way (to catch the 5/75) or just catch the 75. You might end up catching the 65 but that is a much slower way to get there. If you are on 30th then the 65 is an option but not a good one. You can either walk south to 125th or east to the mega-stop on Lake City Way. At 33rd you are almost always better off going to 125th.
So you would have to be quite a ways north or south of 125th before going anywhere but Pinehurst is attractive. Even then, some riders at 130th & Lake City Way would end up taking the 5. This would definitely increase ridership at Pinehurst Station, while dramatically improving all options. This in turn would increase overall transit ridership. Right now there are no good ways to get to Link from most of Lake City, despite all the buses. We could improve things dramatically without spending much money at all.
The Pinehurst Station is highly dependent on the bus network. That will determine not only the ridership at the station but overall transit and Link ridership as well.
“Yes, easy connection to Aurora is a huge benefit that comes with the 77.”
When Route 77 was proposed, I suggested that it should have had at least one or two shared stops with RapidRide E. I suggested that the route jog onto Aurora for several blocks to make this possible. Right now there’s street crossings needed.
I got pushback that it was a bad or unneeded idea by others here. Now here’s your real-world account why Route 77 could be more useful to a rider if it has a shared stop with RapidRide E.
“Now here’s your real-world account why Route 77 could be more useful to a rider if it has a shared stop with RapidRide E.”
Sure, you could keep asking for the moon. Speaking for myself and my family, the current 77 route between Lake City and Bitter Lake is good enough. I’d much rather cross the intersection twice to get to the E stop than have the route zigzag around to share a couple of stops with the E.
“If they are up at 130th & Lake City Way they will use that bus stop. They will be able to catch the 5, 61 and 77.”
Route 77 turns at 125th St. Route 75 also runs in 125th St.
Route 5 is on Greenwood, a few miles away. Did you mean Route 75 instead?
Route 65 (going to Shoreline South) has a much closer stop than a Route 75 and 77 stop to that corner too.
I guess to me the whole region needs to be rethought at some point.
Eg:
• the 333 is one huge tangle that seems to try to serve everything poorly.
• the 303 doesn’t seem to make any sense on Meridian, and it seems like the former routing on Aurora would serve more riders. Maybe some sort of cooperative effort and funding with CT could extend it to Edmonds?
Lots of other things come to mind as non-ideal when looking at the map as a whole.
https://kingcounty.gov/en/-/media/king-county/depts/metro/maps/system/08292026/metro-system-map-nw
I guess to me the whole region needs to be rethought at some point.
Absolutely.
When Route 77 was proposed, I suggested that it should have had at least one or two shared stops with RapidRide E.
The bus coming from Lake City should go all the way across. It should be the 65 or 75. It should not deviate north or south until it reaches Greenwood. Otherwise people have to go out of there way if they are going from Lake City to the various parts of Greenwood. That part of the 77 is fine.
But instead of doubling up serving on Greenwood (north of 130th) we should send the 5 to Lake City. That way you have good headways on that core section (Greenwood & 130th to 30th & 125th). This core section is very dense per service hour. It is also a very popular corridor. Not only for direct trips (e. g. Lake City to Bitter Lake) but for indirect trips. Thus you are doubling service where it will do the most good.
We should improve other east connections that involve Aurora. Swift Blue should continue on Aurora and turn left on 185th. It should serve all of the RapidRide stops along the way. The 72 should replace the 333 between 148th Station and Shoreline College. It should take the old routing of the 330. That means it would serve both 155th and 160th on Aurora. That would mean that for parts of Aurora, it would share stops with the RapidRide E.
But that doesn’t mean we should send a bus down Aurora and then have it turn. It would have to be really frequent before it actually becomes popular. Otherwise riders just end up taking the E Line and transferring. If it is really frequent then it is expensive and you are adding service to corridor that already has great service. It is essentially a reverse-split. As Dai put it, that is asking for the moon.
From Metro’s perspective, I can see why they think it’s better to run a bus to Northgate than to Pinehurst.
No one runs a bus just to Pinehurst Station. That would be stupid. Give Metro come credit. The bus keeps going. It goes to Lake City or Bitter Lake — areas with comparable destinations. Yet these are much faster to serve. From a cost/benefit standpoint it is better. If the Northgate station was at Northgate Way it would be different. But it isn’t.
Northgate Station is just in a terrible place. The only route that is straightforward is the 61. Every other route backtracks. That is terrible. Every route — including the 61 — has to turn multiple times just to get there. It is slow and very difficult to improve with BAT lanes because of all the turns.
Put it another way: Imagine there was no Link, no freeway express buses — none of that. Would the 40 suddenly turn and head towards 92nd only to loop around and end in the middle of nowhere, next to the freeway? Of course not. It would keep going on the main arterial (Northgate Way) and end in Lake City. It wouldn’t detour at all. Fifth Avenue NE would be served by north-south buses. Same with College Way. Maybe you have the 61 crossing 92nd but that is about it. Northgate Station would not be a transit center. Nor would it be a station. The only reason Northgate Transit Center exists is because it was right next to the HOV ramps of the freeway. It was great for commuters. The only reason the station exists is because they figured it was cheaper to put the station there. But it is really a bad station from a network standpoint. It lacks linearity. A lot of the routing made sense when Northgate Station was the terminus. It doesn’t any more.
Ross, you continue to advocate a fantasy. I say “a fantasy” because you assume that the 75 that tou would have replace the 77 goes to Shoreline College.
However, the 77 DOES NOT reach Shoreline College. It ends at 145th and loops on the old 28 routing east to Linden and 143rd. Apparently Metro wants it to be a “Seattle bus”.
Though I agree that in a best-of-all-possible-world extending the 5 to Lake City and the 75 to Shoreline College is the right solution, it would cost quite a bit to achieve.
It would require two buses on the each line, at least, and the 77 has to go somewhere beyond 125th and 30th/Lake City Way, so it can’t supply many hours.
Pinehurst Station is going to live or die based on the ridership that the 77 can attract. We had best hope it outperforms its tortured routing.
you assume that the 75 that the would have replace the 77 goes to Shoreline College.
That is not true at all. Look at the letter I wrote most recently about the subject. Check out the map from that letter that I’ve referenced many times now. The 75 does not go to Shoreline Community College. It ends right where the 77 ends now. I’m more than willing to compromise. This particular proposal has a big advantage over other ones: It saves money.
But yes, in an ideal world I would send the 5 to Lake City. At that point I would most definitely send the 75 to Shoreline College. I would also replace that silly little Northgate/Pinehurst circulator with a normal route that also serves Shoreline. But even if you use the circulator as a starting point it would not be that expensive. The buses are already overlapping on 125th (between Lake City Way and 5th). That would still be the same. Service on Fifth and 125th is revenue neutral (i. e. the circulator doesn’t cost anything — it is just replacing that part of the 75). You would swap tails on the 77. Instead of the current layover in Bitter Lake you use the layover by the old Fred Meyer. This actually looks shorter. The main cost is then the overlap between 130th & Greenwood to the station.
So basically the math is:
[Lake City 135th Layover] – [Bitter Lake Layover] + [Extra service along 130th]
Edit: Oh, and I forgot about the tricky turn of the 77. That area is under construction. But that will take time as well. Keep in mind a northbound 77 has to make two turns. First to get from Lake City Way to 30th and then from 30th to 125th. This is a high pedestrian area so even the right turns will take time (and since there is construction there I assume there will be no right-on-red). So you can subtract that time as well.
The cost is minimal because it doesn’t take that long to travel that short section or 130th. You could easily make up for that cost with other changes. If we got rid of the circulator it would again save money. But I wouldn’t do that. I would instead use that corridor for bus service to Shoreline and restructure buses there as well. That would end up saving money and provide the vast majority of riders with a better network (while still retaining coverage).
Will Metro do this? Probably not. But that is because Metro planning has gone downhill since the restructure following U-Link, not because of any flaw with this idea.
“extending the 5 to Lake City and the 75 to Shoreline College is the right solution, it would cost quite a bit to achieve.”
Have you seen the 333?
It seems to me some changes to that tangle could give some service hours to deploy elsewhere.
Eg: if the 75 or 77 goes to Shoreline College, then maybe the 333 doesn’t need to.
I wrote an acknowledgement of your latest version in the letter
of swapping the 75 for the 77 west of 125th and Roosevelt and agreeing with that, but I must not have sent it. So,”Yes, I see that you have scaled back your proposal, and I agree with the general thrust of ‘keeping on in the same direction’ for the 75 and 77.” I expect you’ll get some push-back from folks along Sand Point Way about “losing Northgate”, but it’s a better network.
Some people on Sand Point Way would prefer the fast trip to Link rather than the trip to Northgate. Others might appreciate the trip to Bitter Lake or the connection to the 5 and RapidRide E. This kinda thing is crazy (https://maps.app.goo.gl/1YtoHoh6LqvnD2hb9).
A shuttle to Shoreline and Lynnwood? Those aren’t shuttles — that is just a network of buses all going to Northgate — like the days before Lynnwood Link. Maybe Lynnwood Link wasn’t worth it. Maybe we should have just put the money into north end buses. But since we decided to build the tracks all the way to Lynnwood it makes sense to stations along the way as well. This is just one of those stations. It is not that different than any of the other stations — and in many ways better (simply because it is the farthest south).
So yeah, feel free to argue against Lynnwood Link. But suggesting that Lynnwood Link would be better off without particular stations (like 185th) is pretty silly.
It’s time to stop all the restructuring fantasy thinking for at least a year or two. Pinehurst will open in less than four weeks. Metro has developed and long adopted their restructuring. Things won’t change for at least a year and likely more. The only way that North Seattle bus routes will soon change is if some road closure happens that affects bus routing.
We need to accept that riders after September 30 will now start voting with their feet on what station is used or what bus route among several riders board.
There will be new boarding and travel time data to consider. The station boardings for October should be posted by ST first in mid-November. Metro won’t release data until the spring unless there’s a reason to provide it earlier. But once the boarding and travel time data is out there, even the contemplated changes discussed in the comments that may make sense will be much less speculative.
The better topic in my mind is to focus on whether the streets and sidewalks are set up well enough to optimize the planned system. Signing, striping, lighting and shelters may and probably will need minor tweaking. Will drop offs in the bus stop at Pinehurst Station happen rather than people driving to the drop off loop? Will riders really be comfortable waiting for a bus at Pinehurst or will nearby I-5 noise prove to be too obnoxious? Will the added station area pedestrian activity be safe, or will crosswalk enhancements be needed?
After that, I see the next best topic is what happens in the station area walksheds. The real estate market near the stations have changed because of Link and state TOD density mandates near stations. That creates new market opportunities to manifest different station area land uses. And once decided and approved, those will be “frozen” by what gets built for at least a few decades.
I’m not saying that route restructuring is not important generally. I’m only saying that it’s untimely.
It’s time to stop all the restructuring fantasy thinking for at least a year or two.
Good Lord, why? Why on earth would you ignore the most important and most flexible aspect to our transit system? This is Seattle Transit Blog. We change things. That is the entire point of the blog.
The better topic in my mind is to focus on whether the streets and sidewalks are set up well enough to optimize the planned system.
It’s fine. Don’t worry about it. No one will choose this stop over that stop because the lighting is better. It is all about the buses.
After that, I see the next best topic is what happens in the station area walksheds.
Yeah, whatever. The powers that be have dragged their feet. At some point they will allow six to eight story buildings close to the station. You can already see the developers buying up the property. (You’ve no doubt seen it.) Great. Wonderful. TOD fans will get their jollies. But at the end of the day you can’t ignore the geography. The station — like every station north of Roosevelt — is next to the freeway. The station — like most stations north of Roosevelt — is close to a greenbelt. The station — like half of those north of Roosevelt — is next to a golf course. Whatever. This just means they are extremely dependent on the bus network.
As I wrote earlier it is quite easy to see a simple restructure — that would actually be cheaper — resulting in a lot more riders going to Pinehurst. It would also result in a lot more people riding transit. Feel free to ignore the elephant in the room but the bus routing is by far the most important aspect to the stations that make up Lynnwood Link. This means the data you are looking at (within the next year or two) is largely meaningless unless you are wrong and we actually improve the routing by then.
The Seattle Transit Blog should add another link to the top of website besides the current ones: Page 2, Archives, Who We Are, and Latest Comments. It should be titled Take Action, Advocacy, or something similar.
Ideally, the articles are tagged by topic. Ross’s doc: “Better Bus Service to Pinehurst Station” is a good example.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/19WC9uMr0ao4D5dnr2mJwt44PBX95yY5Mn585F8YTC80/edit?tab=t.0
Finally, consider adding links to contact the relevant elected officials to the articles. This should encourage the Blog readers to advocate for changes.
As far as I know, there is no drop-off loop at Pinehurst Station. Passengers will walk, cycle, roll or take the bus to and from the station.
The Sound Transit Pinehurst Station design features describe both a North Loop drop off and a 5th Ave curb indention drop off.
https://www.soundtransit.org/system-expansion/pinehurst-station
There are no drop off places at Columbia City. The bus stops are instead often used.
People get dropped off at Link stations often. If the drop off doesn’t exist or is inconvenient, drop offs still happen.
Yes, I see the loop now. Thanks for the correction. I wonder how much it will be used since you have to turn onto 5th Ave NE, go in the loop to drop off / pick up, and then come back out onto 5th. My hope is that most people, if not all, will use other modes of transport to reach the station.
Roosevelt Station doesn’t have a drop-off location, and people drop off in front of the south entrance by blocking the unprotected portion of the protected cycle lane on NE 65th. Drivers’ selfishness never ceases to amaze me.
Wesley prepared a nice STB description in February that shows the drop off areas too:
https://seattletransitblog.com/2026/02/22/lynnwood-infill-stations-pinehurst-and-potentially-220th-st-sw/
I wonder how much it will be used since you have to turn onto 5th Ave NE, go in the loop to drop off / pick up, and then come back out onto 5th.
Yeah, but that isn’t very different than the other stations. I believe that part of 5th will be two-way (from 125th). So if you are north of Northgate but south of 125th/130th it is an option. There will be some people driving there.
My biggest concern is how they handle traffic. For a while they banned left turns from 130th. In other words you couldn’t turn north on 5th from eastbound 130th. But now it looks like they got rid of that restriction. Given there is a roundabout to the east (not very far away) it seems like they should continue to ban the left turn. Drivers could just keep going and use the roundabout to turn around (and then take a right). A lot of drivers will then just use some other way to get up to 145th where there are left turn signals (e. g. Meridian, 1st, 15th). They could add a left turn signal there but that would make the bus slower.
Speaking of which, this is a problem throughout the city and this is just one example. The traffic lights often favor corridors that don’t have transit. I’ve noticed this on the afternoon right by the station. The light cycle for those coming from the freeway (northbound on 5th) is really long. The bus (going eastbound) has to wait. That is backwards. Likewise, the cycle for cars coming from the north on 1st Avenue as well as Meridian became really long when they were working on 145th. That’s because of all the cars that were diverted. Now that 145th is back to normal, hopefully they’ve corrected the cycles as well. There are going to be intersections (like 125th & 15th) that have buses going both directions. But when you have an intersection with buses only going one direction (in this case east-west) the cycle timing should favor it.
Roosevelt Station doesn’t have a drop-off location, and people drop off in front of the south entrance by blocking the unprotected portion of the protected cycle lane on NE 65th. Drivers’ selfishness never ceases to amaze me.
Yeah, especially since it is trivial to use a side street. There are areas with three-minute parking and even if those are used you could just stop in front of a driveway for a minute to drop someone off (e. g. here). And if those areas every get too congested there is literally a park and ride nearby.
“Roosevelt Station doesn’t have a drop-off location, and people drop off in front of the south entrance by blocking the unprotected portion of the protected cycle lane on NE 65th.”
I don’t see how it’s realistically possible to discourage people from getting dropped off or picked up. Many times it’s a household member or it’s a ride hailing service like Uber or Lyft. Even though an out of the way area like a loop can be great for pick ups, drop offs are different. Passengers will quickly hop out of a car in places most convenient to them — like traffic lights, bus stops or side streets. It may even be a block or two from a station entrance.
ST has not published a study of how riders get to Link stations. I’ve suggested several times that such a study would be useful in managing curb space around stations. Alas, it’s not been an interest of other regulars on STB or of ST.
Here’s BART’s station profile study:
https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/2025-12/Profile_OnePagers_121525.pdf
Note that the BART study was funded by the MPO (MTC) rather than BART. That’s likely because the data can guide future ridership forecasts that MTC produces. It shows that drop offs are at least 10 percent except in the most urban of stations. Many are between 15-25 percent of BART station boardings.
I see the Pinehurst loop used mainly for pick ups. There will be some people dropped off there. I’m expecting that many drop offs will happen on 130th though, like drivers getting on the freeway southbound after they drop off someone.
I don’t care how people drop off or pick up around a train station as long as they don’t endanger other road users. In the case of Roosevelt Station, it is a clear violation of the traffic law. Thankfully, the shared path built on the north side of the 130th overpass will be raised, so people dropping off on the westbound 130th will at least not block people walking and cycling. That said, it would negatively affect the 77 route. Like I said, there’s no end to drivers’ selfishness.
I don’t see how it’s realistically possible to discourage people from getting dropped off or picked up.
That isn’t the issue. It is where they get dropped off. There are plenty of ways of discouraging illegal drop-offs. I assume that Dai is talking about this area here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/DbW2dC4ViWko3ZDz6. It is unprotected because of the nearby bus stop. They already have signs (No Stops) it is just that people are ignoring it. Maybe painting the street (green or red) would help. Since the bus stop has to use the stop it really should be a BAT lane (bright red) until the bus stop and then back to green after it. There is a similar situation on the other side which should be treated the same way.
Yeah I can see the problem with dropping off on NE 65th St. I expect a similar situation to emerge on 130th at Pinehurst.
This is a reason why ST and SDOT should be thinking about drop offs and pick ups better than they do. It can’t be stopped merely with a “don’t” sign and a designated area a few blocks away. It’s clearly a result of no one in these agencies thinking about the corner in a comprehensive way.
Simply put, there’s too much happening at the corner. A bus stop is going to double as a drop off zone unless there’s an obvious alternative like a drop off zone visibly just past the bus stop. I can see how patrons or deliveries of those storefronts also create an environment for stopped cars there.
And clearly NE 66th is the intended place to drop off or pick up someone for Link. It’s either not clear or not convenient for that.
The businesses and agencies and advocates are going to have to hash this Roosevelt situation out amongst themselves. Signage, restrictions, monitoring and maybe rerouting have to be parts of the solution.
But let’s be clear: this problem has happened because of bad station circulation planning — likely caused by naïveté and negligence. A seasoned rail station rider who has lived elsewhere could have seen this happening years before the stations opened.
“Maybe painting the street (green or red) would help. Since the bus stop has to use the stop it really should be a BAT lane (bright red) until the bus stop and then back to green after it. There is a similar situation on the other side which should be treated the same way.”
While paint can discourage drivers, I think a threatening sign is more effective. In bold red letters, say something like “No Stopping! Fines Up To $500.” Nothing gets drivers to change behaviors faster than a threat of a steep fine.
Then have directional signs towards the drop off on 66th. The signs should have a special icon, a directional arrow and DROP OFF ZONE or KISS & RIDE written on them. And every station should have an area clearly signed something like DROP OFF ZONE or KISS & RIDE ZONE rather than have drivers to their own logic. The threat of a fine is not enough info.
There are lots of examples across the world. Here’s one from Australia (notice the driver on the left side of the car): https://cwwpa.org/2019/07/26/kiss-ride/
Of course, it’s best if these signs get placed once all the affected parties get review input. Approaching driver logic has to be considered.
Vote the 28X extension to 130th St and turn to 1st Ave NE and turn to right the n North 145th station.
Seems like people in the Lake City area of Seattle were part of the billions paid to Sound Transit and now they have ZERO service. The 522 route, previously from Kenmore to Lake City to Downtown Seattle, later to Roosevelt has been completely yanked from Lake City.
People in the area should realize that Sound Transit is a thief, taking tens of billion and throwing a few crumbs, just because some voters are anti-car. There is middle ground, such as smart spending of money for transit, not “whatever the robbers at Sound Transit want”.
Do not buy a new car because for 5 years, you will be paying thousands to Sound Transit.
The 522 routing is terrible. Metro routing is also poor. But it is a mixed bag in terms of getting to Link. The 77 serves 125th, west of Lake City Way. If you are close to the library you are in luck — you will have a good, fast reasonably-frequent trip to Link (at Pinehurst). It also serves Lake City Way, south of 125th. The southern part of Lake City Way (starting at 120th) is in good shape as it has both the 61 (to Northgate) and the 77 (to Roosevelt). At 130th you have the 61. Between 130th and 145th riders have to backtrack (to 148th Station) using either the frequent 72 or the less frequent 65. Those in eastern Lake City can either take the 65 (to 148th Station) or the slow bus to Northgate. Once Pinehurst Station opens it is in some ways better than the old system. The only people that are considerably worse off are those on Lake City Way between 130th and 145th.
The problem is, it isn’t nearly as good as it could be. For no money at all we could have much better service southbound on Lake City Way. We could have two buses (one headed to Roosevelt, the other to Northgate) between 130th and 11`5th (inclusive). We could serve all of 125th with a bus to Pinehurst Station. This would make a big difference to those on the east part of Lake City. So while ST definitely screwed up by sending the 522 (and later, Stride 3) to 148th Station, Metro could do a much better job of serving Lake City.