Open Thread 45

127 Replies to “Open Thread 45”

1. The naming meeting for Stride’s transfer point sounds entertaining.

   My experience on these exercises is that there first needs to be a long list of possibilities.

   There are the main destinations like “UW Bothell” and “Cascadia College”.

   There are waterways like “North Creek.”

   There are cities and neighborhoods like Bothell and Woodinville.

   There are natural features like “valley”, “glen”, “gulch” and “forest”.

   There are terms describing transfer locations like “transit center”, “exchange” and “junction”.

   There is a shameless vanity approach of naming it for the billionaire that is generous enough to give ST the entire funding needed for the station.

   Various combinations of these offers several dozen options already.

   Personally, I do like a name indicating a transfer point but I find “transit center” a misnomer here. Something close to North Creek Junction appeals to me.

   1. I think it’s interesting that they’re having this workshop but only for the one station. I wonder if they’re realizing that if they’re having difficulty picking a name, then the public will have difficulty accepting any name they pick. So, now they’ll have some workshop results to point to whenever someone complains that the name they picked is unintuitive or incongruent or whatever.

      1. Yeah if they are going to have a workshop, it should seemingly include naming for several stations. It does seem like it is atypical for ST to name things this way.,

   2. I think it is weird that they are doing this at all. It is a bus stop. Just name it based on the address. Seems rather silly they are going through all of this.

      1. Does it have an existing address? The Transit Center is in any entirely new location; I think they carved out a new parcel out of WSDOT land.

         “405/522 interchange” would be the most literal, but I’m not sure if it is intuitive or helpful for wayfinding. “Bothell/Cascadia College” could be confusing with the Stride stations that actually serve Bothell & Cascadia College directly. I think a workshop is reasonable because unlike the rest of the Stride network there is a need for novel placemaking.

      2. “405/522 interchange” would be the most literal, but I’m not sure if it is intuitive or helpful for wayfinding.

         What wayfinding? Holy cow, not too long ago there were no clues at all when it came to bus stops. You looked out the window and pulled the cord when you thought it was your stop. If you weren’t sure you might ask the driver to give you a heads up and they would announce it (or just tell you if you were sitting close to the front). Now we somehow need a name that is more descriptive than “405/522 Interchange” for a bus with only a handful of stops. This, at at time when a lot of people carry around portable GPS receivers they call phones. Maybe they should call it “The station between Brickyard and Canyon Park” since that is how people know when to get ready. My point is you could call it “Banana” and it wouldn’t make any difference.

         It is just a bizarre thing to have a workshop about. I could see it being tacked onto an open house, but as a standalone meeting it seems silly. I like the free food though. I’m sure some folks would like to attend for that reason alone.

      3. It’s a transit center, not a bus stop. It will probably be the most important non-Link transfer point on the east side after it opens (Eastgate TC may be more important)

         “Banana Transfer Center” would be memorable.

      4. We don’t want stations named after freeways. That reinforces the car-first mentality. Freeway interchanges don’t have addresses; they’re a no-man’s land in between buildings. We could call it “Bothell Hub” maybe.

   3. Reporting back after participating in the naming workshop!

      ST staff started by giving a brief overview of the project as a whole and answering some general questions about how the network changes with the addition of Stride.

      We then answered some general questions via an app that populated for everyone to see. Questions such as “what do you associate with the location” resulting in answers such as “Bothell” or “North Creek” or “ugly highways”.

      Various questions fed into actually choosing names. Towards the end, each person chose two station names to put on the board and we informally voted on our favorites and discussed what we liked/disliked as a group.

      The favorites track well with your expectation, Al. Names such as “North Creek Exchange” or “Bothell Exchange” were popular.

      It did seem weird to have an entire workshop dedicated to one station name, but it seems like ST can take away some valuable feedback directly from folks living in the area.

      1. Thanks!

      2. “Ugly Highways Transit Center” it is!

2. Seems like the Downtown Redmond extension could open before the end of the year! That would definitely add to the value of an east side starter line.

   1. ST originally stated that they couldn’t plan to open extensions less than 6 months apart due to staff capacity and testing requirements. Then, they schedule Lynnwood (Aug 30) for 4 months after ELSL (April 27). I think if they really wanted to, they could pull off opening Redmond in late December (which would keep the original schedule). The optimist in me thinks they could get it as a Christmas present to the railfans of the region, and make 2024 a banner year for Link. The pessimist in me thinks they’ll delay to early 2025 if staffing is difficult around the holidays.

      1. Opening stations requires changing train schedules and driver assignments during the testing period. Surely four months would be enough.

         I believe that last year’s logic is that they would open when East Link crosses Lake Washington. However that date keeps getting pushed back. The last progress report said October 2025. (Note here that it will take eight years from fully funded groundbreaking to open a segment from IDC Station to South Bellevue Station that is within public right of way with no new tunnels.)

         My hunch is that ST won’t make a call on the Redmond extension date until they see how many riders use the ELSL. If the ridership is heartier than expected, they will push up the Redmond opening date. If it’s awful, they’ll hold back possibly even until the full East Link is opening.

         Perhaps some elected or official or big corporation could also put pressure on ST to open it earlier, too. That’s how we got the ELSL.

      2. If only there were a large corporation right at the boundary between the starter line and the downtown Redmond extension. Nope, I can’t think of any.

      3. @Nathan,

         The “six months between openings” thing was a bit of sandbagging on the part of Rogoff and Timm. Pretty clearly that is not actually the case, although it does make things easier.

         The real requirement is approx 6 months of testing before you can open an extension. And that doesn’t mean 6 months between openings. It’s about testing.

         The 6 months of testing fits into two phases: approx 2 months of verification testing and 4 months of demonstration testing. And the two phases are not the same thing, and the staff and the roles they serve for the most part don’t overlap.

         So technically once the verification testing (fit and function) is completed, those staff can (mainly) move over to working on the next phase.

         The demonstration testing is different. It is designed to “simulate service” and show that the system can be operated as planned. And once this phase is over, most of the staff will stay on the new line and transition to daily operations.

         So technically all the phases could overlap, but the difficult one is the demonstration testing since it requires staffing to operational levels, and since most of the staff involved will transition to operating the line once it opens for revenue service.

         You can see this more aggressive scheduling today in the overall plan. LLE is scheduled to open roughly 4 months after ELSL opens. And RLE is estimated to open about 4 months after LLE opens.

         The key is that the hard part about the demonstration phase (simulated service) is that it is mainly training and staffing based. But since RLE extension is so small, and since there is some extra time (float) in the schedule, it *might* be possible to overlap a little of the RLE and the LLE demonstration phases. It just isn’t that hard a push.

         Will ST do that? I’m not sure. It would be nice to have RLE open a week or two before Christmas, but it still might not happen. Given all the heat ST takes for even the smallest supposed transgressions, they might just play it safe and pad the schedule.

   2. I agree Liam. Ridership of the starter line would increase substantially with the new station. So would ridership per hour of service, which is an important consideration.

3. Thanks again for the countdown clocks. Very handy and much appreciated.

   But I passed them on to my sister-in-law who lives in North City and she was a bit disappointed.

   She is currently working nights and taking a rail/bus two seat ride each direction. The transfer from rail to bus can be painful and she often just calls an Uber for the last 2 miles or so home.

   She had been sort of looking forward to taking the old bus/rail thing into work, and then taking the one seat ride on Link on the way back home. So the 10:00 open is a bit of a disappointment. She will still need to transfer to a bus one last time.

   Now she will have to wait for her next shift before riding Link.

   Oh well. At least it is out with the old and in with the new. Even if she has to wait an additional few hours or so she is still excited.

   And then on to the full ELE opening. No more transferring to the 271 to get to Bellevue. What is now a three seat rod for her becomes a one seat ride.

   Progress. Progress.

4. Folks were talking about the South Bellevue Station the other day. As a result I ran across some Power Point slides put out by the American Public Transit Association. I don’t have the text that goes with them, but I think they raise some pretty interesting points. The gist of it is that things were changed early in the process. One of more interesting ones is that northbound buses that through-route (i. e. continue heading towards Downtown Bellevue) will stop by the street instead of looping through the station. Thus through-riders won’t be inconvenienced and the agency running the bus saves a little service time. The conclusions on slide 20 were especially thoughtful:

   • Don’t assume all Engineers are Transit Planners
   • Don’t assume all Engineers knows Transit Operations and all kinds of coaches
   • Do ensure jurisdictional transportation staff are engaged in design development
   • Do maintain two‐way communication between operation planners and engineers
   • Do collaborate and get more for all, the Earlier the Better Together

   1. The eastbound 550 has been stopping on the street for I don’t remember how long. The westbound 550 goes into the bus bays.

   2. In our region’s case, I would have added “Don’t assume that elected officials are either transit planners nor engineers, nor riders nor drivers.”

      …and…

      “Don’t assume most transit advocates are transit planners or engineers or drivers, even though they often are riders.”

      … and …

      “Run big ideas through a group of riders and drivers before spending hundreds of thousands designing them.”

      One of the dysfunctional things I see around here time and time again is how local elected officials view transit as a playing card rather than a goal, senior management hired and retained because they won’t push back (often leaving rather than push back), and engineering consultants willing to design plans that cost billions rather than question the idea in the first place (not pushing back in fear of not getting further design work).

      While engineers and transit planners can sometimes see things differently, I think they have more respect for each other than the other parties involved in our local transit decisions. It seems like a minor issue compared to the bigger forces at work.

5. Community Transit has a board workshop April 18 at 3pm, with a Gold Line update and a “2024 and Beyond” network implementation. Click the “Upcoming Meetings” tab.

6. Q: Can we spend gas tax money to buy new ferries, given the ferry routes are part of the highway system?

   1. It already does. The ferry system is considered part of wsdot. The exact percentage is a bit harder to calculate I guess it depends on what you consider a gas tax. (Aka is the cap and trade also a gas tax)

      > The 18th Amendment in the Washington State Constitution restricts the money from fuel taxes to be used for “highway purposes,” like bridges, road repairs, or traffic signal management and it includes the Washington State Ferry System.

      1. Yes, but don’t forget the Auto United case: https://washingtonstatewire.com/supreme-court-ruling-says-gas-taxes-not-just-for-highways-anymore/. Basically the state can use gas taxes to pay for anything they want now.

      2. Interesting. I missed that.

      3. Even without Auto United case, the WSDOT ferry system can be funded by the gas tax.

         There’s enough of a backlog of work in WSDOT (ferries and otherwise) that the state probably should raise the gas tax and still spend it solely on “highway purposes”

      4. There needs to be some planning for the coming reality of precipitously dropping revenue, as EV and hybrid start to saturate the car market. Preferably they convert to some formula of Miles Driven X Weight, to be more representative of the impact on the roads, other drivers and non-motorized users. I’d make it exponential on the weight variable.

         We should also seriously reconsider expenditures. At this point in our state’s history, we should never be building new highways or highway lanes. we know better, with a firm understanding of induced demand, induced sprawl, and the severe negative impact on the areas the highway travels through and on our planet. At this point, we should be looking spending on simple maintenance of the current road network, and building far more energy efficient ferries.

      5. I’d be ecstatic if they put a Ballot Initiative out there so I could vote for more roads…

         or Not

      6. “At this point in our state’s history, we should never be building new highways or highway lanes”

         We know that, but try convincing the legislature and exurban cities. The legislature has moved a bit on density, but it’s not clear it has moved on highway expansion or Amtrak funding (the current long-range plan, not UHSR). If it has, the solution is in its hands: it could modify its own legislation on the transportation package.

7. Q: Does anyone have information on why the 70 has been motorized for two weeks now? I assume construction or a fallen tree, but just curious.

   1. Not only that, but there has been a plethora of RapidRide branded buses operating on regular old Metro routes lately. Very strange.

      Is Metro having fleet maintenance issues again? Because that is the only thing I can think of that would cause this.

      Note: with all the expansion occurring with ST Light Rail, I can see how a bunch of staff moving over to the ST side of the house could create a hole on the Metro side of the house.

      1. *there has been a plethora*

         Darn autocorrect.

         [Corrected]

      2. It’s been common to see RapidRide bus vehicles on Rainier Ave (Route 7) for quite awhile.

      3. @Al S,

         Ya. I’ve been seeing it for awhile now too. But I’ve been seeing a lot more lately.

         But my question is, why? What is going on that is making it so much more common now?

      4. I’m guessing it is the mechanic shortage. With the cutbacks they likely have plenty of buses for all the routes, but the buses are in various states of repair. Maybe they RapidRide buses are in better shape at the moment.

      5. And ST Express buses on Metro routes.

         It has been happening all along and vice-versa (e.g., a regular bus on RapidRide). It may have increased, or it may just be regular volatility. Metro has a shortage of maintenance workers as well as drivers, and there are still supply-chain issues waiting for parts. Last I heard half the buses were sidelined waiting in the maintenance or parts queue, for either scheduled maintenance or repairs.

8. I have never ridden the KC water taxi before. I always find it more convenient to just drive to West Seattle instead of taking the water taxi or a bus.

   But I’m sort of looking forward to this temporary free water taxi service. I plan on just declaring myself to be an “impacted individual” and going for a couple free rides.

   My plan is to take Link to downtown Seattle and then transfer to the water taxi. Once in West Seattle I’ll do my daily walk-about over there and then return the way I came.

   Should be a fun change. And no cars or buses involved.

   1. Your continual anti-bus comments are very bizarre. You now work them into almost every comment. It goes beyond an understandable preference for trains over buses. It comes across as very odd and pathological.

      1. @Sam,

         I’ve spent enough time stuck in traffic in my life to know that I don’t enjoy it. If I can avoid traffic, I will. It’s just that simple.

      2. There is not much traffic on a bus from downtown to West Seattle.

      3. Maybe you missed it, but the whole point of the trip is to try out the ferry.

   2. I’ve ridden the West Seattle water taxi a couple times. The boat’s interior is a little tired; the Seattle terminal requires a little more walking from the Alaskan Way ped overpass than the car ferry terminal does (unless it has recently changed); the West Seattle terminal is 1-2 miles away from Alki Point and its village; and you’d need to know when the West Seattle shuttle goes to take it — I think it’s timed for arrivals but not departures or vice-versa and is a one-way loop to the Junction and Alki. I haven’t ridden the other passenger-only ferries (Vashon; Kitsap County).

      RapidRide C is fast, frequent, and convenient; it’s one of the best bus connections in Seattle. It goes directly to the Junction and Lincoln Park (my favorite park). To get to Alki I take the C+50. That’s more pleasant than transferring to the 50 at SODO: SODO is a concrete jungle, the SODO-WSJ segment is slow and indirect, Genessee Street is so steep I wonder if it’s really suitable for buses, and it’s more pleasant to wait at the Junction or you could stopover at the Husky Deli (excellent homemade ice cream) or Bakery Nouveau or walk around a pretty complete urban village that reminds me of the Ave in the 1980s.

      1. @Mike Orr,

         The walk is the point. I don’t mind a good, long walk.

         I’ll skip the shuttle and just walk to the lighthouse, then either continue south along the water, or head up to Admiral.

         Plenty of walking options.

         But looking forward to trying the ferry.

      2. A little off-topic and also a bit random, but I’m curious as to why you consider Lincoln Park your favorite city park. Care to elaborate?

9. The Stream Community Line starts Monday, April 22. All Pierce Transit service will be free that day in honor of Earth Day. The Stream Community Line is the Pacific Avenue peak express that’s an interim step toward the planned BRT, which is not fully funded at this point.

10. @Nathan D
    Excellent job handling the news roundup blocks! I like the format you’ve selected for grouping items and just the overall presentation. Nice work! I’m sure Mike, Ross and the other contributors/editors appreciate your assistance with keeping content flowing.

    1. Absolutely. Mike helps behinds the scenes a lot with these open threads (and the editing in general). I mostly go “Uh huh, looks good”.

    2. Thanks! It’s all a team effort.

11. Apparently the city has deleted BOTH proposed Pinehurst neighborhood centers from their densification plan. Go figure.

    https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattle-studied-dozens-of-spots-for-housing-growth-these-24-got-picked/

    Probably because of local resistance.

    1. I get why you are confused. The text is not very clear and the map is easily misunderstood. 130th & Roosevelt (by the station) is shown with a little square, suggesting it is not part of the plan. Same is true for 125th & 15th. I assume these are what you are calling “Pinehurst” (I would consider the former as being between Pinehurst and Haller Lake). Both of these are designated “Urban Centers” in the actual plan (see page 20: https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/OPCD/SeattlePlan/OneSeattlePlanDraftPlan2024.pdf). Urban centers are more dense than neighborhood centers. Furthermore, the area between them is part of the urban center as well. If you hover over the map it has the correct information — the plan calls for a new urban center in both places (as well as in between). So this area is getting more density than originally considered.

       So far as I know, there has been no organized push back against upzoning. Quite the opposite. From the beginning folks have been suggesting having more density (and more restaurants, etc.) there. Now some of the other areas (e. g. Magnolia) could have been dropped off the list because of local opposition. Other opposition (e. g. along Lake City Way) seem odd. I think Harrell was just being needlessly conservative. Not only in the approach towards these “centers” but in general. The fact that Spokane — freakin’ Spokane! — has a much more liberal zoning code than what we are proposing is appalling.

       1. I am neither confused nor assuming. Both of those little squares are in Pinehurst, and both apparently have been deleted.

          Unless, of course, you want to claim that the deleted neighborhood center at 125th and 15th was only meant to be on the east side of 15th, in which case it was either in Victory Heights or Olympic Hills. But that is sort of splitting hairs.

          But if you mean to claim that the Seattle Times article is inaccurate, then you should probably take it up with them. I just re-posted their article, I didn’t write it.

       2. You are obviously still confused. By the way, the paper version of the paper made this more clear. I’ll explain this again, but I would appreciate it if you paid attention this time. This isn’t the first time I’ve had to explain something to you more than once. Go back to your original statement:

          Apparently the city has deleted BOTH proposed Pinehurst neighborhood centers from their densification plan.

          Yes, because they have replaced them with a bigger, denser urban centers. This means more density, not less.

          Probably because of local resistance.

          Why would people object to a neighborhood center, but be OK with an urban center? That makes no sense. It was at this point that I figured the map confused you (which as I mentioned was understandable). You don’t seem to realize that they are adding more density here.

          The problem is that the map is accurate, but confusing. It lists all of the areas that are no longer neighborhood centers. Rather than use a different color for the two that saw increased density, they decided to handle it with the hover tag. Take your cursor and hover over the two squares of concern. Like all the squares it lists the address. In this case the squares of concern are 125th & 15th and 130th & Roosevelt. But unlike every other square, something else appears. This:

          Included in draft plan as an urban center

          Do you understand now? You might wonder, what is the difference? Well, I mentioned that as well. Just read the One Seattle document (I also referenced). Long story short, they upzoned this area from the original plans. Instead of getting one donut, they give both of those areas a box of donuts. (Meanwhile, so many other areas are losing their donut.)

          You basically have it backwards. Part of the problem is the way the paper presented the information in the online edition. With the print version they used asterisks. This is much better in my opinion. You are immediately drawn to the fact that something about these particular squares is different (and it definitely is).

          Again, I understand why you were confused. But here I take the time to explain it to you and you ignore the explanation. You seem defensive.

          I just re-posted their article, I didn’t write it.

          No, but you clearly misinterpreted what they wrote.

       3. @Ross,

          I stand by everything I wrote.

       4. @Lazarus

          You know it’s okay to admit you were wrong right. It’s not the end of the world.

          I’ve made mistakes interpreting other documents before as well that Mike and others helpfully corrected me.

       5. @WL,

          I posted a link to a Seattle Times article. Why that is so controversial is beyond me.

          If anyone has any problem with that article, take it up with the Seattle Times.

       6. @Lazarus

          …. lol lazarus are you seriously doubling down, there’s nothing to prove here.

          > I posted a link to a Seattle Times article. Why that is so controversial is beyond me

          Lazarus; you, Ross and I all know we are are not talking about the article but you wrote “Apparently the city has deleted BOTH proposed Pinehurst neighborhood centers from their densification plan. Go figure.” When it was upzoned instead.

          Definitely the Seattle times article could have written and highlighted it better but I have no idea why you are insisting on die on this hill.

       7. @WL,

          I guess the best policy around here is just to not post interesting links from the Seattle Times.

          Lesson learned!

       8. I guess the best policy around here is just to not post interesting links from the Seattle Times.

          No. If not for the Seattle Times link we would have no idea why you were so confused. The problem was your interpretation of the article. You came to the wrong conclusion — the exact opposite of what is actually happening. For example if you had written the following, it would have been accurate:

          Interesting. It looks like Pinehurst went from having a couple of tiny neighborhood centers to a big urban center. This means more density close to the station.

       9. “I guess the best policy around here is just to not post interesting links from the Seattle Times.”

          I can’t believe you’d want to shoot your own interests in the foot like that. Is this just pouting? Well, I’m sure we’ll find something else to discuss in a few minutes.

12. Metro’s fall service change is scheduled for August 31st, so how is Metro going to roll out the Lynwood link changes on September 14th?

    1. The CT and Metro have moved their service changes to the 14th. Should work well.

       1. Where has that been published? Everything I’ve seen says August 31st. The only place it says September 14 is in the Lynnwood Link page.

       2. @Still Confused,

          The August 31st date has been changed. It is now Sept 14th for both CT and Metro.

          It has been reported in multiple places, but was reported by ST as soon as the announcement of the Lynnwood Link opening day was made.

          https://www.soundtransit.org/get-to-know-us/news-events/news-releases/link-1-line-service-to-lynnwood-begins-august-30

          I think it is a wise move to have the bus restructures occur slightly after the Light Rail opening. Should make the transition a little bit smoother.

       3. We put the September 14th date in the Lynnwood Link article. Initially there was some confusion about the date, until commentators confirmed it’s the 14th.

       4. @Still Confused,

          Oh, and here is a CT article saying the same thing:

          https://www.communitytransit.org/destination-guides/bothell/2024/04/04/link-1-line-service-to-lynnwood-begins-august-30#:~:text=%E2%80%9CStarting%2520Sept.,local%2520and%2520regional%2520travel%2520options.%E2%80%9D

          “Community Transit and King County Metro have agreed to revise the date for bus service upgrades and improvements originally planned to take effect Aug. 31. Bus changes will instead take place Sept. 14”

          So it is official. No need to doubt it.

          Also, I got tipped off about this a few weeks before the big announcement regarding the opening date for Lynnwood Link. So far everything I was told has been accurate, so I have no need to doubt my sources.

       5. https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/metro/routes-and-service/service-change

          Service Change
          Effective 03/30/2024 thru 08/30/2024

       6. @Service Change,

          That is a stale webpage published before the change. Here is a KC Metro updated page:

          https://kingcountymetro.blog/2024/04/04/link-1-line-service-to-lynnwood-begins-aug-30/

          “ Community Transit and King County Metro have agreed to revise the date for bus service upgrades and improvements originally planned to take effect Aug. 31. Bus changes will instead take place Sept. 14, allowing a smooth launch of extended 1 Line service before bus routing changes occur.”

          It’s real. Believe it. Lynnwood Link starts operating on August 30th, and the bus restructures occur on September 14th.

13. “why you consider Lincoln Park your favorite city park”

    It’s on a full-time frequent transit route. Its internal woods trails, while short, criss-cross in a way that makes it feel like a larger wooded oasis. The upper plateau is all flat, and has glimpses of the West Sound along the wooden fence. A trail at the south end goes down sideways to the beach, making a remarkable change in view levels throughout five minutes.

14. I saw a poster saying there’s a transportation and housing rally August 20 at Jimi Hendrix Park for Earth Day, with endorsements by The Urbanist and Seattle Subway and other organizations. Does anybody know more about this? I don’t see anything on The Urbanist’s home page or events calendar about it, and a Google search came up with nothing. I was a bit nonplussed that the poster doesn’t say who’s presenting it, which raises red flags about a scam or a stealth demonstration that’s really about something else, but I assume the endorsements at the bottom are genuine. The poster says it’s at 2pm, 2400 S Massachusetts St, and will have performers, games, food, and speakers.

    1. Looks like it’s being hosted by Seattle Neighborhood Greenways: https://actionnetwork.org/events/rally-for-a-healthy-future

       1. Realized that the website doesn’t make it clear who’s hosting it, but I got an email yesterday evening from Seattle Greenways advertising the event.

       2. OK, I’ll be there.

15. Good gawd, hopefully you don’t actually need to download a Metro app to your phone to get a free ride on the KC Water Taxi.

    https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/west-seattle-swing-bridge-shutdown-to-bring-slowdowns-and-truck-detours/

    That would be discriminatory towards old/lower income people who don’t have smart phones.

    I’m sure there is another way. Because I am not downloading the app.

    1. In the 90s and early 2000s when the low bridge was closed, SDOT had a truck that ferried bicyclists via the high bridge. I encountered it biking down 4th Ave S and west on Spokane Street, and somewhere around 1st I found the bridge was closed and there was a truck waiting at the interchange. He took me across to somewhere just west of the bridge (probably under the SW Spokane Street viaduct), and I continued from there to Alki.

       Ironic how, to save $2.75, you’re supposed to have a smartphone and data plan costing hundreds of dollars, and interact with a third-party commercial app store, and wonder how much of your information is going to places unknown for unknown purposes.

       1. @Mike Orr,

          I’m still going to try for a free ride next week. App be damned.

16. The Link ridership data for February 2024 is out. The average weekday is down from February 2023 (from 73,150 to 62, 559) or over 14 percent.
    https://www.soundtransit.org/ride-with-us/system-performance-tracker/ridership

    While the first two February weekdays were during the service disruption, the full weekday schedule resumed on February 5. That’s partly a factor but that certainly doesn’t explain it all.

17. Only 7 days and 15 hours until ELSL opens for business (according to that handy little countdown clock). And the number of stories related to it are coming fast and furious.

    Here is one on the history of Eastside rail:

    https://mynorthwest.com/3957954/echoes-eastside-rail-history-sound-transit-prepares-underway/

    “And the railroads…….to some extent, had no choice except to cut back service because they just didn’t have the personnel to provide the kind of service that they had been providing before,”

    Sort of sounds like what is going on locally today.

    1. The Eastside rail corridor as I understand it was always single-tracked, so not suitable as a major all-day passenger corridor for a population size the Eastside is and is becoming. And it turns out that not all of it was land-granted to the railroad: some segments were owned by adjacent landowners, and the railroad merely got an easement to use it — an easement that does not extend to the currently-preferred trail use or other kinds of rail (e.g., light rail).

       1. @Mike Orr,

          100+ years ago the Eastside was extremely rural. And most of the freight traffic (other than some coal) moved on the west side of the lake anyhow. So there was absolutely no need for anything approaching a double track railroad on the Eastside back then.

          Now things are of course different. There is more volume, and the passenger traffic patterns will be more east-west for better access to Seattle. The full ELE will be highly successful, we just have to wait a bit longer for it.

          The ELSL will also be successful, but will still be a bit of an orphan until the connection to Seattle is open.

          Even so, the opening of the ELSL will still be the biggest thing to happen in Eastside transit since the first floating bridge opened. And ridership will be solid.

          By this time next year transit in the region will be completely transformed.

       2. The ELSL is only a big eastside transit event in the sense of it being a precursor to the upcoming full 2 Line. The 8 station ELSL by itself is not the biggest transit event on the eastside since the first floating bridge. Bigger events include: the creation of Metro, the 520 bridge, Highway 405, the 2nd parallel I-90 bridge, the creation of Metro transit centers, the creation of P&R’s, and the creation of Sound Transit and their Express bus service on the eastside. The South Bellevue to Redmond Tech starter line itself is not a game-changer. It will be start to be one when it goes to downtown Redmond, then become a real game changer when it crosses the lake.

       3. @Sam,

          I most certainly don’t consider the opening of “ the 520 bridge, Highway 405, the 2nd parallel I-90 bridge” to be major transit events. Ditto for the creation of P&R’s. These things might represent incremental improvements in transportation, but they certainly aren’t the kind of step change that the opening of the ELSL represents.

          And none of those events represented a change in direction for regional transportation. They were just more of the same in a heavily roads focused transportation system.

          As for the “creation of Metro” being a major change for the Eastside, that occurred in 1973 — over 50 years ago! — and was the result of the bankruptcy of the private provider. And even then, Metro’s improvements were incremental and slow to be implemented.

          And don’t forget, Metro’s real purpose at the time and entire reason for being was actually sewage. And they did an excellent job on that. Metro deserves a lot of credit for handling this regions sewage problem.

          But, yes, the ELSL won’t reach its full potential until the full 2-Link opens (as I acknowledged). But when that happens it will be “Katy bar the door!”

          That will truly be a major event.

       4. Lazarus, you seem to be moving the goalposts around. First you say the ELSL is the biggest transit event on the eastside since the first floating bridge. But then after my comment, you say it’s great for what it represents.

          I’m suggesting that the ELSL, as a stand alone, abbreviated rail line, is less major than anything on my list. Admittedly, it’s very cool that the eastside is getting rail, but the South Bellevue to Redmond Tech line is not itself a major improvement. It’s only a major improvement in the sense of it being a harbinger of what’s to come, but by itself, with almost half of the eight station areas still underdeveloped, it’s not a major transit improvement, nor is it a game-changer for the vast majority of eastside transit users.

       5. I’m glad you are so excited about the starter line, Lazarus. If I remember right, you were very skeptical at first. Partly that was because you didn’t think they could do it without delaying Lynnwood Link, but also because you didn’t seem to think it was a very worthy project. Seems like you’ve come around.

          As far as comparing this to other East Side projects, it is hard to say. Unlike other folks on here, I don’t remember much about transit from back in the day. I think a lot of improvements happened incrementally. I think there were still some big steps along the way like:

          1) The bus tunnel. I’m not sure when East Side buses were added (maybe as soon as it was built) but it was a big improvement for them as well.

          2) HOV lanes on 520 and I-90.

          3) Freeway stations. Eastgate was a pretty big one, as it meant a better connection to the college (with some walking) as well as an express used by a lot of park and ride users.

          4) Improvements in frequency. This was probably more of an incremental thing, but it wouldn’t surprise me if there were big changes along the way.

          It is worth noting that about 30,000 riders a day took buses across the lake on I-90 before the pandemic. Most of these were ST riders. The ST buses peaked around 2015, while the Metro buses (largely headed to Eastgate and Issaquah) peaked before the pandemic. All of these improvements played a part. I think it is safe to say that the starter line won’t have that kind of ridership.

       6. @Sam,

          “you seem to be moving the goalposts around.”

          Ah, not at all. The sad fact is that it is very hard to identify any major improvements in Eastside transit over the last 50 years. Everything has been incremental and fairly low impact. Or a road. Or something in Seattle proper. So it is a pretty darn low bar to set, and the ELSL will easily exceed such a low bar.

          Admittedly ELSL ridership will be somewhat anemic until it gets connected to the rest of the system, but even at current estimates, it is still expected to get about as much ridership as an average RapidRide route. That is no small feat, particularly on the Eastside where transit use in general is a bit weak compared to the west side of the lake.

          I’m just glad ST found a way to open the ELSL without delaying (supposedly) the much more important Lynnwood Link Extension. That was my main concern. LLE is clearly much more important than ELSL, and credit to ST for getting both done and in operation so close together.

          And the ELSL surely does set a new direction in Eastside transit. That is a very good thing.

       7. “it is very hard to identify any major improvements in Eastside transit over the last 50 years. ”

          It depends on what you think is major. Frequency is doubled, more neighborhoods are connected to each other, the worst of the long slow milk runs that were the only route serving major centers have been eliminated, there’s been stop diets, and the Bellevue Transit Center consolidated a spaghetti of onesey-twosey crossing routes. It’s much better than it was 25 years ago, even if there’s a lot left to go. And it will be significantly better again in 1 year when the full Line 2 starts.

       8. It’s not 50 years. Lazarus said “the opening of the ELSL will still be the biggest thing to happen in Eastside transit since the first floating bridge opened,” which happened in 1940, so, 80 years ago. And Lazarus specifically said the ELSL itself … not the later one that will go to downtown Redmond, and not the full 2 Line that crosses the lake, and not in the symbolic sense that it’s a sign of progress. He said the abbreviated 8 station starter line, as a transit route, is more important than even the creation of Metro, Sound Transit, Transit Centers, P&R’s, the 520 bridge, or 405.

       9. @Mike Orr,

          “ It depends on what you think is major. Frequency is doubled, more neighborhoods are connected to each other”

          Ya, but is that a major improvement? Almost certainly not.

          Since 1970 the population of Bellevue has roughly tripled, Kirkland’s population is up by roughly a factor of 6, and Redmond’s by about a factor of 8. And some of the other neighborhoods have actually seen a greater increase in population.

          So are small increases in frequency and incremental additions to the network going to keep up with that sort of population growth? Probably not. And even if the service additions do keep up with population growth, does that count as a major improvement? Or is that just treading water?

          I’d say we have been doing a pretty good job of treading water, with some small improvements here and there.

          But Link at least has the possibility of beginning to make real, tangible improvements. That is what the next 2 years will be about.

       10. ”Since 1970 the population of Bellevue has roughly tripled, Kirkland’s population is up by roughly a factor of 6, and Redmond’s by about a factor of 8.”

           Growth, yes, but nothing like those numbers which are mostly annexation of adjacent unincorporated areas.

       11. The sad fact is that it is very hard to identify any major improvements in Eastside transit over the last 50 years.

           Yes, but mainly because we aren’t historians. That doesn’t mean that major things didn’t happen. Remember when they added HOV lanes? I don’t. But they happened, and it was a major improvement. What about running buses twice as often? Again, I don’t know when that happened, but it was a major improvement. Or how about the 550? It used to carry over 10,000 people a day. It continues to be run every 15 minutes all day long. What was there before? I have no idea, but my guess is the 550 itself was a major improvement.

           Everything has been incremental and fairly low impact.

           So is the starter line! It is clearly an incremental improvement.

           Sam is right. As a stand-alone project it is simply an incremental improvement that sets us up for the bigger change, which is the train across the lake.

       12. Growth, yes, but nothing like those numbers which are mostly annexation of adjacent unincorporated areas.

           Does anyone have a way of looking at growth by area? The borders change, so it is difficult. The county borders haven’t changed, but that is too broad an area. Ideally you could select an area (e. g. east of Lake Washington between 520 and I-90) and see how much has it grown. Or maybe select a city based on old or new borders and see how much it has grown. What would the population Bellevue be if it never annexed other neighborhoods? How many people used to live in the area now known as Bellevue?

       13. Bellevue and Redmond have had limited annexation since the 1970s:
           https://apps.bellevuewa.gov/gisdownload/PDF/Planning/annex_eb.pdf
           https://www.redmond.gov/DocumentCenter/View/25200/AnnexationHistory?bidId=

           Of Redmond, Kirkland, and Bellevue, only Kirkland has materially increased it’s population through annexation in recent decades (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirkland,_Washington#Annexations)

           Redmond & Bellevue have had >50% growth since 2000s almost entirely due to infill growth.

18. Great Everett Herald article on the impact of the soon to arrive Lynnwood Link on Mountlake Terrace.

    https://www.heraldnet.com/news/with-light-rail-coming-soon-mountlake-terraces-moment-is-nearly-here/

    Mountlake Terrace is changing, and changing fast.

    August 30th is getting closer!

    1. I’m optimistic Mountlake Terrace will join Shoreline (both stations), Bellevue (BelRed & Spring District) and Redmond (Marymore village) as excellent examples of a suburban town creating midrise urban neighborhoods anchored by a Link station where there was previously only lowrise residential & commercial use.

    2. Of all the Lynnwood Link station areas, Mountlake Terrace appears to be the most densified one. It’s likely going to take years for the other three stations to evolve as far as Mountlake Terrace has today.

19. Another great article on the soon to open East Link Starter Line. This time from the Seattle Times:

    https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/eastsides-light-rail-wait-is-almost-over-with-starter-line/

    And I find this quote by the mayor of Bellevue to be particularly pertinent:

    ““Everything that you have seen happen in Bellevue over the last 10 years, has been because of the promise of light rail,” asserts Bellevue Mayor Lynne Robinson.“

    That is a strong statement. Also, the article states that:

    “ Since voters approved Eastside rail more than 15 years ago, the population has increased 35% in Redmond and Bellevue”

    That is pretty strong growth, and clearly our local bus system hasn’t been keeping up. ST made some improvements with their express buses, but a lot of those passengers will move over the eventual full East Link extension.

    Things are looking up!

20. “What about running buses twice as often? Again, I don’t know when that happened, but it was a major improvement. Or how about the 550? It used to carry over 10,000 people a day. It continues to be run every 15 minutes all day long. What was there before? I have no idea, but my guess is the 550 itself was a major improvement.”

    In the 1970s through the 90s, suburban King County had mostly hourly service. (Seattle had half-hourly.) There were only a few half-hourly exceptions: 226/235 (precursor to 550), 226/253 (precursor to B), 340 (precursor to 560), 150 (to Kent), 174 (precursor to 124 and A), 6 (precursor to E), maybe a few others.

    Hourly routes from downtown Bellevue went to the U-District, Kirkland/Totem Lake, Redmond, Lake Hills/Eastgate, and Renton. In Issquah and Newport Way the 210 ran every 90-120 minutes.The only expresses were peak hours, 340, 307 (precursor to 522, hourly), 194 (precursor to 577 and airport Link; it may have started with the DSTT).

    There were three major restructures that raised the frequency in Bellevue, although I don’t remember the details because it all happened after I turned 18 and moved to Seattle. In 1990 the DSTT opened. In 1999 the 550 started. (The other ST Express routes started later.) In 2011 or so RapidRide B started.

    The 550 was initially half-hourly, the same as its precursors. That led to a temporary Metro-level fare until it could offer more than its precursors, namely 15-minute service weekdays and Saturdays.

    The 550 started in 1999; the other ST Express routes after that.

21. “Since voters approved Eastside rail more than 15 years ago, the population has increased 35% in Redmond and Bellevue”

    “That is pretty strong growth, and clearly our local bus system hasn’t been keeping up.”

    Why hasn’t it kept up? Because there’s been no Metro expansion. The last countywide Metro levy failed, which is why Seattle went it alone with the TBD. In 2016 Metro unveiled a long-term expansion plan called Metro Connects, and several cities released their own long-term transit plans around that time. But the levy still hasn’t happened, and the other cities haven’t stepped up like Seattle did. The levy was going to happen in 2020 but Covid intervened. Since then the county keeps saying it will do it someday, but still hasn’t scheduled it. Then there’s the post-Covid driver shortage, which complicates things.

    1. @Mike Orr,

       “ Why hasn’t it kept up? Because there’s been no Metro expansion. The last countywide Metro levy failed,”

       I would expect the same result from a countywide Metro measure today.

       Not only is much of the county still transit funding adverse (and often just tax or transit adverse too), but the changing face of local transit and commute patterns makes making a compelling case for more Metro funding just that much harder.

       What really are the future needs of Metro after COVID-19 and the rise of WFH? And how do you sell that to a skeptical public?

       And what are the needs of Metro post Link expansion anyhow? With extensions to Lynnwood, Redmond, and Federal Way all coming on-line in just 3 years, does Metro really need that much more funding? Or should they reorient their service to provide more Link feeder type routes and leave the heavy lifting to ST on key routes?

       Clearly CT is betting on the reorientation type model with more cross-county type service feeding into Link. And they are able to provide more service that way without major budget increases.

       Is that the future Metro model too? Providing more service within the same budget by leveraging off Light Rail expansion? Because clearly Metro is more impacted by Light Rail expansion than CT is, so what is Metro’s path forward?

       It is very unclear at this point. And that makes selling more Metro funding to a skeptical public just that much more difficult.

       Now is not the time. If ever.

       1. Mostly agree. Metro can barely staff its existing service levels, so a higher budget may not address the root causes. KCM’s budget needs to grow with inflation, but otherwise it is limited by its bus base capacity; ST’s Stride base (in Bothell) opening in 2026-ish will help a bit, but otherwise I’m not sure the region needs an step-up in KCM fleet size, but rather steady improvements in how KCM delivers service.

          The county is steadily increasing the quality and quantity of transit service in each subarea as Sound Transit builds out; the region pivoted away from “Metro Expansion” to ST 1, 2, and then 3. Therefore, as the highest quality corridors are replaced by Link, Metro buses will more and more be running in mixed traffic on local streets; so simply throwing service hours at the problem can be counterproductive. KCM needs to partner with local cities to improve the amount of service a given service hour budget can provide. SDOT does this well with the “spot improvement” project, and other major cities need to follow the approach. “Station access” and “safe walk to school” funds help as well; local cities should continue to invest in pedestrian infrastructure around bus corridors.

       2. @AJ,

          I would certainly agree that Metro’s budget should keep pace with inflation. That goes without saying.

          But after that? The only thing that is clear right now is that things are changing, and changing rapidly.

          What Metro’s future needs are in this changed transit-scape is a bit unclear right now. It would be much better to let things settle out a bit first.

          And the public has definitely shifted more towards rail as you state. Any Metro funding package will be harder to sell now. Best get it right or the public will surely vote “no”.

       3. It’s also not clear to me a new Metro funding package would invest much in transit service.
          1. Electrification is more important than transit service for many local politicians/activist and KCM needs a immense amount of capital to accelerate the switch to electrification.
          2. Suburban Rapid-Ride built-outs are mostly road (and sidewalk) projects. The Pierce BRT project was illustrative – the project got way over budget when a bunch of intersection rebuilds were in scope. It may very well be worthwhile public works to do a bunch of intersection rebuilds*, but it that best packaged as a Metro funding?

          *Personally, I’d argue one can never have too many roundabouts.

       4. Or should they reorient their service to provide more Link feeder type routes and leave the heavy lifting to ST on key routes?

          You keep bringing up the subject, and we keep explaining this to you. Metro has already done this. The great 41, one of the most productive bus routes in our system, providing a dream commute experience for many: Gone. The parts of the 71, 72, 73 that used to combine for outstanding express service from various parts of the U-District to downtown: Gone. Peak hour express buses like the 74, 76, 77, 312: Gone. There are no midday Metro buses going across the (I-5) ship canal bridge right now. Not a one. There are only a handful of peak-express buses run by Metro, and they go to downtown-adjacent locations (like First Hill and South Lake Union). These are rapidly disappearing.

          The same thing will happen when ST finally (finally!) runs trains across the lake. Metro will stop running buses to downtown from the East Side. As it is, Metro doesn’t run any midday buses to downtown from there — that is Sound Transit (with the 550 and 554). The same is true to the south. Metro doesn’t run midday express buses, and it runs only a handful of peak-express buses. The 177 runs five times a day. Five! It will definitely be cancelled when Link gets to Federal Way. That leaves the 193, as the only Metro bus running express. It runs a mere eight times a day. All of these routes (combined) are basically just a rounding error when it comes to calculating service levels.

          You don’t seem to get it. Metro doesn’t run the buses you think should be truncated. Other agencies do. Community Transit does (while they wait for Lynnwood Link) but after that all of the buses you are fixating on will be run by Sound Transit. Whether they truncate or not should have no bearing on Metro.

          You are basically arguing something that has been settled, and was settled a long time ago, when Metro took the bold step of truncating the 71/72/73 at the (very awkward to serve) UW station. It’s like you are complaining about the viaduct and think we should tear it down so that we can have a prettier waterfront. It’s gone, just like those Metro express buses.

       5. Lazarus, 80+% of the trip pairs in King County have no Link alternative. There’s no Link from Crossroads to Kirkland, Crossroads to Eastgate, Kent to Covington, or Kent to south Renton, not even in the long-range plan.

          The Link segments where a lot of Metro service could be truncated for feeders is almost gone. U-Link and Northgate Link were the biggest ones. The initial segment didn’t replace any bus routes except the 42 (one half-hourly route), and that was replaced by other bus routes.

          Cross-lake service has only two all-day Metro routes, the 271 and 255, both of which will remain because Link doesn’t serve 520. The 21x are a handful of peak runs, and only the part west of Mercer Island can be redeployed, which isn’t that much.

          Federal Way Link won’t replace any all-day routes because the A will remain. That leaves, again, a handful of peak-only routes that can be deleted, not much. And it’s unclear whether they will be deleted. Metro is just starting South Link restructure planning. In its earlier plans it contemplated keeping a Federal Way-Seattle express, and adding a new Seattle-Kent-Auburn express to replace the 578. The latter probably won’t happen due to the lack of new revenue. None of this addresses a large percent of South King County trips, the majority of which live several miles east of the Link corridor. It already takes an hour to get from Kent to Seattle on the bus, and a Link feeder won’t improve that because Kent is so fare east and South Link has time sinks in the middle. So South King County will continue to be mostly buses. And it needs more service, to raise the 30-minute evenings and weekends and secondary routes to 15 minutes, so that it’s more viable to get around without a car. Extending Link to Federal Way doesn’t serve any of those trips. It has some benefit, but not the majority of South King County trips.

       6. And what are the needs of Metro post Link expansion anyhow? With extensions to Lynnwood, Redmond, and Federal Way all coming on-line in just 3 years, does Metro really need that much more funding?

          Seriously? Link expansion is great, but it only serves a tiny portion of the city. Most of the region has transit that isn’t very good. Furthermore, this round of expansion — again, while excellent — doesn’t replace much Metro service at all. Lynnwood Link will allow Community Transit to completely eliminate its peak-only express buses to downtown Seattle. Metro got rid of those a long time ago. Federal Way Link will enable Metro to eliminate just one bus — the 177 — a bus that runs five times a day (seriously). That’s it. From a truncate-and-move-service standpoint, Metro is done. That’s because they did that earlier (41, 71, 72, 73, etc.) and because other agencies run those buses.

          Even the East Side is like that. In this case, Metro will definitely save money by not running the Issaquah buses across the lake. But ST runs way more than them. The savings for Metro are minor, whereas the savings for ST are big.

          This helps explain why the East Side restructure was so weak. When U-Link was built and Metro took the bold step of getting rid of the express buses from the U-District to downtown (instead of waiting for Link to get to the U-District) that was a huge savings. They took this money (along with money that Seattle voters had chipped in) to increase frequency in the area. So much so that a lot of people (myself included) think of 15 minutes as the baseline for bus service — anything worse and we should question the route or the network (that led to it). But that isn’t happening with East Link. After East Link, there will still be a lot of areas with infrequent bus service. There will be a lot of areas — including areas with apartments — that have no bus service at all.

          This is because of money. Metro is not seeing a big windfall with these expansions. Far from it. Meanwhile, Metro remains woefully underfunded outside of Seattle (and in Seattle things have gotten worse). From a money standpoint, the city peaked somewhere in 2019 (before the pandemic, and before the Seattle Transportation Benefit District money was reduced). The rest of the county has been living with poor service for years.

          Metro has already shifted service away from peak. They have cancelled routes that were designed to alleviate crowding. They have removed frequency on routes that were clearly designed to deal with crowding (not provide better service). Buses that used to run every three or four minutes during peak run every seven or eight (if that).

          Even with all of that savings, it isn’t enough to produce decent transit outside of the city. Unlike the restructure in Capitol Hill (caused by the RapidRide G) I don’t see any major flaws with the East Link restructure. The problem isn’t the routes — it is the lack of funding. It seems to me that you should be able to justify an express bus connecting various parts of north 405 with the UW. I also think you should have a bus running every 15 minutes by the huge residential development in Totem Lake and the college there (which has 6,500 students). The bus that connects Downtown Bellevue with the UW (along Bellevue Way, a corridor with a lot of apartments) should run a lot more often. For so much of the East Side, the bus restructure is nothing like the one that followed U-Link. Outside of the Issaquah Highlands, things remain poor. The reason is simple: money.

       7. “The savings for Metro are minor, whereas the savings for ST are big.”

          The savings for ST mostly pay for Link operations, so it can’t be redeployed to other ST Express routes.

       8. “the huge residential development in Totem Lake and the college there (which has 6,500 students).”

          There’s a college in Totem Lake?

       9. Metro can barely staff its existing service levels, so a higher budget may not address the root causes

          The root cause is money. Offer drivers more money and they find Metro more attractive. You can both increase service *and* solve the hiring problem with more money. Now this means that you can’t increase service as much as you want, but that is just life I’m afraid. We can’t pay cops what we used to. Restaurants can’t pay staff what they used to. So you pay people more.

          KCM’s budget needs to grow with inflation, but otherwise it is limited by its bus base capacity

          There is still a peak in terms of service (although it isn’t as big as it used to be). This is also when the buses are most likely to be really slow. So even if a bus (like the 8) is running no more often during peak it is still using extra service during that time. This means the buses are running more often during peak than they are in the middle of the day (let alone the night, or the weekends). This is clearly a reflection of the lack of funding for service, not a lack of buses.

          Metro buses will more and more be running in mixed traffic on local streets;

          Since when? You mean since they kicked the buses out of the bus tunnel? Yeah, I suppose so. But a lot of the buses that used to go in there don’t even go downtown. I don’t see why that makes any difference. The average speed of the bus may go down, but it still take time to drive to drive the bus.

          simply throwing service hours at the problem can be counterproductive.

          Wait, what? Sorry, but that is ridiculous. By all means we should try and make these corridors faster. But until then — and well after — we should run the buses more often. If anything adding service makes the case for speed improvements even stronger. If you have lots of buses running along a corridor, then there is a stronger case for spending capital on those corridors. For example the case for adding BAT lanes on 85th (in Greenwood) will get a lot stronger very soon as an additional route (the 61) joins it. The same thing is true for routes that see an increase in frequency because of additional funding.

          KCM needs to partner with local cities to improve the amount of service a given service hour budget can provide.

          I’m sure they do. I’m sure the improvements to the 40 (that were made by SDOT) were made in consultation with Metro.

          Are you saying that the county should include capital spending (on the surface streets) in their proposal? That is reasonable, but ultimately the city controls the streets (unless the area is unincorporated) and may not want to change the street. Much of the money for bus lanes is not for the actual work, but the studying and the outreach that goes along with it. This is going to be done by the city. I guess I could see some sort of grant system, but it would likely make more sense to do that via the state (which is what happens).

       10. “The savings for Metro are minor, whereas the savings for ST are big.”

           The savings for ST mostly pay for Link operations, so it can’t be redeployed to other ST Express routes.

           Yeah, how ST spends its money is more complicated. I’m just saying that ST has the opportunity to save a considerable amount of money when it comes to bus spending as Link expands. Metro does not. That is why this statement is so ridiculous:

           Because clearly Metro is more impacted by Light Rail expansion than CT is

           How absurd. Community Transit has 13 routes running express to downtown. It has 5 routes running express to Northgate. A lot of these buses will be eliminated. The ones that won’t will essentially be terminated at Lynnwood TC, which is a huge savings (since it takes a while to get from Lynnwood to Downtown Seattle or even Northgate). This is for an agency without a lot of funding (or ridership) in general.

           Sound Transit also has a ton of buses that run to Downtown Seattle. In contrast Metro has … hold on here … basically nothing. A handful of peak-only routes (nothing close to as many as CT or ST has). I would guess less than 1% of Metro service hours are spent on these routes, which is why it won’t make much difference when they go away (and they will go away).

           There’s a college in Totem Lake?

           https://maps.app.goo.gl/cUxrvEAEuYNqyjuL7

           Not a huge college, but it still has 6,500 students (enough to get good ridership). There are also plenty of apartments nearby. I’m not saying I would serve that area over other areas. I’m saying that areas like that should have 15 minute service to somewhere just as I think Totem Lake in general should have the ability to get to the UW without slogging through pretty much all of Kirkland.

       11. Lake Washington Institute of Technology is not in Totem Lake, as defined by both Google Maps and the city of Kirkland: https://www.kirklandwa.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/5/it/gis/gis-maps/kirkland-neighborhood-area-map.pdf
           But as Totem Lake grows, I could Kirkland redraw the border with North Rose Hill

           “Are you saying that the county should include capital spending (on the surface streets) in their proposal? That is reasonable, but ultimately the city controls the streets (unless the area is unincorporated) and may not want to change the street.” More or less yes – the capital spending for most KCM route are now more properly executed by our local cities. Local city mayor & councils need to prioritize transit access & reliability, not be given billion dollar KCM tax packages that they can Christmas Tree with OPM

       12. I think folks need to look at the big picture here. Transit in the county is not very good. Ridership peaked a while ago, and has been very slow to come back. There are a lot of reasons for this, and I’ve spent a lot of time and effort ranting about them:

           1) Link doesn’t serve the county as well as it should. Various stops are missing, as well as potential new lines (e. g. UW to Ballard).

           2) The bus network is outdated. We can run the buses a lot more often if we adopt more of a grid (with good line spacing).

           3) Various urban corridors are way too slow. We need a lot more bus/BAT lanes.

           These are all very important, and they influence each other to produce a system that isn’t nearly as good as it should be. But there is one other problem that dwarfs all of the others:

           4) We don’t have enough money for service. Just look at the various restructures that I consider a failure (RapidRide G) the ones I think are largely OK (East Link) or somewhere in the middle (Lynnwood Link). Now double the frequency on all the buses. Wow! Holy cow, even the worst mistake that Metro planners ever made suddenly looks OK. Furthermore, you probably wouldn’t do that. There is no reason to run a bus like the 7 or RapidRide E every three to four minutes. You get diminishing returns, and even the strongest advocate for increased frequency hesitates when you want to go below six minutes (unless you are dealing with capacity issues). Furthermore, with very frequent buses the transfer isn’t so painful. Neither is the walk. It becomes much easier to actually push for a more efficient network. This is a critical point. The more service you have, the more popular a grid is. No one likes to transfer but if the transfer wait is minimal, then it isn’t that bad. Thus the have economies of scales as you ramp up. Same goes for evening and weekend service. Someone is more likely to take the bus in the middle of the day when the bus at night runs often.

           Transit funding is full of virtuous and vicious cycles. The “transit death cycle” works something like this: An agency cuts service because of less fare revenue. As a result, the agency loses even more riders, causing even less revenue.

           Well it works both ways. Increase service and you get more fare revenue. But just as importantly, you also gain various economies of scale. But the main thing is you benefit riders more than just about anything else you could spend your money on.

       13. Lake Washington Institute of Technology is not in Totem Lake, as defined by both Google Maps and the city of Kirkland

           Fair enough, but the boundaries for neighborhoods are fairly amorphous. The college is about 3,000 feet from the lake itself (as the crow flies). I could easily see someone describing the college as “being in the Totem Lake neighborhood” just because it is better known than Rose Hill (and the college is very close to the lake itself). At least it is better known to me (but I don’t live in Kirkland). In any event the case for running a bus in that general area more often is quite strong.

           “Are you saying that the county should include capital spending (on the surface streets) in their proposal? That is reasonable, but ultimately the city controls the streets (unless the area is unincorporated) and may not want to change the street.”

           More or less yes – the capital spending for most KCM route are now more properly executed by our local cities. Local city mayor & councils need to prioritize transit access & reliability, not be given billion dollar KCM tax packages that they can Christmas Tree with OPM

           OK then, that sounds like you are agree with me. The county should not spend money on transit capital projects, leaving those for the various cities to deal with. I agree. What then should the county spend money on? Service.

           Seattle could add bus lanes all over the city (and they should) and it would be great in its own right, and also save Metro a bunch of money. But it wouldn’t save it that much money. The buses that we complain about — the ones that are late — are usually late for only a relatively small portion of the day. Furthermore, there aren’t that many of those buses. In other cases it is simply impossible to grant the area bus lanes because the road is to narrow. The savings from these sorts of improvements would be substantial, but it is like the various improvements that we have seen (and will see) as Link expands. It isn’t enough (by itself) to make a huge difference. The easiest way to do that is to simply increase taxes to pay for more service.

       14. @Mike Orr,

           Change is hard, but the hard part about change is that change is relentless. It is never ending.

           Anyone who thinks Metro is done with the bulk of their restructures is seriously delusional, or maybe they just don’t understand the enormity of what is about to happen. Three major Link expansions in three years is huge, and those three expansions cover areas that have never had Link service before.

           Each of those expansions will generate their own restructures which have not been implemented yet, and even the restructures that have already occurred will be changed as travel patterns and growth concentrate along Link corridors.

           “80+% of the trip pairs in King County have no Link alternative. There’s no Link from Crossroads to Kirkland, Crossroads to Eastgate, Kent to Covington, or Kent to south Renton”

           Ya, and so what? What is the ridership demand on Kent-Covington as opposed to on Lynnwood-UW? Counting trip pairs is fine, but what really counts at the end of the day is passengers. Because that is economics. And that is exactly where the future problem resides for Metro.

           Metro needs to provide service on routes like Kent-Covington for social equity reasons, but those routes don’t get a lot of ridership and have high costs. The more Metro focuses on suburb-to-suburb connections, the worse their cost structure and the harder it is for them to maintain service.

           Metro can’t pivot to more suburb-suburb connections and have any hope of maintaining their current service levels. If that is the path Metro takes, then at some point Metro will need more funding to provide less service. That is clearly not a good thing.

           It would be much better for Metro if they increased their level of feeder routes to Light Rail because that is where the higher ridership levels are, and with higher ridership comes better economics. And with better economics comes at least a hope of also covering the costs of social equity type routes.

           So Metro basically needs more feeder routes to Link, for the sake of Metro.

       15. Anyone who thinks Metro is done with the bulk of their restructures is seriously delusional, or maybe they just don’t understand the enormity of what is about to happen.

           Or maybe you are confused (or delusional). Metro will continue to restructure the buses. But truncations of the type you describe have been going on for years. Yes, the bulk of these are done. I don’t know how many times I have to explain it you, but here it goes. Here is a list (to the best of my memory) of Metro buses that used to run express to downtown in the north end:

           41 — Ran every 15 minutes in the middle of the day, and every 4 minutes during peak.

           71/72/73 — Three different routes that combined for 10 minute service all day and night.

           74, 76, 77, 301, 304, 312, 316, 355 — Peak only service to downtown. Combined there were about 30 buses per hour (or one every two minutes).

           All of those are gone or truncated. All of them. In terms of north end Metro express buses, that’s it. There is nothing left to truncate. Nothing. To quote the great Billy Preston, nothing from nothing leaves nothing. You can’t truncate any more, because there isn’t anything left to cut.

           Here is what it is used to be like for the East Side:

           212, 214, 216, 217, 218, 219– I don’t know what the frequency of these was, but here is what is left:

           212, 218 — They run a combined 18 times a day. Not per hour — per day.

           Then there is the south end. I’m sure Metro used to run an express bus to the airport (and doesn’t any more). I have no idea what the frequency was, but I do know the remaining bus (yes bus, singular) that runs express to downtown:

           177 — Five times a day northbound, four times a day southbound. That’s it.

           There are some buses that run to First Hill, but not that many, and again, the number has been steadily decreasing. You really don’t get it, and that is clear with your following statement:

           Three major Link expansions in three years is huge, and those three expansions cover areas that have never had Link service before.

           Yeah, and those areas have hardly any express Metro service! Go ahead, double check my numbers. Just look at the routes. Go ahead, tell me which Metro buses should be truncated, and tell me how many times they run. Now compare that total to what the 41 ran. Not even close. All of the remaining potential Metro truncations combined don’t equal what happened with just one bus! Oh, and the bus wasn’t alone, as I pointed out. Ignore the workhorses right now (the 41, 71, 72 and 73) that made up the bulk of the previous restructures. Just consider the express buses from the north end that only ran downtown during peak. If I’m not mistaken, that was the 74, 76, 77, 301, 304, 312, 316 and 355. They ran more often in one hour than all the remaining express buses to downtown run during an entire day!

           The numbers don’t lie. Feel free to go on about how great these future expansions are, but from the standpoint of Metro truncations they are tiny compared to what has already happened.

       16. Counting trip pairs is fine, but what really counts at the end of the day is passengers.

           Yes, and the point is that Metro has a lot more riders, and even after this wave of expansion it will have a lot more riders. One reason is because Link doesn’t cover much of the city. It hits a few high points, but skips over a lot of areas like First Hill, the Central Area, Ballard, Fremont, Greenwood, Queen Anne (both upper and lower). Even in Rainier Valley it manages to cover the wrong corridor, and not very well (with stops way too far apart). For the most part, it isn’t sure what it wants to be (a metro or commuter rail). So it splits the difference, and sacrifices what always accounts for the bulk of the riders: trips within the city.

           Another problem with Link’s zeal to skip much of the city is that it makes it very difficult for Metro to connect to it. You can’t run a bus to a station that doesn’t exist. So buses are forced way out of their way to get to the handful that do exist, which screws up everything. Not only does it take way too long for riders to get to the Link station, but as a result it costs too much. The 345 is a great example. From Bitter Lake to Northgate takes forever. This means lots of riders — even those headed to places that Link serves (like the UW and downtown) prefer just taking the E and then another bus. Metro could run the 345 more often, but not that many would benefit. The result would be a system with less ridership, not more.

           Metro can’t pivot to more suburb-suburb connections and have any hope of maintaining their current service levels.

           Who the hell is talking about pivoting to suburb-to-suburb service? Your Covington to Kent strawman misses the point. We are talking about how Link doesn’t work for a lot of *common* trips. These include trips *within* Seattle.
           Ballard to the UW, Central Area to downtown, First Hill to downtown. Metro has to do the heavy lifting because Link doesn’t, and never will. Even for the East Side it is the same dynamic. How is Metro supposed to restructure the buses in Kirkland so that they can fully take advantage of Link? Maybe send the 255 to the UW instead of downtown? Guess what — they already do that! But there are a ton of trips involving the East Side (including Kirkland to the UW) that just won’t involve Link because Link isn’t that extensive (and never will be).

           It would be much better for Metro if they increased their level of feeder routes to Light Rail

           How the hell are they supposed to do that without more money? Seriously Lazarus, you are just being nonsensical. You are claiming that Metro can truncate buses they have already been truncated. You think that Metro is blowing all of its money on buses that run from Covington to Kent. You think Metro shouldn’t ask for more money, and yet somehow magically increase the number of buses that go to Link. You argue repeatedly against stations that work really well for feeder buses (130th in Seattle) then complain that Metro doesn’t have enough feeder buses. You somehow think that Metro is capable of magic. Sorry to break it to you, but they aren’t.

    2. The “the post-Covid driver shortage” isn’t a complexification (thanks Jeff!), it needs to be central to KCM’s evolution. Post-ST2, KCM should be much less peak-oriented as Link replaces or truncates many peak express routes. Shifting its driver schedule to more all-day service and therefore less split schedules and less part-time work should be central to KCM’s next plan.

    3. The last countywide Metro levy failed,”

       I would expect the same result from a countywide Metro measure today.

       I wouldn’t be so sure. A lot depends on when the vote is taken. Sound Transit figured out that it was essential to have their vote during a general election. That increased the number of voters who lean to the left. It allows Seattle voters to essentially carry the rest of the region. The same thing could happen with Metro. It is worth noting that the Seattle-only Metro proposal passed easily (even in an off year election). Various areas on the East Side have become more dense (and thus more likely to support transit projects).

22. On both Google Maps and Sound Transit’s trip planner, if you set the travel date to April 27th or later, you can already preview itineraries that involve the 2 Line. With a little experimentation, I’m getting a sense for how my own travel patterns will change. I’ll definitely benefit personally from being able to use the ELSL, and I’m looking forward to incorporating it into my routine.

    As I prepare to use the ELSL, however, my attention has turned back toward the surrounding bus service. Right now I don’t have specific critiques beyond what has already been aired in these forums (especially in discussions about the East Link Connections networks), so I’ll just note that as riders begin using the ELSL, there may be novel on-the-ground realizations about how well/poorly certain parts of the bus network fit with the ELSL. I hope that the East Link Connections network is not seen as “immutable” at this point, since the starter line will produce actual usage data whose availability wasn’t foreseen during the public engagement portion of the development of the ELC network.

    1. How will your travel patters change? Please share. As transit fans, some of us are curious who and how the starter line will most help most. The two most obvious answers are those going between Bellevue Downtown and Redmond Tech, or between Bellevue Downtown and Overlake Village.

       1. Those are exactly the trip pairs I anticipate using most. My transit trips may not get faster on average, but they should get a lot more reliable, and reliability is important to me.

          I live near Crossroads, but not in Crossroads itself, so at the moment my bus travel most often involves taking the 245 to transfer to another route (typically either the B Line or the 271, depending on the time of day and my mood). Compared to pre-2020, now I find the transfers more often problematic — a combination of buses getting bunched up (i.e. major schedule deviation) and missed trips (which I ascribe to the driver shortage).

          With the ELSL, for trips to downtown Bellevue I have more options, and more importantly the transfers will be more solid. I can either use the 245 and transfer at Redmond Tech, walk a tad more to use the 221 and transfer at Overlake Village (thanks to the latest service change), or on occasion just hail a short Lyft to Overlake Village Station. Also, on occasion I go to downtown-adjacent places for which other stations will be helpful, notably East Main Station (for Old Bellevue) and Wilburton Station (for the medical area on 116th).

    2. Yes, please share it. I’ll be going to 164th & Main from Seattle, so I’ll probably take the 550, transfer to Link at South Bellevue, and transfer to the 221 at Overlake Village. That will be the best connection I’ve had since I started going there in 2022. But only for a year, because in the East Link restructure the 221’s successor will go to 156th, and there’s a 21-minute transfer walk to the 226. It will be better because I can take Link from Seattle to Overlake Village, but more complicated at the other end. Still, it beats spending 35 minutes on the 226 across all of Bellevue like I do now, or walking from the B which takes 40 minutes and I can’t do all the time any longer.

       Metro said in February it would query the stakeholders for any last-minute needs changes since the process was put on hold, but it didn’t ask the public. That review ended in March, so we’re expecting Metro to submit the final to the county council around now. I’m not expecting much change from the last draft, so that may be what we get until there’s general Metro expansion.

       1. Indeed, your destination is not all that far from me, so I wouldn’t be surprised if the itineraries you come up with look mostly similar to mine (as noted above — though I focused more on my ‘outbound’ trips, which would be your ‘inbound’ trips).

          I’m not thinking of any major hints specific to reaching 164th/Main beyond what you’ve penciled out — I would also go for the transfer to the 221 at Overlake Village, though the low frequency of the 221 there is problematic. Still, Overlake Village is among the most pleasant of the ELSL stations to wait for a transfer, as the shops nearby can provide a quick beverage, a meal, etc.

          There’s also the odd situation, which IIRC has been noted here recently, that Metro hasn’t put bus stops up at Overlake Village Station itself. (At least there weren’t any there a couple weeks back, when I drove through to see if ‘221’ had been added to the bus stop signs. I also saw no indication that any preexisting sign had been moved.)

          Metro’s new PDF schedule for the 221 marks Overlake Village Station as a “Transfer Point” (white “T”) but not a “Time Point & Transfer Point” (black “T”). My speculation: Metro may intend to add a pair of stops at the station, but the physical characteristics of that portion of 152nd make it problematic (for other vehicles) if buses stop there for more than a few seconds.

       2. “I would also go for the transfer to the 221 at Overlake Village, though the low frequency of the 221 there is problematic”

          It’s no worse than the 226 I’ve been taking. Right now I transfer at Bellevue TC eastbound, and if I have a 15-30 minute wait I go to Bowl-Gogi at the station if it’s open and get something to go. At Overlake Village I noticed a half-dozen restaurants on 152nd and 24th, although I don’t know if any of them are a good for a pop-in-for-10-minutes-to-get-something-quickly-to-go-before-the-bus-arrives. Overlake Village is where we shopped when I was growing up, and I hate the car-oriented atmosphere of the whole area. I can picture myself sitting at the bus shelter west of Interlake HS, eating something to go and reading a book waiting 15-20 minutes (or 40 minutes on Sunday) for the 226, trying not to think about the car-oriented hellhole around me. Still, it’s better than some transfers and some bus trips.

       3. ““Transfer Point” (white “T”) but not a “Time Point & Transfer Point” (black “T”).”

          Not everything can be a time point. Time points are where Metro promises not to leave early and tries not to be late. It can only do that at a few stops, not every one, and it wouldn’t put two close together. I don’t think “time point” has to do with whether it will install closer bus stops.

          Sam pointed out the lack of stops right at the station a couple months ago. I visited the station area, and I couldn’t see any, but then when I rode the B through northbound, I thought I saw a stop pair just south of a little street almost next to the station, so it didn’t look bad. I couldn’t figure out how I hadn’t noticed those stops while walking earlier, but I must have been looking so much north of the station that I walked past the stops south of it without noticing them. Now I’m not even sure if I saw them or if I imagined it, so I’ll have to double-check on opening day.

       4. Westbound I currently walk downhill to 156th where the 226 and 245 overlap, and either take the 245 to the B and 550, or the 226 to the 550, or the 226 to the B and 550. When the Starter Line opens, I’ll probably take the 221 to Overlake Village, or I might still go down to the 245 to Redmond Tech when it’s running every 15 minutes, I haven’t decided.

       5. “I visited the station area, and I couldn’t see any, but then when I rode the B through northbound, I thought I saw a stop pair just south of a little street almost next to the station, so it didn’t look bad. I couldn’t figure out how I hadn’t noticed those stops while walking earlier, but I must have been looking so much north of the station that I walked past the stops south of it without noticing them. Now I’m not even sure if I saw them or if I imagined it, so I’ll have to double-check on opening day.”

          South of the station there are stops NB and SB at the small road that goes up to the old Overlake P&R. I haven’t kept tabs on that P&R, but it seems it’s still active: according to Metro diagrams and OneBusAway’s route maps, the 249 deviates off 152nd to serve the P&R’s bus loop.

          Northeast of Overlake Village station, as 152nd climbs uphill, there is a pair (?) of stops just before the NE 31st/NE 36th roundabout. My recollection (corrections welcome) is that northbound there’s a proper signpole/sign, but southbound there’s just a temp cone. OneBusAway says that cone is a stop (#66874), as does Google Maps; however, OpenStreetMap renders the northbound stop (#66875) but no southbound stop.

          Starting on ST’s “Discover the 2 Line” webpage, clicking on “Overlake Village” then clicking “View station info” leads to this page:

          https://www.soundtransit.org/ride-with-us/stops-stations/overlake-village-station?route_tab=arrivals

          The station diagram isn’t to scale, but it suggests that riders can make a bus transfer alongside 152nd to the northeast of the station. However, aside from one icon on a map, info about bus transfers is scarcely existent on this page. By contrast, the corresponding webpage for an established 1 Line station is far more detailed:

          https://www.soundtransit.org/ride-with-us/stops-stations/roosevelt-station?route_tab=arrivals

          One gets a map of the area with clickable icons, along with an associated arrivals listing, organized by designating a few nearby bus stops as “bays”, with real-time info for the buses serving these bays.

          Sound Transit may just need some more time to build the 2 Line webpages out; I would guess that they’ve been prioritizing the more prominent/complex stations, as the webpage for South Bellevue Station looks just about as detailed as the page for Roosevelt Station:

          https://www.soundtransit.org/ride-with-us/stops-stations/south-bellevue-station?route_tab=arrivals

          As for Overlake Village Station, I suppose it’s not much of a walk to reach the existing bus stops either northeast or south of the station.

       6. “However, aside from one icon on a map, info about bus transfers is scarcely existent on this page.”

          A slight correction/revision here: the more detailed map can be opened up within the ST Overlake Village Station webpage. It shows the surroundings of the station at scale, and by clicking on bus stop icons you can get to the webpage of each single bus stop itself, which shows the stop’s arrival info.

Comments are closed.