We’re about a month into the Fall shakeup, where a substantial number of service changes were implemented to improve connections to Link. This is a recurring playbook that Metro has used ever since light rail service began: identify duplicative services and restructure existing bus routes to connect to Link stations rather than running all the way into downtown Seattle.
When Northgate Link opened, Sound Transit truncated many of its 510 series routes to connect at Link instead. After Lynnwood Link, all of Community Transit’s direct services to downtown Seattle were restructured. And with the August changes, both Metro and Sound Transit no longer offer any one-seat rides from Bellevue or Issaquah to Seattle, save for the 2 Line.
Critics of this approach generally lament the loss of the one-seat ride, that trip times generally increase when factoring in wait times, and that Link is not necessarily faster point-to-point than express routes. The Sound Transit subreddit and other various community forums feature countless examples of riders testifying to that end. There is even now a “Restore 554” petition circulating among Issaquah residents, urging the restoration of a direct Issaquah-Seattle route.
The planning justifications for this type of restructuring are quite straightforward: Link provides a frequent high-capacity serve to major regional centers; instead of running costly peak-directional bus service, reinvest the hours into boosting local connecting service. This implementation aligns with Jarrett Walker’s “frequency is freedom” mantra and is generally a position this blog has supported.
In practice, however, real-world conditions can muddy the picture. Take, for example, the 554’s successor: the 556, which now provides frequent all-day service between Issaquah and Bellevue. Those previously using the 554 (or the 550 local stops along Bellevue Way) to get to Seattle must now connect at South Bellevue Station for the same trip.
These transfer conditions can greatly deteriorate due to local northbound congestion on Bellevue Way just in the short span between the I-90 off-ramp and the station bus stops. Riders agonizingly wait for traffic to crawl up Bellevue Way only to see Seattle-bound trains glide past over their heads. Even in the southbound direction, buses have to yield to northbound traffic in order to turn into the station bays, which adds travel time variability.
The physical infrastructure in between the connecting services is important too. Jarrett Walker touches on this point in one of his foundational articles on transferring:
… the unpleasantness of the connection experience depends on many details of how the connection works. If two buses or trains arrive on opposite sides of a platform, facing one another five meters apart, with their doors open at the same time, walking out of one and into the other is a pretty low level of inconvenience for most passengers. If the connection involves getting off a bus, crossing a busy street, and waiting for another bus not knowing when it will arrive, the inconvenience is much greater.
As it were, the connecting infrastructure at South Bellevue and Mercer Island stations is less than ideal. Both settings require a moderate walk (across a signalized intersection in the latter case, largely thanks to Mercer Island’s opposition to an 80th Ave transfer point) and ascending or descending to the train platform. This can add a lot of variability, particularly for those with limited mobility, on top of the wait for the connecting service.
Negative feedback is often amplified over positive feedback, as human beings are far more likely to complain about things that hurt them rather than praise the things that help them. But in many ways, what is often seen as a degradation in one part of the network typically means an improvement in another part.
554 riders, for example, might glowingly reminisce about the quick travel times across I-90, but forget about the frequent outbound reliability issues inflicted by 2nd Avenue congestion (as I so often personally experienced). And although not quite a zero sum game, the changes have meant a substantially better commute for Issaquah-Bellevue riders, among other parts of the system.
Big restructures in the regional network will invariably result in system-wide tradeoffs, but that doesn’t mean agencies’ hands are tied. Barring a miraculous way of sending buses congestion-free right up (or down) to the Link platforms, transfer penalties can be offset by improving frequency and reliability across all segments.
Making the 556 a frequent all-day route that connects to frequent 2 Line service is certainly an excellent start, but continued work on reliability improvements are always in order. This might mean more attentive maintenance to ensure fewer breakdowns of Link trains. Or it could mean stronger partnerships with WSDOT and local jurisdictions to give signal or lane priority to buses.
Whatever the solution, transit agencies cannot go it alone here. Route 8’s dramatic reliability leaps were only possible by some repainting (and other minor infrastructural improvements) from SDOT. In the same way, local jurisdictions owe it to the taxpaying public to squeeze out the full return on our massive regional investment in transit. Helping create reliable well-connected services is a small, but important step to get there.
