Crushloaded at 6:00am at Mercer Island (Photo by VeloBusDriver)

Zach’s report on Mercer Island’s East Link comments was disappointing reading.  It’s clear that not everyone will get everything they want. However, I think there’s a path, assuming goodwill from the major players, that meets a goal that I think regional leaders, interested activists, and concerned Mercer Islanders can all agree on. That goal is that the majority of interested Mercer Island residents should have a plausible means of reaching the station.

There are some challenges:

  1. Parking spots at the station are a precious resource, at 447 not large enough to accommodate likely Link demand (ST projects about 2,000 boardings in 2030, constrained by access limitations) and unlikely to grow significantly.
  2. Buses are already at crushloads beginning very early in the morning (see photo).
  3. Banning outsiders outright from the public garage is unlikely to be acceptable to the rest of the region, and rightfully so.
  4. Although better bus service will help, a significant part of the island will only ever be practically accessible by car.

Although some sacrifices and compromises are necessary, we can achieve the most important goals without vast resource expenditure:


  • Metro restructures bus service to coincide with East Link opening. Although Mercer Island routes may have lackluster productivity metrics compared to other investments, Metro should commit to keeping the resources from Mercer Island routes (some currently going over the I-90 bridge) in Mercer Island, and indeed provide further matching funds for service over and above that. An obvious start would be single frequent route on Island Crest Way from QFC to the Link station, with no detour through downtown, through-routed with shuttle to downtown.
  • Emphasize I-90 bus transfers at Mercer Island. Although directly contradictory to the aesthetic desires of some residents, providing high quality bus connections to Link at Mercer Island is by far the best way to reduce non-resident parking demand. If Mercer Islanders genuinely want better access to the station, opposing bus transfers actively works against their own interest.
  • Satellite Park-and-rides. Regrettably, much of Mercer Island will be impossible to economically serve with transit. Leveraging existing under-used parking assets, like churches, with robust transit connectivity from there to the station will cheaply multiply access to it. Furthermore, these park-and-rides will be deeply unattractive to off-island residents. Collectively, the three non-ST parking lots on Mercer Island averaged 38 of 69 spaces full in 4Q 2014. While better connecting service can activate this capacity, the program will have to expand radically to have an impact.
  • Ambitious permit or pay parking. In other locations, Sound Transit has gingerly expanded its permit parking program. While eager to provide more reliable access, Sound Transit fears backlash from users reluctant to pay more to ride. Converting the Mercer Island Park-and-Ride to mostly permits, and aggressively pricing it, accomplishes three things. First, it deters non-residents from selecting Mercer Island station over cheaper alternatives like South Bellevue and Eastgate. Second, it encourages various forms of ridesharing to more efficiently use spots. Third, it provides a revenue stream to fund improved bus service and the additional parking.

If Mercer Island is genuinely focused on transit access for its residents, it should actively encourage priced parking at the station in exchange for a guarantee that Sound Transit will keep the money on Mercer Island to fund local access improvements. This approach would maximize the number of people that can use the station while keeping parking spaces for those who are hardest to serve with buses.

74 Replies to “A Grand Bargain for Mercer Island”

  1. 1. What is anti-aesthetic about I-90 bus transfers? We are talking about these transfers happening roughly the same place as current Mercer Island stop, aren’t we?

    I don’t think anybody is talking about moving East Base to the Island. Are they?

    2. Is it impossible ever to build Transit Related Development around the transit station?

    3. Any chance that majority of Mercer Island residents really favor LINK presence, but being confident it’s going to happen anyway, don’t see any need to waste an evening listening to familiar complaining from familiar sources?

    Maybe it’s just ancestral memories of long past electric transit and decades-old dreams of worker-ownership and control of things like transit systems.

    But complaints under discussion here fall under same category as the ones I’ve been hearing for 25 years from certain DSTT operators about its very existence:

    Group one, if you don’t like LINK, it’ll move a lot faster without a stop where it’s not welcome. Group two, too much grief about your system’s flagship project designed so it couldn’t be automated, and mistake won’t be repeated.

    Like ancestral memories channelling back from Chicago 60 years ago: “One more tantrum about your present, an’ Marshall Fields will give it to some poor kid after I take it back!” Ramtha really did used to talk like Al Bundy.


    1. If I understand correctly, what they’re complaining about is having buses from off-island terminate at the Link station. That means there’ll be buses parked there for layovers a lot longer than they currently wait at the P&R, and plus, there’ll be a lot more buses during rush hour than there currently are.

      We can definitely disagree on how significant an impact this’ll have, and maybe even argue that it’ll be counterbalanced by new access from the Island to the Eastside, but this’s clearly a change.

      1. The buses won’t automatically have to lay over at MI Station. Some can be live-looped. The live-loop is also getting some anti-love from a few islanders.

    2. Mark,

      The issue with the change of the bus transfer setup is that the existing system allows buses to pass through, but the new system will require them to turn around. Considering the layout of the area near downtown Mercer Island, a turnaround will essentially require the buses to drive through downtown rather than going through the outskirts. The proposed loop that I’ve seen was essentially exit westbound I-90 at the existing 80th ave HOV ramp, then do 80th, N Mercer, 77th, 27th, 80th, and then back onto eastbound I-90 at the existing 80th ave HOV ramp. Those couple blocks of 77th and 27th are through the downtown area, and that is where the aesthetics come in.

      I am making no judgement on the merits of this argument. Just giving the information.

      1. Didn’t ST also propose a loop on the freeway overpass or around the P&R, but the Island rejected that too?

      2. I thought I had heard some grumblings about that, but I don’t remember seeing any realistic details. I don’t think there is enough room to put a loop on the overpass without building a full lid between 80th and 77th (I would guess that Islanders wouldn’t hate this, except for the cost). Running the buses on Sunset would be an improvement over 27th, but would require some changes to a park (which would be yet another fight over aesthetics). And running the buses around the P&R would require either downsizing the P&R or modifications to the grade of 24th (and of course the issues of residents on 24th with buses running in front of their houses).

      3. Isn’t there a good chance that Downtown Mercer Island might welcome customers from the rest of the transit service area?

        And that Mercer Island residents might like- or need- to travel to places also served by the additional buses?

        Buses can also do “live loops”- whereby layovers are at the other end of the line, and max stop-time is passenger loading and driver bathroom visit.

        Not to say that people don’t have the right to give their own neighborhoods the highest quality of life possible.

        But poll people early twenties and younger, and they’ll tell you life’s quality improves with transit speed and accessibility.

        “Off-island?” Doubt Ballard’s choice to join Seattle was unanimous. And while it might really be a good idea to revive and expand Mercer Island’s ferry service, nobody would want to give its monopoly back to it.

        Mark Dublin

      4. I thought ST’s plan a few months ago was to have buses turn around on the freeway lid, without going through downtown Mercer Island at all.

      5. “Isn’t there a good chance that Downtown Mercer Island might welcome customers from the rest of the transit service area?”

        How cute, you think they’ll welcome more customers instead of fearing them as “riff-raff” or “those people” (copyright Kemper Freeman).

      6. Kemper has said that quote was taken out of context, and he just meant people dress up more to go to Bellevue Square because it’s a more special experience than going to Southcenter. And he surely knows that the 550 stops right on his property and has the same Seattle stops Link will.

      7. The closest East Link will get to Bellevue Square is 4 superblocks. Blame that one on the horrible station placement. For comparison, the 550 has stops which are more or less kitty-corner from Bellevue Square at Bellevue Way and NE 4th St.

      8. So that means a group of gangbangers could right now take the 550 from the Rainier freeway station to Kemper’s condos across the street from Bellevue Square, and have been able to do so for twenty years. Link would actually make it harder for “those people” to get to the Square, so ironically Kemper should be supporting Link. (Especially since middle-class shoppers and tourists also come from Seattle and would come on light rail.) But really, the idea of “those people” coming on the train and causing a ruckus is ridiculous. If they’re planning to steal and smash things, they’ll surely drive a getaway car instead. And it’s not like none of them have a car.

      9. Mike, surely you’ve hear the tails of roving gangs of “thugs” from the inner cities taking rail transit to nice neighborhoods to steal, rob, and destroy the property of the neighborhood’s hard working citizens. I mean isn’t this a daily occurrence in every US city where rail serves both poor and well to do neighborhoods?

        I don’t know why it doesn’t happen with bus service, but only seems to be a particular problem brought about by rail service.

        (in case anyone is wondering my tongue is firmly in cheek. Just trying to channel the spirit of Big Don from the Usenet of old)

    3. @Mark

      1. At it’s current set up, its very difficult to NOT have busses “loop” through a portion of the Mercer Island downtown area. How the streets are currently set up, they do not have capacity for the proposed “loop” (no matter how much the internet tries to tell you differently). You would also be dealing with two different light cycles that (as far as I can tell) do not have sensors, resulting in delays. Someone mentioned my idea about using Sunset Wy (by removing/remodeling the present park), that is by far the best solution if we are to compromise with the islanders. I have discussed at great length this idea with a lot of stereotypical island residents and they were very open to that idea. With the present level of noise pollution / smog pollution at the Sunset Wy park, not a lot of islanders would really care THAT much if the park was re-worked.

      2. Most of the open space closest to the proposed station already has apartments and condos built, although they are fairly pricey.

      3. I fall into that category and I think most Island residents do. We know the trains are coming, we want the trains to come, we have a handful of things we’d like to review/change, but overall our opinions are fairly valid. We are almost never heard though because you have loud nut-jobs screaming their crazy opinions and making all Island residents look bad. I have probably gone toe to toe more often with them than I have with this blog, I just can’t stand radical ill-informed confidence in people (IE ego).

  2. Good article Martin. What money (in the last paragraph) are you talking about?
    ” for a guarantee that Sound Transit will keep the money on Mercer Island to fund local access improvements.”
    Parking revenue, after expenses wouldn’t amount to much if anything.
    Mercer Island tax payments doesn’t seem plausible, as this would start a dangerous precedent for other cities wanting sub-sub-area equity.

    1. Well that really depends on how much the parking fee is. Personally, I’d want a dynamically priced garage that ensures there are always a couple of spaces open by the end of the morning.

      But I agree that it’s not going to generate world-changing amounts of revenue. In any case, I think it’s a useful gesture of goodwill to Mercer Island, if they’re willing to take it.

      1. There will be costs associated with paid parking, just as any commercial lot experiences. Assuming the capital expense is not allocated to this cost center, and perhaps all of the other costs charged to general expenses, then yes, it may generate close to $300k/yr at $5 a day if half the parking is fee based. Not a huge amount.
        Now, dynamic parking prices on the whole lot could be a game changer. MI certainly has the household income to pay for it, and charging variable rates to keep spaces both full and available is taking hold with the HOT lanes. Not knowing what the price of the spot will be would certainly discourage me from getting off I-90 to go shopping for a parking space.

      2. My only problem with dynamic pricing for parking, is that it hugely favors those who start work earlier in the morning than those who start late. Those who start work at 6am get a discounted rate offset by those whose work day doesn’t begin until 9.

      3. Of course, having said that, if there’s no parking at all for those who want to ride the 8:30 train, that doesn’t help their cause either. Maybe a combination of the currently being implemented system of guaranteed spot, permit parking for half the spots, plus dynamic pricing on the rest?

    2. The money isn’t just for capital projects, but also bus hours. Converting even a portion of the saved bus hours from not having all those buses head downtown, clogging up the HOV/Mercer-Islanders-SOV lane, would easily cover the cost of a frequent bus line on Mercer Island, at least until they insist that that be the one bus that provides a one-seat ride downtown (which, of course, won’t work, when those buses get packed with people getting off other buses at MI Station who see the bus as a faster option than catching the next train).

      1. Well, just thinking out loud, Metro could dynamically charge for empty seats on the bus. As the seats fill up, the fare rises accordingly.
        Dynamic fares, HOT lanes and parking spaces – the Theory of Everything.

  3. having visited Tokyo recently, I can’t help but laugh at your supposed “crush load” photo. ;-)

    1. Having been left behind by two “crushloaded” 545’s in the last week… if we aren’t going to consider that a crushload anymore, there’re several things we need to change.

      1. Well, to me “crush load” means you are actually unable to move your limbs because you are packed in so tightly to the people next to you.

        We can still call these “full busses” or “bubble loaded” (people refuse to give up their northwest bubble) but to call it crush load is laughable.

    2. Same with the 71./72/73. I get on at Convention Place where I;m the last person on so sometimes I can’t get on because people are too American about packing in. When I get on I push back rather aggressively to make sure everyone behind me can get on. I just keep walking back as if tighter packing were normal even in America, and people do so. When I’m in the middle of the crowd and can’t move sometimes I say, “There’s room for four more,” and it frustrates me when the driver tells people “Sorry, we’re full” and closes the doors anyway, because I can’t help thinking I might be the one outside and missing my half-hourly transfer.

      1. I’ve experienced that too. Usually the bus driver playing the automated “please move back” announcement gets people to move.

        Seems to be a combination of A – people stop walking and crowd around the back door instead of walking to the elevated rear, and B – people are so immersed in their phones that they don’t realize space has opened up behind them.

        Very frustrating watching the bus drive off without me, and then seeing a huge gap in the back of the bus.

      2. When i was on vacation in Taiwan, an Englishman told me that he couldn’t understand the willingness of locals to tightly pack on transit: to him, once you were on the train, it was your right to preserve your own space (unspoken: screw those left at the station).

        This type of thinking is widespread.

      3. I want to send a million commendations to drivers who tell people to tap on and then get on at the back, but I don’t know if this is “unsafe” (agencies are so touchy about the back door) and will actually get them in trouble.

      4. I used to do that kind of thing all the time on morning 44 EBs in Wallingford. People didn’t like me, but to place your personal space issues as a higher priority than people who are trying to get to work or class on time is grotesquely selfish, and deserves no quarter.

      5. How about we ban backpacks on buses? We’d save room for a bunch more people that right now is taken by backpacks! Just look at the picture, and multiply the foot or so each backpack takes by 20 standing people… lots more room if those backpacks were either a) not present or b) on the floor by their owners’ feet.

        I fondly remember the day when people carried briefcases that were placed on the floor between one’s feet.

      6. I used transit in Buenos Aires – and I laugh at that ‘crush load’ picture also. True crush load is my standing feet were in between the feet of strangers sitting down. I didn’t have to go to a tango show, there was one everyday in any subway car between 4-7pm.

        I’d be more specific and say North American.

      7. If we ban backpacks from buses, you’d be banning me from buses. People need to be more aware of how much space they’re taking up, absolutely, but people also need to take things with them on the bus.

      8. Etiquitte starts with setting an example. I have made it more a policy of mine to always shift to the back of the bus when the front gets filled so more people can easily get on and the bus can get moving sooner.

        I think the next thing is start standing at the back first and I think people will follow, it will take time though.

      9. You’ll have to pry my backpack from my cold dead fingers. Seriously though, it is just a matter of common sense and courtesy. When in a crowded space, whether a bus or an elevator, take your backpack off. Hold it down low, by your feet. That little loop on the top of just about every backpack is great for that. Now it no different than a purse of a brief case (although not as hard as the latter).

        [Sorry Martin — I know this is thread drift, but still worth mentioning in my opinion]

    1. Wish we could edit our posts, my phone freaked out on me.

      Anyway, more bike support would help here. Mercer Island isn’t that big, a huge chunk of the population lives within a few miles of the current park and ride. I used to park my bike there and take the 550 in, it would be great if they had more covered bike parking, dealing with the rain kind of sucked. More and better bike lanes in that area would also help a lot.

      1. Actually, looking at Google Maps now, looks like I understated things, a 3 mile radius from the park and ride would cover a majority of the island; it’s only 5 miles long, and about 2 & 1/2 miles wide or so at the widest spot.

    2. One of the classic Puget Sound bike routes is to do a complete look around Mercer Island down West Mercer Way and East Mercer Way. The entire loop is 13 miles, which puts even the southernmost tip of the island just 6.5 miles away from the P&R. Needless to say, the further south you get, the less dense the island becomes, so for most people living on the island, the distance to the Link station would be much less than that.

      So yes, the potential for the bike option is real and should not be overlooked.

      1. The general hilliness of Mercer Island conspires against heavily increased bike usage. The P&R (and Town Center) is located in a bowl-shaped area, so you have to go up at least one hill to get there no matter which way you go. Perhaps to easiest approach is from the east; the hill up from North Mercer Way isn’t too bad. West Mercer Way has the big hill going by the old Boys and Girls Club and the climb over the lid, and I don’t think I know anybody crazy enough to bike on Island Crest Way. 78th through Mercerdale is quite a bit better, but still a big hill in the end.

        With that said, there are quite a few people into recreational biking on Mercer Island, so some improvement to bike routes into/out of Town Center could really help.

      2. Jason beat me to it. It would make for a nice ride to the station, but a very tiring ride back (for most people).

  4. From the map it looks to me like the island is quite well served by local buses. Yes the stop may not be at your door, but for most of us those things at the bottom of our legs facilitate the journey from A to B.

    1. The routes serve the island well, yes. But the buses are extremely infrequent; one has one or two trips a day. (Yes, day.)

      1. Bus routes that only exist once or twice a day are either (a) specialty routes serving in the place of school bus routes; or (b) routes with really poor ridership that have been cut back in accordance with Metro’s Service Guidelines, but can’t be eliminated and have their hours be moved to a different route that has more riders, because it takes an act of the County Council to cut a route entirely.

        Routes 891, 892, and 894 are specialty routes to Mercer Island High, assumedly paid for by Mercer Island Public Schools.

      2. The 204 has hourly service from 6am to 7pm, but that’s coverage-level service. 550 service is frequent enough while the 204 is running (never worse than every 15 min) that transfer timing isn’t a huge deal, but the span is horrible and most people have to get into their car to access the 204 in the first place, so at that point most people just keep driving.

        The 201 is a weird holdover providing peak coverage service, 3 trips a day (2 northbound AM, 1 southbound PM) and doesn’t count as useful transit service.

        The 630 has potential, but it doesn’t go far enough south.

        15 minute service on the 204 with a larger span would really help.

    2. The map is old, currently only the 201, 204, and 630 Community Shuttle are the only local Mercer Island routes. Currently, there’s no North Mercer (old 2013 and 213) service, and the only direct service to Seattle is the 630, and that only runs along Island Crest Way north of SE 46th St.

  5. Can’t Mercer residents just send the chauffeur to pick up the nanny, cook and manservants from the station?

    1. Has 24-7-365 Public TV fundraising fuzzed out “Upstairs Downstairs” one too many times? Especially the chronological dates when World War I happened? Don’t embarrass yourself, Old Fellow!

      Because anybody Fortune 500 who’s chosen to live in a quaint old village like either Mercer Island or South Lake Union invariably has a secret helipad under his patio, like the way the Swedes do with their jet fighters camouflaged among the cows under giant wind turbines all over Skaane.

      The ristretto expresso shot has barely cleared the portafilter nozzle when an App-tap has the chauffeur in his flight-suit, and the cook trading her frilly apron for camo, and grabbing her M-16 out of the rack.

      And the ground crew sheds their one-strap overalls, throws off their wigs that make them look like blonde sheep-dogs, rip name-tags like “Humphrey” and “Ebenezer” off their jackets, and hydraulicize (gotcha!) the horse-carriage open like the Swedish Air Command unlimbering a Saab Viggen to chase off Putin’s Bear bombers.

      Meantime, the exec’s proper English neighbors with names like Chauncey and Cholmondeley (pronounced Chumley) board the wood-paneled brocade chaired brass-lamped anti-smoking- authorities-bribed lounge-segments of a LINK train fitted with a brass whistle with a note that’ll call dogs.

      Bank-account-congested pricing, don’t you know!


      1. Well exactly (or discursively in your case). “Transit on Mercer Island” is a hilarious oxymoron. Which of the median seven figure Islanders is hopping a $3.50 train to downtown?

  6. This is a wonderful example of how transit operations public feedback process is terrible with Metro and ST! There needs to be a fundamental cultural change in the public feedback process of this will repeat itself over and over again like it has been doing for decades, and transit investments will continue to suffer the consequences.

    I would wager that there are more people from Mercer Island on Metro and ST vehicles than there are persons complaining about access to light rail at the future Mercer Island station in 2023.

    There are plenty of techniques to resolve the overemphasis to noisy whiners.

    1. Have a public process that primarily uses focus groups. Big public meetings and web sites don’t engage people to find solutions. It merely givers them a forum to whine. Once people have their fears recognized and have other stakeholders work with them to ease them, they will lose their edge.
    2. Show residents examples from other parts of the country on how stations are an asset and not a liability, such as Orinda or Lafayette, California; or Newton, Massachusetts. This seems to be a concern driven by fear, and showing them success stories really helps.
    3. Provide enough alternatives for people to rank them, rather than merely love or hate them. Offering one or two just creates more whining. Especially in a place like Mercer Island, offering access choices to give them flexibility for different needs on different days would be a very attractive element.
    4. Realize that not all problems can be solved this early, and agree to have systems that can address them if they happen. Part of the concern is a history of not having flexibility in the system because ST and Metro haven’t been successful on how to demonstrate this. Some examples:
    — Highlight a parking management notification system on I-90 that would discourage Eastside residents from driving onto Mercer Island where there are no spaces, and a notification system to discourage Mercer Island residents from driving to the station when no parking is available.. This addresses fears of an invasion of rail riders onto adjacent streets.
    – Highlight an independent, multi-agency “access management” working group to tweak any issues like parking hour restrictions, permitting, curb space and other issues once the station opens. Many of the complaints are driven by innate fears that something will go wrong combined with a mistrust of ST and Metro.

    I just don’t understand why agencies making transit capital investments continue this paradigm of limited alternatives, combined with yes/no feedback processes that encourage mere whining. They only have themselves to blame for setting up this dynamic. Many other urban areas know better.

    1. Could you cite some other agencies that use public input models different than letting those motivated to grab the microphone do so, and harangue the agencies?

      1. What we are seeing is no different than what every other local, state or federal agency in Washington does to solicit public input. And, while the suggestions seem reasonable on paper the moment you scale back public input to only include “focus groups” you will see across the board bitching by the public that you are limiting their participation in the process.

        Also, if you provide too many alternatives you’ll never reach consensus. There is strategy in not providing too many options. For better or worse, this is what public process has become here: dozens of public meetings, numerous opportunities to publicly comment via email, letter and/or website, and extended delays while project proponents seek consensus.

  7. Mercer island is one of Metro’s experiments using trippool. Maybe some will use it to get to the station and back.

  8. Terms like “Dynamic Pricing”, like everything with the word “dynamic” for anything but LRV or trolleybus braking call to mind a kid with a corporate-logo hoodie for a business suit.

    In the pay of a 65 year old Baby Boomer with brain damage from being hit by the copy of “Atlas Shrugged” that its author flung at him because he thought “John Galt” was Superman’s name back on Krypton.

    I think current phrase is “Gotcha capitalism, the death of the price tag.” Term has an ugly meaning in Israel, but at least amount doesn’t vary by usage or time of day.

    Be honest: aren’t constantly varying prices completely and non-negotiably in the hands, minute by minute, of whoever sets them? Especially if they’re constantly adjusted by changing calculations impossible to plan for in advance?

    Meaning also that only one side is able to budget for them! I think Alexander Hamilton would have been sure to aim better if Aaron Burr had provoked the confrontation over this manner. As, by Gore Vidal’s book about him, Burr was highly capable of doing.

    Even worse, as Karl Marx always said just to annoy people: “He who says A, must also say B.” Or “I” for “Incentivize.” After which “Euthanize” good substitute for “B”.

    Incentive? Charge me the minimum you need to give me maximum service, and for racing, squeaking, and cheese eating, I’ll beat any white rat up the parking ramp.

    Just so your biology department doesn’t let you change the angle of the ramp so you can adjust the cheese and make notes to smaller-ize the cheddar budget. Or I’ll unzip the fuzzy white disguise and do just like my boss is named “Willard.”


    Because, aren’t they the only side that can budget for them?

  9. Excellent post. I like all of these ideas.

    Eventually, i would like to see us add infrastructure to the connection between South Bellevue Station and I-90 (as well as 405). South Bellevue would make more sense as the connection point, but right now, you would have trouble driving that last mile. That would make a lot of the concerns of Mercer Island residents go away, while also delivering a better overall system. South Bellevue is closer to downtown Bellevue and closer to 405, meaning that it has the potential of shaving a couple minutes off of each trip. If you could get frequent buses from Renton and Issaquah to serve it, then you would have some very good bus and bus/rail connections.

    1. The problem is that you need significant freeway infrastructure in the guise of HOV direct access ramps, and there isn’t space for that within the current configuration of I-90 at Bellevue Way. On top of that, the ramps would start right in the middle of Mercer Slough, creating large environmental and engineering hurdles. Not saying it couldn’t be done, but the capital cost might prove excessive.

      1. Yeah, it might be. But it is worth pursuing. There may be better values for the east side, but not that many.

    2. If a light rail spur is built as far as Eastgate / Bellevue College, interlining at South Bellevue Station, that would remove a lot of the need for the Mercer Island Station live loop. That’s not on the table at this time, though, and decades away if it were on the table.

      1. If a bunch of freeway ramps to South Bellevue are too expensive, it is hard to imagine how light rail to Eastgate would be cheaper. Far from it. It would be a lot more expensive.

        Meanwhile, how is that really better? Do you really want to limit the frequency for Seattle to Bellevue so that you can squeeze in a few Eastgate to Bellevue runs? Meanwhile, if you are coming from Issaquah, it makes no difference. Either way you stop at Eastgate (where there is a bus station that hooks in really well to the HOV lanes) and either way you transfer (either there or at South Bellevue). If the spur existed, you would still run the bus to South Bellevue (or Mercer Island) otherwise you ask an Issaquah rider to take a three seat ride to Seattle.

        For folks from Renton or Newcastle, a new Eastgate light rail line gets you practically nothing. You still need a fast way to get to South Bellevue. Once there, if you want to get to Issaquah, it would be a two seat ride (first take the train to Eastgate, then the bus to Issaquah).

        The only advantage is that it would be able to carry more people (an advantage that is simply unnecessary in this case). No, what makes the most sense is to invest in freeway infrastructure to make this work. Or not (as Jason suggests) and just live with what we have.

      2. That’s kind of my point though. The cost of the infrastructure necessary to make South Bellevue really work for all I-90 corridor transfers is likely excessive, but the ramp configuration at the I-90/I-405 interchange is almost perfectly set up already for I-405 corridor (Newcastle/Renton) transfers at South Bellevue. Any further significant capital expenditures, either for major I-90/Bellevue Way improvements or another light rail line, is going to cost so much relative to the benefit that it doesn’t pencil out. But that’s more of a conversation about ST3 than Mercer Island; the money to do a major interchange rebuild isn’t within the ST2 East Link budget, so it isn’t happening.

        One thing that is missing in this entire conversation about bus/rail integration is what people around the South Bellevue station think. The focus has almost totally been on Mercer Island, but I’ll bet you that many of the Enatai folks would react similarly to Mercer Island if given half the chance.

      3. I’m not arguing with you Jason. I think it is quite possible that it is too expensive. But my point is that if it is too expensive for a few ramps on a freeway, then it sure as hell is too expensive for light rail (especially since light rail for only a short stretch would be far worse than the ramps). I think that is one thing that people often miss. It is easy to assume that light rail is always better. It isn’t. Light rail has to go a significant distance before it becomes better than bus improvements. It really is about the network.

        Here is one crazy example: Imagine if, back in the 1980s, instead of building the bus tunnel, Seattle built a downtown rail line. It ran from one end of downtown to the other — no more, no less. So essentially it would be the same tunnel, but with a train in it. To get to the train, you enter through one of the stations. This would be just fine for those trying to get from one end of downtown to the other. But what about the buses? They travel on the surface. If they turn around, then someone coming from the north end headed to Pioneer Square would get off the bus around Convention Place Station and then head into the tunnel, and take the train the rest of the way. That is kind of ridiculous. No one would like that. The alternative would be to run the buses through downtown but now the buses crawl through downtown. It should be obvious that the bus tunnel was a much better idea.

        This is essentially what an Eastgate line would look like. Except unlike downtown Seattle, it wouldn’t carry that many people. In short, it would be silly.

        Basically if you can’t fix the ramps, then we are stuck with the current system. As far as your other point is concerned, that is an issue. But South Bellevue station was designed from the beginning to be a transit center. Mercer Island residents (at least the most vocal ones) don’t want their station turned into a transit center, even though it will obviously be one for buses along I-90.

        One difference is that Mercer Island will only serve I-90 buses, and they are basically whining about how it will serve them. For South Bellevue, it is obvious that lots of buses will go there (Newcastle/Renton). So if the number of buses increase, it is to add additional connections (to the I-90 corridor). So basically, they get more out of the deal. There may be people who complain the extra traffic, but this would put South Bellevue in the enviable position of being the most well connected spot on the east side (more one seat rides to anywhere than anyone). That might be a reasonable trade-off for those folks (it would probably significantly raise property values).

    3. And if the line went northwest to Wilburton station rather than South Bellevue? That’s the most likely from ST’s existing scenarios.

  10. What’s likely to work for MI bus and Link riders is primarily parking access. Frequent shuttle service would help less, since low density means most folks would drive to down island lots and thus would face 3-seat rides: car, shuttle, link. Bicycle access is limited by hilly terrain for much of the island. Still, more covered bike racks would be great.

    ST has announced a permit program for reserved spots at several park and rides including MI, focused on every-day commuters, to start with carpoolers to the P&R, then to extend to paid sov access. Details are still to be worked out, unfortunately, and I agree with Martin that stiff prices would work better. Car pools to the park and ride, while admirable, also mean basically 3 seat rides and so will not attract much use.

    These realities do not make this someone else’s problem. If ST actions do not suffice and MI really wants residents to have good parking access, we should be prepared to build our own lot, and sell permits to residents in order to pay for the lot.

    About the bus-link transfer,, ST and Metro would go a long way with the more pragmatic concerned folks by making firmer commitments about the numbers of arrivals and layovers, and locating some of the layovers elsewhere along the affected routes.

    1. +1

      The built environment (low density SFR) is the biggest “problem” here; you can’t serve it adequately with transit, and parking is ultimately the most effective way to provide good access. It shouldn’t be free parking though, and having less expensive (or free) parking further down-Island with connecting bus service (a pumped-up 204) provides a way to mitigate concerns about parking permit costs.

      ST staff (and KCM) are aware that bus volumes are a significant issue, although it is more a communications/perception problem than a real problem. Daily bus volumes under any bus intercept scenario would be equivalent to or below current volumes, although peak hour volumes would be higher. The 84 number thrown around shows turning movements; due to the design of the 80th Ave proposal, buses would drop off, then have to circle around to reach a layover, effectively tripling the apparent projected bus volumes.

    2. The way to move more layovers elsewhere is to support the live-loop design, which has gotten amazingly little vocal support from islanders.

      1. I think that’s because so far we’ve only seen knee jerk reactions. This has lent itself to an all-or-nothing approach to the issue; you’re either for or against it. Because of this, there’s been very little discussion about ways it could be made better/less impactful/more mitigated. The messaging hasn’t been done well either; ST proposed the general idea and had a few early concepts, the City said “sure, that might be okay,” ST went public, the City balked at the super-negative reaction, and ST was left holding the bag. ST is back to the square one on this and seems to understand they need to communicate this on their terms and get KCM more directly involved.

  11. I’ve been pretty disappointed by some of the more recent pieces on STB (and the editorial judgement that led to them and the positions they took) and I’ve been vocal about it in the comments.

    But to give credit where credit is due, this is a very good, comprehensive piece with solutions that should be easily attainable. Nice article, Martin!

  12. I think the fall 2014 trips were not very well planned out. It makes the island on the system map look effectively covered, but the 201, which is THE coverage route for MI, has two trips north in the morning, and a single southbound trip in the afternoon. At the very least, you would have thought that service hours would be more effectively spent by having the bus that does that one southbound trip do a few more before heading right back to the base.

    It’s too bad because based on the size of Mercer Island, the entire island could be covered in its entirety by at most 3 routes, but I think 2 will do it. Very few cities have this quality. Here’s what I think could do it:

    A clockwise loop route (I’ll call it 205) from the P&R down Island Crest Way to W Mercer Way (via the path of the current 201 to get to W Mercer), back up north to SE 24th st. back to the P&R.

    Another clockwise loop route (I’ll call it 206) that goes N Mercer Way to E Mercer Way down to W Mercer Way, right turn on to SE 72nd Street to Island Crest, go north to the P&R.

    Boom. Put two buses on each of these routes 7 days a week (drop down to one on evenings or maybe Sundays as well), you get half-hourly service in both directions on Island Crest way and the southern “arrow” portion of W and E Mercer way (albeit with both directions served by different routes; this is slightly confusing). You also get half-hourly one-directional service to the extreme east and west sides of the island.

    And you basically get the whole island that way. It’s not perfect, but the absolute farthest walk is about one mile down 72nd Ave SE fro 24th St., and you really have to be in a specific place to be that unfortunate.

    Some of you may quibble with hourly and half-hourly routes, but it’s certainly better than what we have now, which is almost nothing (and literally nothing on weekends, unless you count the 550 & 554). Span of service should be a priority, and should they decide to drop down to hourly at night, they should do so until after 10.

  13. How about just more of everything; parking, buses, etc.
    Our bus system is 3rd most expensive in the nation to operate, and it doesn’t even offer wifi. I say we stop blindly throwing out money at ST and Metro and start demanding better service, else privatize it all.

Comments are closed.