Balducci Interview about the 2 Line

32 Replies to “Balducci Interview about the 2 Line”

1. Thank you, Martin, for this great interview! Of the members of the Sound Transit Board, Councilmember Balducci is definitely the strongest advocate for transit riders. I think her responses, terse as they may be, offer some interesting glimpses into what she is focused on as an elected politician who seems to genuinely care about the impacts and benefits transit investments like the 2 Line.

2. Great.

   re “the”; Councilmember Balducci is an Eastside member of the ST board; Redmond Mayor Birney and Renton Councilmember Prince are also from East subarea cities.

   Balducci has pointed out the long transfer times between the conceptual east and south lines under the ST3 split CID stations suggested by Executive Constantine and Mayor Harrell. There are two possible corrections: 4th Avenue South shallow or not building the second tunnel at all. You asked about it. The latter seems better. It has been discussed here. Balducci passed on an ST staff answer. Constantine had Don Billen explain it during a board meeting. Some factors may have been missed. The 2015 forecasting was five years before Covid. Has the world changed? How long will it take to restore? In the single tunnel scenario, very short headway would empty the platforms quickly; there would be more turnover. That scenario has to be much better than the 10-minute transfers of the split CID station. The Urbanist posted a nice RMTransit video here:
   https://www.theurbanist.org/2023/03/19/sunday-video-seattle-needs-an-epic-transit-hub/

   1. yes, a single tunnel with a separate line to SLU/Ballard would be best: https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/01/10/focus-on-slu-and-ballard/

      1. I agree. I think folks need to press the engineers when it comes to capacity. What are the alternatives (e. g. different trains, more trains per hour on the main line, express buses)? Where is capacity needed (through downtown or somewhere else)?

         As I see it, the second tunnel really doesn’t address the main capacity needs. It is quite possible the biggest choke point will be between downtown and the UW. The new tunnel doesn’t help at all in that regard. By planning on more trains through downtown you can also work on more trains between Downtown and Northgate.

         It is also possible that Ballard to downtown is the most crowded, and it is limited by the other half of the line (through Rainier Valley). By isolating the Ballard Line (and making it automated) you can address the second issue. The new line can be designed to be high speed and automated, which means trains can be smaller but you still have more capacity. Simply getting rid of the driver’s cabin increases capacity quite a lot, since we every train car has a cabin on both ends.

         It is easy to assume that the engineers have this all figured out, but quite often they are simply addressing the issue within the boundaries of the question.

      2. “As I see it, the second tunnel really doesn’t address the main capacity needs. It is quite possible the biggest choke point will be between downtown and the UW. The new tunnel doesn’t help at all in that regard. By planning on more trains through downtown you can also work on more trains between Downtown and Northgate.”

         ST will tell you that the worst crowding on paper is between Symphony (University Street) and ID-C Stations. However, it’s never been fully explained how their forecasts mathematically pull riders away from Third Avenue to create those volumes. I’m personally convinced that it’s a forecasting outcome that won’t manifest itself in reality as riders on this short segment will just stay on Third Avenue if Link is too crowded.

         So I think you are correct in assuming that the segment north of Westlake is likely a bigger capacity issue.

         I would also mention that the Beacon Hill tunnel is also a looming capacity issue that never gets discussed. Thats because there are two lines north of Downtown but just one in the Beacon Hill tunnel — and that line frequency is restricted by MLK median operations challenges. That’s a much more involved topic.

         ST has two very viable solutions that it publicly ignores because it does not involve building new tracks or stations:

         1. Changing the light rail vehicle design. Eliminating half of the cabs would add capacity. Buying new vehicles that have more open paths between train sections would add capacity.

         2. Fully automating the line. Adding platform doors like inside SeaTac and getting trains closer together are technically possible. Automated trains could even enable a “long line” from Tacoma to Everett since onboard drivers wouldn’t be needed the full length, overcoming the excuse that engineers apparently gave Balducci.

      3. “ST will tell you that the worst crowding on paper is”

         * That is the worst overcrowding without DSTT2. The DSTT2 justification was primarily about overcrowding. The Draft EIS of the original WSBLE explains this.

      4. to the RossB capacity point. Historically, the maxload point for Link was between Westlake and IDS as Link carried riders to/from Sounder. But in the future, RossB may be correct. Also, post Covid, there is a severe decline in office work and Sounder ridership, so the pre-Covid capacity issue is probably different.

         A single DSTT with very short headway helps carry Sounder riders. A second DSTT with the split CID stations does not; one station is at James Street; one station is at Seattle Boulevard; neither serves Sounder well.

      5. Historically, the maxload point for Link was between Westlake and IDS as Link carried riders to/from Sounder.

         Very good point. I remember reading that, but I can’t find the reference.

         Not only is that less of an issue now, but the second line does nothing to fix it if it doesn’t go to CID! Riders will just take the main line. In contrast if trains are running more often through downtown then it addresses this as well as other crowding issues.

      6. CM Balducci didn’t talk about capacity, but “to deal with our long routes”. Again, Sound Transit staff focuses on operations rather than rider experience. I just don’t see much of a difference whether a train from Tacoma turns around in Ballard on at Northgate. A Northgate train however would add capacity to the Westlake to CapHill segment whereas a Ballard one does not. Also if Sound Transit considers extending beyond Ballard, they would create an even bigger issue.
         I agree, that Sound Transit should do a proper study of a single tunnel option (and not just a “kill this idea” study like they did for the West Seattle gondola alternative).

      7. Good point Martin. First of all we shouldn’t try and read too much into an interview statement. But it seems to me that she is simply addressing a couple issues that can easily be conflated. First is the pairing, while the second is capacity. Both of these came up after the initial “spine” idea.

         I think the big takeaway is that she hasn’t looked at the issue in great detail, and simply assumes the engineers said it was necessary to do it this way. This is a reasonable approach. We have a tendency on this blog to get into the weeds (a lot) with these things. The board does not. But it is also worth pointing out that the engineers did not propose a starter line. Strong rail advocates on this very blog thought it was implausible, as it would delay Lynnwood Link. The only reason that there is a starter line is because Balducci asked the engineers to look at it.

         Well the same thing is true here. No one in the engineering team is going to look at various options unless the board asks them to. They won’t look at sharing the three lines through downtown, or making Ballard an independent line. They won’t examine capacity issues (or turnback issues). They will just keep building it the way they decided to build it way back when, even though a lot of the assumptions are clearly out of date. I’m not just talking about ridership, but also costs as well as station placement. They assumed a second tunnel with “world class transfers” was going to be fairly cheap. Now a second tunnel with bad transfers — or even non-existent transfers — is extremely expensive. This should change the dynamic.

         The same thing is true in Ballard. The assumption before the vote was that 15th was cheapest, since elevated rail is generally cheap. Now the price of an elevated station at 15th has ballooned so high that underground is not much more. Fair enough, but if they are going to look at underground stations, then we should look at underground stations to the west, where the bulk of the people and destinations are.

      8. Ross, I think you’ve hit upon how ST decisions get made.

         I would have to say as an armchair observer that the ELSL is opening on Saturday was initially strongly discouraged by staff. As it became more apparent that the plinth delay was worse than originally portrayed — along with Balducci’s pressure, it happened.

         I will say that I could see Microsoft pushing for its opening as it connects their Downtown Bellevue offices with the campus., Plus, Spring District buildings are finished and their success depends on the line being open. So there may have been private urging.

         I think another issue is that the ST staff are giddy with their accomplishments— and that translates into not questioning what’s been planned. No discussion of changing vehicles, automating the line, considering a blended Line 1/3 mix-match operation or creating same-direction cross platform transfers. They focus on building tracks and stations buildings — but not transporting people. How else would major transfers get designed that require up to 6 escalators or elevators and take 5-7 minutes to do? How else would escalators not merely be deferred but permanently drawn out of station plans at the last minute in Lynnwood Link?

         I’m personally convinced that ST engineering doesn’t give a crap about rider experience. The only way that this will change is if Board members demand it. That can begin by requiring presentations of the proposed transfer hassles that a rider would face over and over to the Board members until they start asking the basic key question of “So staff walk me through what a rider will have to do to simply change trains?” As well as “How many riders will have to do this on a typical weekday?” and when they hear the responses to say “This is unacceptable!”

      9. When I was on ST staff, I asked why automation wasn’t considered to deal with the length of the spine and was told senior operations leadership considered automation impossible. Not, “we looked at it and determined it was technically prohibitive” or “legal/safety team thought it was too risky,” but simply “we believe it is impossible so we’ve never looked into it.”

         The Board will need to push for staff to look into automation AND there needs to be new leadership in the operations department. The culture, at least when I was there a few year ago, was “well this is how we ran light rail in Minneapolis in the 1990s, so this is how it should work.” There is a complete lack of curiosity. It’s not that they don’t care about rider experience, it’s that they don’t care about doing anything that’s not what they are currently doing.

      10. Wow, Minneapolis must be on Venus for the LR panjandrums there never to have heard of “Sky King!” — er, ah Sky Train. Disculpe me!

      11. In fairness to the panjandrums, I get that they’re worried about the RV and busway at-grade sections.

          But that has no relevance to automation north of CID or a Skytrain-like short, fast and frequent Ballard stub.

3. Best Sound Transit Board member. I wish she was County Executive. Maybe someday.

4. “What about reconsidering the construction of a second tunnel and upgrading the existing tunnel to handle all three lines instead?

   “Sound Transit’s engineering told me that they need the extra capacity to deal with our long routes.”

   My understanding was that the second tunnel was needed because the DSTT couldn’t handle the train and people (capacity) and not line length. This statement is noteworthy. Either she made a mistake in her statement or the overcrowding concern no longer exists within ST.

   Plus we know that Line 1 ending at Northgate has the same amount of time as Line 1 ending at Ballard (similar length and number of stations). So that statement is factually untrue. Plus, automation would eliminate any lines that are too long to drive manually anyway.

   More notably is that she reveals that there is someone (or someones) at ST engineering who fights using the existing tunnel. When I attended a public meeting years ago and sought clarification about SODO track platforms, I got stonewalled by an ST rail engineer who summarily dismissed any concern about rail-rail transfer difficulty in 2019 and was refusing to even acknowledge the issue.

   So Balducci has revealed here that there is core engineering staff resistance as well as possibly changing justification. That is consistent with my perception. This is on top of all the real estate deal making that is going on behind the scenes.

   1. The problem we have is that the board said in the March 2023 board meeting that it would not reevaluate the 2016 decision rejecting a single-tunnel solution. We want them to reevaluate the 8-year-old assumptions and see if they’re still valid in light of actual ridership with Northgate Link and the work-from-home phenomenon and ridership shifting to the weekends, but they won’t. Their position was, “The previous board decided it then, so we won’t consider changing it now.” That’s the impasse.

      At the time in 2016, my impression was that the issue was signaling and other track-related upgrades: these would need to be done to support 1.5 minute maximum reliable frequency instead of 3 minute. But when the board asked the staff rep (who may have been the Don Billen eddiew mentioned, if it was the same meeting), he said the issue was platform overcrowding. Commentators here said that meant the platforms need more escalators/elevators for exit.

      I doubt Balducci can articulate all the factors in a 1-minute response on a side topic at the end of a 15-minute interview. Or that she even knows or remembers all the factors. That’s where ST needs to give it a proper study and make a report, rather than going by what boardmembers/staff remember off the top of their heads. But that’s what we can’t convince the board to do, after a year of trying and sending feedback.

      My family is Balducci’s constituents, and we all think she’s one of the best politicians Bellevue, King County, and Sound Transit have had in our lifetimes. She seems to get the riders’-eye-view issues the most, and to be the most pro-active in trying to get the rest of the board to address them.

      We somehow need to convince her and the rest of the board to reevaluate the assumptions DSTT2 is based on and whether they’re still valid.

      My biggest concern is the 10-minute transfer walks between Line 1 and Lines 2/3. The most critical aspect of a multi-line subway network is good train-to-train-transfers. These transfer would be worse than practically any in peer networks. The only comparable ones I’ve seen are minor secondary transfers, not the core central transfers. These transfers will impact Eastside-SeaTac trips, Rainier-UW trips, Rainier-Capitol Hill trips, etc. U-Link and ST2 give Rainier/SeaTac excellent connectivity to Capitol Hill and the U-District, but ST3 is poised to take that away. That means the people who switched from the 48 to Link for better service, may end up switching back again.

      1. Maybe need to pitch it as what good could be built will all that money that would be squandered on a terrible 2nd tunnel.

      2. Good point, poncho.

         To a certain extent we have. We don’t make any promises, but this map looks really nice: https://i0.wp.com/seattletransitblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/First-Hill-line.png. But as we’ve made clear, that is all in the future. First things first. First build Ballard to downtown and put all three of the southern lines into the same tunnel. Do that much sooner than current estimates, maybe even sooner than they originally promised (gasp!).

         While I definitely have ideas of how we can spend the money, there are issues with specifics. Some of these are bound to be popular (e. g. stations at First Hill, express bus service here and there) but it gets complicated. It is another can of worms.

         In contrast if you focus on the savings as well as the rider benefit then it makes it simpler. Everyone saves money. Riders are better off. Projects get built sooner.

      3. Adding on to Mike’s comment:

         “ The problem we have is that the board said in the March 2023 board meeting that it would not reevaluate the 2016 decision rejecting a single-tunnel solution. We want them to reevaluate the 8-year-old assumptions and see if they’re still valid in light of actual ridership with Northgate Link and the work-from-home phenomenon and ridership shifting to the weekends, but they won’t. ”

         It’s important too to mention that the 2016 decision to add DSTT2 was not a result of advanced technical studies between Westlake and SODO. It was drawn and the costs were badly estimated in haste in 2016 to resolve the operation problem that no corridor studies addressed. .

         Even later, station planning concepts given to the public showed easy rail line transfers. Every transfer design — Westlake, CID and SODO — has gotten much worse since what ST told the public. Not a little worse; a lot worse!

         And even though I strongly support the general STB consensus of 3 DSTT lines with a separate automated branch to Ballard and SLU, I think it’s important to remind others that simply redesigning SODO Station can enable level, same direction cross platform transfers between Lines 1 and 3. ST’s proposed 3-D glass palace in SODO looks impressive but fails the riding public in its functionality. As riders, we really need to demand a different platform arrangement at SODO no matter what happens to DSTT2.

         I really believe that if we cannot get ST to give up on DSTT2, we still need to push for this SODO station overhaul to make same-direction platform transferring between rail lines as the top design objective. Tens of thousands of riders for the next century will thank us if we are successful!

      4. “Every transfer design — Westlake, CID and SODO — has gotten much worse since what ST told the public. Not a little worse; a lot worse!”

         If ST would just build the representative alignment in the ballot measure, it would be better than any of the changes since then.

      5. If ST would just build the representative alignment in the ballot measure, it would be better than any of the changes since then.

         Yes, but much of it was vague. It wasn’t clear how long it would take to get from station to station with the representative alignment. At some point we were promised “world class” transfers. Even the best option for the representative alignment is not that good. From a political standpoint, that has been the worst part of this. Various groups are trying very hard to preserve something that simply isn’t that good. They are also clearly losing. At this point it does look like things will be significantly worse than the representative alignment (which isn’t that good).

         This is why we need to stop tinkering around the edges and rethink a lot of the assumptions. Maybe a tunnel to Ballard is the best way to go. If so, then shouldn’t it go to the heart of Ballard (i. e. 20th)? Maybe we don’t need a second downtown tunnel. If the Ballard Line is independent it could thus have smaller, automated trains. It could be designed to serve First Hill in the future. If serving South Lake Union is difficult, then maybe we need to rethink the Denny Station or even that general route (and go via Belltown instead). We need to stop assuming that what was originally planned was great and that a few degradations is not that big of a deal. That just isn’t the case here.

         By the way it was the case Link to the UW. Despite all the flaws (and there are plenty) it still works quite well simply because fundamentally it is a very strong corridor. You could say the same thing about the East Main Station. I feel like they blew it with that one. But East Link will be OK because there will still be a lot of people using the train along the corridor. But with Ballard Link it falls apart if you don’t get the details right. If the transfers are poor then the Denny Station loses a lot of its value (might as well walk from Westlake or catch surface transit). The “South Lake Union” Station could be in the middle of nowhere leading to poor ridership. The Seattle Center Station looks good, but like the South Lake Union Station, the monorail will grab some of its ridership. If not that many people can walk to the Ballard station it is quite possible that a lot riders will take the bus. That leaves Interbay and its two-seat rides for Magnolia (and the edge of Queen Anne). This all adds up to something that looks OK at best, despite the very high costs.

         Unlike other projects, Ballard is fundamentally fragile, and ST is tossing it around willy-nilly.

         I don’t feel that way about Ballard Link.

5. “Bellevue just reduced their commitment to new bike infrastructure. Do you think that will affect light rail ridership?”

   “I live in East Bellevue and quite a bit away from the line. Three stations are about as far from my home. Some routes have more hills, others cross major roads, the Overlake Village station may be the easiest for me to reach. Generally Sound Transit has tried to make the stations as easy to reach for cyclists as possible.”

   Very shrewdly answered.

   1. In Europe, many folks bike to/from transit. In our area, there is a significant risk of bike theft. Are cyclists willing to leave their bikes at stations? Do cyclists have multiple bikes, including a clunker they are willing to risk? I frequent a few Seattle Link stations and do not see many bikes stored at them. The best bike-Link interface may be at the UW Stadium station near the Burke Gilman Trail. Metro had lockers that provided more security. Portland has a great bike culture and a more extensive LRT network; what is their rate of bike storage at stations? I bike often; I almost always use the bike for the complete trip.

      1. Europe has a lot of bikes stolen. A lot of people (especially in the flat lands) ride around in clunkers. But the transit agencies also have much better bike security. I agree that UW station seems like the ideal station for bikes. It connects right up with the Burke Gilman. It is easy to imagine other places where bike lockers would be a great idea. For example under Aurora (by the troll). That way you could walk up and catch the E (or 5). Another is 15th & Leary (to catch the D). Both are these are close to the Burke Gilman. It is easy to imagine other combinations, but they are scattered around. A lot depends on the quality of the bike paths as well.

         I used to do a transit/bike combination when I worked in Fremont. My wife worked at the UW, so she had access to a bike locker. I would take the bus from near my house and ride it to the south end of the U-District. Then I would ride the Burke Gilman to Fremont (there were bike lockers where I worked). I could see using Link (and the UW Station) for that sort of trip now.

6. I think the wrong-headedness of The Board must be laid at the feet of Dow Constantine. He receives his own seat ex officio and leads the County Council in appointing several more members. While not a majority of The Board, it is an indigestible “solid block” that The Chairman can rely on to applaud and support his positions.

   If he wanted to support transit “best practices” the presentations from the consultants and permanent staff would be filled with best practices. Instead we get proposals which are colossal in scope while producing at best a mediocre rider experience.

   The enthusiastic embrace of truncations at Link stations by Metro has produced decent ridership on the northern Seattle extension of the subway. The prognosis for what happens in the future is much darker.

   1. I agree. But I also think the problem is more systemic. Someone like him should not have the power he has by default. He should be able to influence the way the agency does things (the way any politician influences things) but he shouldn’t be head of the board. The agency should be separate, with appointed or elected leaders (much like judges).

      That being said, Dow could have easily delegated this to Metro officials, because presumably they know more about transit than he ever will. I think this goes back to the idea that folks assume they understand transit when they don’t. I’m no different. When I first got on this blog and started commenting, I had ideas that I realize now were just wrong. I rode transit a lot, but really didn’t understand why some systems are a good value, and others aren’t. The idea of a spine sounded great. I just assumed everyone from Tacoma to Everett would take advantage of it, but of course it isn’t that simple. Subways aren’t freeways.

      In an alternative universe I could see Dow either delegating these decisions to Metro, or hiring someone focused on “getting the best bang for the buck” when it comes to transit spending. That is really the best approach, and it isn’t hard to explain to people. Nor is it hard for experts to come up with proposals based on that idea, even though every proposal is inevitably going to have trade-offs and be controversial. A good leader would work with them (in public) discussing the pros and cons of every idea. That never really happened.

      But remember that ST was setup from the very beginning with an idea that was largely arbitrary. No one ever claimed that “The Spine” was the best bang for the buck in terms of transit. It was just assumed that it was a good proposal. Given that, other bad ideas (like West Seattle Link) are just bound to follow suit.

   2. “No one ever claimed that “The Spine” was the best bang for the buck in terms of transit. It was just assumed that it was a good proposal.”

      It was, how should I say, a geographic solution rather than a ridership-pattern solution. It was to connect the largest political entities (counties/cities). Everett, Tacoma, and Redmond wanted to be connected to downtown Seattle and each other, and a spine looked good on a map. They may have had some knowledge of BART and assumptions about the northeast. And they clearly assumed the bulk of ridership would be Everett/Lynnwood-Seattle, Redmond/Bellevue-Seattle, Tacoma/FW/SeaTac-Seattle, with honorable mention to the U-District. Those cities had express buses every 5-10 minutes on top of Sounder peak hours, so that would obviously fill trains.

      What they missed is what we see in Capitol Hill and North Seattle now. When you put stations between dense, walkable neighborhoods where people are less disposed to drive, ridership goes through the roof, and that probably exceeds what the suburbs can generate. It’s currently exceeding what southeast Seattle and SeaTac can generate.

      Ross has suggested additional stations at Pine & Bellevue, 15th & Thomas, 23rd & Aloha, and 520. That would probably double the ridership gain in this area. For me, going from Bellevue Ave to 15th is going from one missing station to another. It would also provide Link service to the top of the hill, which people don’t want to walk up.

      1. It was, how should I say, a geographic solution rather than a ridership-pattern solution.

         Exactly. It was a “pay-for” to get the Suburbia-dominated Washington Legislature to agree to bonds for transit. They sure weren’t going to give those Commies in Seattle access to the State’s bonding authority by themselves for it…

      2. It was the suburban parts of the ST district that insisted on subarea equity, not the legislature.

      3. Well put, Mike. The spine looks great on a map. If you don’t understand how transit works, it looks fantastic. Again, I was no different. I had that “freeway brain” mentality. If you run a train from Everett to Tacoma, then it appears like everyone in between benefits. If your only goal is improving the drive, then a freeway of that nature (which we already have) certainly fits the bill. But freeways aren’t the same as subways. I think that was the biggest problem from the beginning.

         Subarea equity is another one, but it would have been OK if not for the “spine” and the mindset that surrounded it. For a region like ours, there are really three pieces:

         1) A thorough subway system for the urban core.
         2) Good express and local bus service.
         3) Good interfaces for the buses and trains.

         The first would be paid for within the urban core. The second would be paid for by each subarea. The interface stations could be a shared responsibility. This could mean that areas outside the urban core would get a lot of bus service which is appropriate.

         Of course it would have been really simple if the legislature just gave King County the ability to build their own rail system. Forward Thrust actually got a majority of the votes (it needed a super majority). I have no doubt that Metro could have designed a much better system than ST (since Metro understands transit). Then again, maybe the leaders would have screwed it up too. It really gets down to understanding how transit works or trusting people to explain it to you, and our leaders didn’t do that.

         Subarea equity and the spine mindset were conflated. People assume that you only benefit from rail if it is in your city. That is simply not true. Already you have people from Everett and Lynnwood who benefit quite a bit from the station at Northgate. Now it is much easier to get to various places in Seattle. When Link improves the interface (with the Lynnwood Link station) they will benefit even more. If Link had more stations (like one at First Hill) they would be better off — arguably better off than when Link gets to Everett.

         But people don’t quite understand that. They understand that Link adds value (and it definitely does) so they want it in their city. They assume that anything in their city will benefit them, and that it is essential that it serves their city. Thus is it wrong on both counts. The direct benefit comes from serving your particular neighborhood. Thus if you can walk to the Lynnwood Station you definitely benefit from the extension going that far. But if you have to take a bus to the station then it doesn’t make much difference if the interface is at Lynnwood or way down at 145th — as long as the interface is good. As long as the bus can travel in an HOV-3 lane the whole way (and use an HOV-3 ramp) it doesn’t matter, simply because there aren’t that many people going between Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace and Shoreline.

         It is this fundamental difference in trip combinations that is part of the problem. It is easy to assume that there is the same network effect in the distant suburbs as there is within the urban core. There isn’t. There just aren’t that many people trying to get from the Mountlake Terrace Station to the Lynnwood Station. We can see that now. ST doesn’t release trip pair data, but it used to release stop and directional data. Thus we could see how many people took the 512 north from Mountlake Terrace: 27. This is for people going to Lynnwood TC, Ash Way, South Everett, Broadway & 34th and Everett TC. Just 27 people a day for a bus that runs as an express every fifteen minutes and carried over 4,000 a day. In contrast just the trip pair from the UW Station to Capitol Hill Station carried around 2,000 riders a day. Capitol Hill Station is the only station that has more riders now than before the pandemic. Thus it is gaining ridership largely from other urban areas to the north (and not just UW to CHS). Capitol Hill is not downtown. It is not the UW. It is not even First Hill (which would probably be a bigger destination). This is just an urban stop, like all the other urban stops. There is a huge network effect with more stations in the city. There isn’t in the various suburban freeway stations.

      4. Mike, I wasn’t talking about Subarea Equity. I meant the creation of any transit authority with the ability to sell bonds. We’ve all beaten Subarea Equity to a well-deserved death here at the Blog, but it certainly was a necessary element in gaining the support of the four outer Areas.

         But the idea of an transit authority with its own bonding authority — and an explicit backing by the State — was only doable if the Shiny Bauble to be had by the Burbistas was some imitation of BART. “Moar Buses” was not going to get the ball into the End Zone.

Comments are closed.