Photo by Atomic Taco

This is an open thread.

70 Replies to “News Roundup: Unthinkable”

  1. The East Link FEIS has been out for four months and the Eyman threat is behind us. ST’s board and WSDOT have signed off on the term sheet, so it’s time for Paula Hammond to lick the knife and cut the [stuff]. She needs to declare as surplus the parts of I-90 Sound Transit needs, and then go ahead and sign the airspace lease. In fact, she needed to do those things a while ago. Until that happens East Link work can’t begin, and it’s already been voter-approved and agency-approved. Until shovels turn dirt we aren’t *really* underway, and once it’s underway the little threats to it that might pop up will be inconsequential. Delay here is only the friend of the reactionary road warriors. Heck, the legislature already said the deal was to have been completed in November of 2009 . . . I read that in a story about Kemper Freeman’s losing efforts in the Supreme Court. All she needs to do now is follow the legislature’s directives to her . . . I can’t imagine what’s delaying things now. What part of “Mass Transit Now” does she not understand?!?

    1. Secretary Hammond is a very busy woman. Everything is going according to plan, and the project is on time and within budget. Why are you bothering us with your posts . . . we are not timing experts. This is a blog for sharing views, it’s not a soapbox.

    2. The I-90 Center Roadway isn’t surplus until replacement HOV lanes are complete from Bellevue to Seattle. So far there’s only a westbound HOV lane from Bellevue to Mercer Island. The eastbound HOV lane from Mercer Island to Bellevue should be complete early next year, but the portion from Mercer Island to Seattle (both directions) won’t be done until 2015… which is when ST plans to start construction.

      It’s probably possible for WSDOT and ST to sign some kind of agreement prior to 2015, but it would be conditional and therefore easy enough to overturn or have one party withdraw from, in all likelihood.

      1. Hmmm, not sure what happened to the formatting there, I must’ve missed something. And I should clarify 2015 is when ST plans to start construction on East Link. WSDOT plans to start construction on Phase 3 of the I-90 Two-Way Transit and HOV Operations project in 2013, finishing in 2015.

      2. I heard that a while ago Jason, but the HOV work going on is what was approved by the feds in 2004, it’s called the “R8A” alternative. Here’s the 2004 Record of Decision approving the R8A plan:

        That ROD specifically says the center reversible lanes would continue in that capacity. R8A was approved so that there would be 10 lanes for rubber-tire vehicles (including bus transit). Hammond could not declare those center lanes “surplus” when the ROD says they are to continue to be used in a peak-period reversible manner, right?

        Just curious if you have any new info. on this.

      3. Vic-
        From page 10 of the ROD: “Alternative R-8A would accommodate the ultimate configuration of I-90 (High Capacity Transit in the center lanes). Alternative R-8A adds HOV lanes on the outer roadways which would provide for reliable transit and HOV operations with the ultimate roadway configuration.”

        Also, since the environmental review for the I-90 HOV lane program doesn’t encompass East Link, the result of the I-90 HOV project is exactly as described: a 10-lane configuration. The East Link FEIS analyzes the impacts of East Link on I-90 (among other things). The FHWA hasn’t issued a ROD for East Link yet.

      4. From page 10 of the ROD: “Alternative R-8A would accommodate the ultimate configuration of I-90 (High Capacity Transit in the center lanes). Alternative R-8A adds HOV lanes on the outer roadways which would provide for reliable transit and HOV operations with the ultimate roadway configuration.”

        Jason, R-8A involves changing the current 8-lane configuration to a 10-lane configuration, with the current reversible roadway remaining in place. That could not “accommodate” East Link — East Link would involve using the reversible lanes for light rail. Also, that ROD specifically says it is not approval of a project that involves any fixed rail use of the bridge, and none of the studies considered in connection with that 2004 ROD involved train use of the facilities.

        What you’ve quoted does not mean WSDOT can proceed with the R8A project AND modify it by giving the reversible roadways to Sound Transit for train use. You agree with me on that point, right?

      5. . . . I suppose WSDOT’s position is that the East Link EIS process is in effect a modification of the earlier EIS process that resulted in the 2004 ROD.

        Can anyone find in the East Link EIS materials any references to studies of what the impacts to general vehicle traffic would be if the R8A plan is modified to accommodate East Link? The “total person throughput” figures sure don’t address impacts on vehicle drivers (not that vehicle drivers are the be all and end all, of course!).

      6. Vic-
        As I stated before: Also, since the environmental review for the I-90 HOV lane program doesn’t encompass East Link, the result of the I-90 HOV project is exactly as described: a 10-lane configuration. The East Link FEIS analyzes the impacts of East Link on I-90 (among other things). The FHWA hasn’t issued a ROD for East Link yet. R8A in no way authorizes the center roadway to go away. It does set up I-90 to accommodate “high-capacity transit” (HCT) in the center roadway, as the ROD acknowledges. ST did some studies back in 2004 (I believe) to determine what form HCT should take; they studied a couple different BRT options as well as light rail. Obviously they decided on light rail.

        Read Chapter 3 of the East Link FEIS. To quote from there (page 10): “Because the I-90 reversible center roadway would be removed by the East Link Project, the [volume-to-capacity] ratio in the peak directions (into Seattle in the morning and out of Seattle in the afternoon) is expected to become slightly higher than with the No Build Alternative, although increased transit use with the project would increase person throughput and provide increased capacity for future growth (see Section”

        Section 3.5 focuses specifically on I-90 operations. Appendix H (in two parts on ST’s website, plus appendices) is the Transportation Technical Report and has additional details.

      1. Since Joni Earl will be there too, maybe we can just have them both sign off on it then. ;-)

  2. I’m sure this will have its own post soon (p79+ in budget):

    Thank you for supporting Metro Transit. Today I wish to share great news for Metro’s electric trolley bus system.

    On November 9, 2011 the Metropolitan King County Council unanimously approved the 2012 King County budget; details are available online. The budget includes $238.6 million to replace Metro’s fleet of 100 40-foot trolley buses and 55 60-foot trolley buses, ensuring that Seattle’s urban neighborhoods will continue to benefit from clean, quiet electric buses. This settles once and for all the debate over whether to replace Metro’s aging trolley bus fleet.

    As you likely know, Metro’s trolley bus fleet has reached the end of its useful life. A performance audit of Metro raised questions about whether replacing the trolley buses with diesels could save money and recommended further study. I sponsored a proviso in the 2011 King County budget directing Metro to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of replacement options that would work best on current trolley routes. The evaluation concluded that electric trolley buses with off-wire capability to avoid construction and traffic blockages were the lowest cost, most beneficial option for replacing Metro’s trolley bus fleet. With the passage of the 2012 budget, Metro will be issuing a Request for Procurement for new trolley buses by the end of this year and should have a contract in place by fall of 2012.

    I was pleased to support funding to keep our popular trolley buses rolling in our urban neighborhoods, cutting down on noise and pollution. A lifecycle cost analysis showed that replacing our existing aging trolley buses with new off-wire capable trolley buses is the most cost effective and beneficial investment for the people of King County.

    Thanks again for supporting Metro Transit. I appreciate the opportunity to share this great news with you.


    Larry Phillips, Councilmember

    Metropolitan King County Council, District Four

      1. The buses themselves will cost between 500 and 900K, and then they have to do a lot of work on them at the CSC to do things like customize the interior, install auxiliary equipment: luminator, bike racks, ORCA equip, INIT stuff etc. Then they have to run them a certain amount in testing. I’d imagine most of the difference is in labor costs.

      2. What does a brand new Diseasel or Fart-burner cost? Yes they are cheaper than a will-last-you-twice-as-long-cuz-it-has-no-clutch ETB, but they ain’t as cheap as you think anymore.

        Not to mention the cost of shipping young people to kill and die for the fossil fuel supplies that non-ETBs need, which ought to be mentioned on this day that ended the war to end all wars, what, six (major U.S. involved) wars ago?

      1. No-one knows the specific model we’ll get, although it will be low-floor with off-wire capabilities and at least the option of passive restraint. There will be a competitive bid process to determine the exact supplier.

      2. In all likelihood yes, since Winnipeg’s New Flyer is the only North American producer of ETB’s. It is possible that someone like Shkoda could team up with a “USA-based” manufacturer and make a bid, but remember that when it comes to rubber-tired products, Canadian production is considered “domestic” production, unlike the situation with rail transit vehicles. So New Flyer has an advantage in this bid that Bombardier would not have if these were rail vehicles.

        Czechia’s Shkoda, the other big producer of ETBs in the world, did team up with a “USA-based” contractor to produce ETBs for Boston/Cambridge, Dayton and San Francisco, but New Flyer built the most recent deliveries for Philadelphia.

        (In fairness, the Boston/Cambridge order was done jointly with now-defunct Neoplan USA which was by then independent of its German creators and had a permanent facility in Lamar, Colorado)

        Of course, based on the history of the Breda buses, which was an order that should have gone to the superior Neoplan USA bid, but went to Breda because they promised to build the Bredas in King County (and ultimately did so at minimum-wage!), I will not be surprised if some narrow re-election-minded politician-whore demands that these new ETBs are built in King County to create some temporary blip in the local unemployment rate.

        Nevermind the scales of economy of having ETBs that can share some parts with the already extant fossil-fuel-burning New Flyers already in the KCMetro and ST fleets, why not be the first North American customers for, say, Solaris?

  3. So the artists who will decorate the spaceship-gymnasium-airport Roosevelt station have been chosen. The selection is appropriate because the “street level experience at the Roosevelt Station” is nonexistent. What better choice than to engage people who pull stunts (aka icons) like “The Living Room” to distract from a dismal streetscape.

    Roberto Behar and Rosario Marquardt of R&R Studios will focus on the street level experience at the Roosevelt Station. R&R Studios’ 42-foot tall streetscape, The Living Room, was created in 2001 and has become an icon in Miami, where they live.

    Likewise for the space station debris or colorful hardware store waste that will fill the void of the wannabe airport.

    1. Why do we an edifice?

      How about a subway station with a coffee shop, florist, and a drugstore?

      Instead you’ll get a monument to public spending

  4. Haven’t seen this in prior open threads so hopefully it’s not a repeat. I’ve noticed that Metro has been putting up coroplast signs on some of the 358 stops along Aurora, advertising “Every 15 minutes to downtown at rush hour!” They’re attached to the top of the SB shelters at Aurora & 85th and Aurora & Galer St, and probably some others.

    I assume this is some sort of advertising to start getting people ready for RapidRide E, but does this campaign make any sense? The current 358 schedule has buses coming at least twice as frequently to those stops at rush hour, and the Galer stop also has coverage from the 5 and the 16 meaning it essentially has sub-5 minute coverage. Even with the Fall 2012 revisions moving some routes off of Aurora this campaign still makes no sense unless Metro planning to significantly reduce frequency in the corridor when RR E starts. All it seems to be doing is confusing existing riders without making the service seem attractive to potential new customers.

    Does anyone know more about this? Are they just recycling left-over signs from the RR B roll-out without thinking about what they say?

    1. Saw the same thing, thought the same thing. All the RR lines will have at least 15-minute frequency throughout most of the day, not just during rush hour, and Aurora has better than 15-minute frequency most of the day already!

  5. So when is Seattle going to get a rail system equivalent to the DC metro? All of those things in that article about how terrible the DC metro area would be w/o rail apply equally to Seattle, except we are already facing much of those problems because of the virtually complete lack of rail.

    Our metro region has a population of 3.3 million, compared to 5.8 for the DC metro area, so I think it’s fair that we don’t have as extensive of a metro as DC, but at 86 stations (soon to be 91) of true grade-separated subway, it’s vastly better than our 13 (16 in 2016) stations. Assuming an equal ratio of stations, we should have ~56 subway stations.

    1. It took 3 decades or more to build the Washington Metro – and will take a similar length of time here. These systems are seldom constructed overnight or even in a decade – life and engineering just don’t work that way.

      1. True, but we’re even committed to building such a system here. The DC Metro was built to provide radial lines out to the Beltway instead of building highways. The only Link lines so far approved basically parallel highways. For the overcrowded and slow bus lines within the city, there is no relief in sight.

    2. Light rail, when grade-separated, can operate at speeds near to that which heavy-rail operates. With the advent of low-floor light rail vehicles, the advantages of high-platform boarding have been largely negated, although you can build a high-platform light rail system if you want…Edmonton, Calgary, St. Louis and Los Angeles have.

      Heavy rail can be built to operate at speeds of up to 80 mph, but the two systems that could do this, BART and DC Metro, don’t anymore due to the high costs of keeping their tracks in a state of good-repair.

      I guarantee you that a heavy-rail metro would not be able to get from International District/Chinatown station to the future Roosevelt station (all in tunnel and therefore grade-separated) any faster than LINK light-rail will be able to. And with light-rail, you have had the flexibility to run the buses jointly through the downtown tunnel in this initial stage of rail transit in Seattle, as well as the flexibility to operate in street-running environments where necessary in outer reaches of the system.

      Please remember that DC’s Metro was built as a reaction to the Metros of the other world capitols such as Madrid, Paris, London and specifically Moscow. Even that college town the West Germans were using at the time, Bonn, had a light-rail in subway!

      Money was no object, and what had to be alleviated was the insecurities that the swamp-city near Georgetown and Alexandria held by not having a subway like even those dirty Communists did. (Note that Pyong-yang has also fallen into this emotional trap, albeit with out the same results.)

    3. The DC metro replaced nothing. A Seattle heavy metro would have to supplement Link. Link is already in the highest-ridership corridor: downtown-Capitol Hill-UW-Northgate-Lynnwood, and south to the airport. A heavy metro would have to go alongside it or go elsewhere. If Link were severely over capacity we could consider heavy rail next to it, but it’s hard to imagine it getting so overcrowded in the next forty years — unless people seriously stop driving. As for elsewhere in the city, the most frequently proposed are Ballard and West Seattle. But they have less ridership than a line near I-5, so less justification for heavy metro.

      The most significant difference between Link and the DC metro is the attitude of the suburban cities. The Virginia suburbs built ten-story mini-cities around almost every metro station, with shopping malls and office buildings and lots of apartments/condos. Shoreline and SeaTac aren’t even considering that. The closest equivalents are downtown Bellevue and Lynnwood, and Federal Way promises it someday. (Note: Virginia’s mini-cities are smaller than downtown Bellevue or Lynnwood.) But the difference is that Bellevue and Lynnwood are seven miles from the nearest high-density stations (Northgate and Rainier), while Virginia’s mini-cities are just over the river from DC and a mile or so apart. I wish Pugetopolis had mini-cities like DC, but the cities and voters are too much against it at this point.

      If you tried to build a heavy rail subway there, Link would be in the way. As for the other parts of Seattle where a second line has been most frequently proposed — Ballard and West Seattle — it has less ridership than a line near I-5, so it will never have a heavy metro — more likely it would get a second Link line someday. If Link has severe capacity issues at some point, then a heavy rail line next to it would be feasable, but it’s hard to imagine that happening in the next forty years.

      1. Good points, but I wonder if it’s a bit of a chicken and egg thing. And I’m not just talking about rail in the suburbs, I’m also talking about rail in Seattle itself. It seems to be that we could put rail underneath RapidRides C, D and E, plus the 44 and/or 48. All are high-ridership corridors that are currently somewhat low density but could have more density in the future. Maybe we just need to be more aggressive about top-down zoning reforms rather than bottom-up (aka tell Roosevelt that, for the good of the city, they may not have a direct line-of-sight view to their high school). There will always be plenty of neighborhoods and cities that have crap transit access and therefore low density, if the people in Shoreline or Roosevelt want to live somewhere that requires car access they are free to move away.

      2. Mike-
        Arlington did the huge upzones and TOD planning around their Metro stations (after lobbying to move the line from the I-66 median to under Wilson Blvd). Falls Church and Vienna (further out the Orange Line) have stations in the I-66 median connected to giant parking lots. The contrast is rather striking, actually, and IMO a good example of “what to do” vs. “what not to do” with a major rail mass transit line.

      3. The problem I have with light rail is:
        1. Not fully grade separated
        2. It’s slow

        If you build new link lines that are grade separated and have max speeds 80-100mph, then that’s perfectly fine even if you call it “light” rail. Honestly it seems absurd to me that the east link will max out at 55 mph on a wide open perfectly flat and straight bridge where the cars can go faster. The east link should be going 100 over that bridge, not 55.

      4. Jason– so we agree?

        The issue for here is, what do you do if the neighborhoods and burbs are not willing to upzone as much as Arlington did? It’s nice to say, “They should”, but if we force them to they’ll just nullify it with an initiative and roll back car tabs to $5. Some people say, “If they won’t go to 125′, don’t build the line,” but that forces everybody else to suffer half-hourly buses that get stuck in traffic and are overcrowded, which I find unacceptable. So we’re left with some kind of compromise.

  6. I know there are several here that have lived in Japan. I’ll have a 12 hour layover in Tokyo on my way to a vacation in Indonesia. Any tips on a quick tour of the city (using public transit, of course)? And if anyone’s been to Java or Bali, I’d love travel tips about that too.

    1. Ooh, jealous, though 12 hours isn’t a whole lot considering Narita is pretty far out. You can take the Narita Express which is fairly pricy and it takes an hour to Tokyo Station. If you’re mainly interested in scenery a slower train might be just as much fun.

      One thing I really liked when I was an exchange student was a Sumida River boat tour, sort of like Argosy here. Also to get in the mood you might read some Japanese literature, anything from Bashō, Yasunari Kawabata, or Shusaku Endo. There are a ton of great touristy things in Tokyo, anything from Ginza, Ueno Park, Sensō-ji, or just trying to push onto a subway.

      Maybe get off major streets and duck into a local restaurant for lunch (just point at an item if the proprietors have thick accents, though I guarantee they’d speak at least some English). In case you’re concerned, virtually all signs have English (Roman) characters as well as Japanese, especially in Tokyo.

  7. Metro was all set to run the anti-Israel ads. Metro and King County didn’t have a problem with them. King County stepped in and banned the ads only after another group wanted run anti-Palestinian ads on Metro buses. That’s what they were worried about.

    1. The ads were banned before the out-of-state groups tried to buy counter ads.

      It was home-grown pressure that got the ads banned.

      1. That is incorrect. Metro and King County were all set to run the anti-Israel ads. They had no problem with them. Only after some pro-Israel groups threatened to run anti-Palestinian ads (one ad would have said “Palestinian War Crimes, Your Tax Dollars at Work,” along side a picture of a burning Israeli bus), did they ban the ads.

        In other words, King County had no problem with the original anti-Israel ads. They were going to run. They only got cold feet when they realized they would also have to run anti-Palestinian ads.

    2. Not sure if you’re saying the county is anti-Israel or it doesn’t want dueling ads. I suspect the latter. Although why Metro didn’t realize that any political ad would undoubtedly provoke a demand for equal time from the opposition, is beyond me. It’s the same reason Seattle couldn’t legalize the Occupy Seattle campout in Westlake Park — it would lead to an anti-tax or anti-abortion group demanding the same right.

      1. Neither. The county has traditionally been spineless (Witness the 42) when it comes to transit. Council Member Pete von Reichbauer was particular venomous several days before the counter ads became public.

        Or maybe Pete was delighted to have one more way to defund Metro. At least now, he can’t show up in Olympia, and lobby with a straight face that transit should depend on more “public private partnerships”. I don’t know if bus ads are a net revenue source for Metro, amyway.

        The anti-military-aid ad was one of the rare ones I actually agreed with, FWIW. Since this is open thread, it should be okay for me to say here that I support statehood for both Palestine and Israel, and for all in the Holy Land to treat each other like fellow human beings. And I am absolutely against bombing civilian buses.

      2. I support a two-state solution too, and Israel has to realize that building in the settlements negates any sympathy it deserves sympathy it deserves for being the victims of Arab wars. Israel can’t have it both ways. Either the Arab wars were unjust and Israel should pursue a settlement along the ’67 border, or Israel is being aggressive and denying the Palestinians their state and shouldn’t be surprised at intifadas. But you can’t both simultaneously claim injustice and be expansionary.

      3. I support a one-state solution: a World Parliament.

        There seems to be a negative correlation between countries being members of the European Union and countries going to war with each other. That is, if both countries are members of the Union.

        There also seems to be a positive correlation between countries being members of the Union and citizens being able to travel among the countries via transit.

  8. How did this news feed not cover the defeat of I-1125?! This is a huge win for transportation advocates and hasn’t received nearly enough attention.

  9. Took LINK in today from Tukwila at around 4pm. Went to see concert at Benaroya and thought I’d kill some time in The City.

    There are no card readers on the Tukwila platform…at least none I could find. I had to go back down to the mid level platform to scan then back up…missing a train. No problem as they were coming very fast.

    Got off at Westlake to walk up 5th to Top Pot. Man, $2 for a glazed old fashioned! I get the same Top Pot donuts for 0.69 at QFC here in Kent. Still, it’s a good place for me to chill and read my Kindle.

    I decided to talk a walk up 5th to the Seattle Center to think about World’s Fairs and monorails since we’ve been discussing in STB. The Center grounds are so pleasant. But no, I’m not a fan of the Space Needle (long story). I keep thinking, this is where people want to live. No cars. Just little golf carts. Why don’t they surround the Center with say, 4 story town house apartments with direct pedestrian access to the amenities? Take the monorail downtown and you’re in the middle of all the transit.

    On the way back at around 10:15 pm, going from Rainier Beach to Tukwila the driver opened it up. I’d say based on marking pace with I-5 traffic we were conservatively doing 55 to 60 mph. Man, though, that LINK train shimmies a whole lot on the elevated track. I mean, all the way there…I can’t believe the ride is so bumpy and so much sideways movement for brand new trains and tracks. Any information on that?

    1. I can answer to the bumps. Here is an email I got from Sound Transit:

      Thank you for contacting Sound Transit Michael.

      The jerky ride that you have referenced is partly attributed to temperature. The elevated section of the track that leads from SeaTac Station has multiple curves and when we experience temperature changes (mild to extremely cold and back to mild) this can cause the track to expand and extract. If you ride often you may notice this is not a regular occurrence on each trip and as noted this diminishes when you arrive on the at-grade level along MLK Way.

      I am  forwarding your comment to our Link Operations division for review. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.

      1. Ti-mets Green Line doesn’t do that at all on the elevated sections…. poor construction, not the trains or rail. That is what happens when you choose a contractor with no former light rail experience…

        Also since it appears that Stacey and Witbeck got the contract for UW-Downtown, you’ll notice a lot smoother track than the entire initial segment. The Green line and most of the Portland Streetcar was built by them and it is hands down the smoothest rail transit corridors I have ever been on.

      2. After ST2 is finished maybe. Why should the south line get a do-over when Northgate, Lynnwood, and Bellevue have no rapid transit at all?

    2. For the sake of completeness, here is my email I sent:

      Heading northbound from SeaTac/Airport, train seems to really jerk – as if high speed over very rough tracks – until on the MLK alignment

      Tracks need smoothing out?

    3. And that is correct that there’s no on-platform ORCA Readers on any station platform (except the bus tunnel). At TIB Station, in your example, escalators will take you from the bus platforms to the mezzanine where you can tap ORCA or buy tickets.

      There is another set of escalators to take you to the platform level. You must have paid fare or tagged ORCA to be on the platform level, so no need for TVMs or ORCA readers

    4. Congratulations for finally spending some time in the city. It’s not completely boring here, and you may want to ride your bike on the west Duwamish trail and Beacon Hill trail someday, or from the waterfront through Myrtle Edward Park and the Port Port trail to the Ballard Locks. Or Sundays on Lake Washington Boulevard, when the street is closed to cars. (Nice low density there.)

      We’re aware that prices are higher at Seattle malls and supermarkets. It’s worth it to us to be able to walk to shopping or take a 15-minute bus there. Some of the price is due to more shoplifting, but most of it due to the higher real estate prices — a reflection of how many people and businesses want to be in the inner city.

      “Why don’t they surround the Center with say, 4 story town house apartments with direct pedestrian access to the amenities?”

      The north and west sides of the Center are already like that. The east side has been blocked by Aurora but that will supposedly change when the Mercer Project and DBT north portal are finished. To be clear, the north and west sides have a lot of 2-3 story apartments, and supermarkets and shops within walking distance. Some people from there take the monorail when they go downtown.

      I’ve always felt the shimmy north of Tukwila no matter the temperature.

      1. In its heyday? How has it deteriorated since then? Besides the rising cost of housing. I’d say it has improved: (1) Link of course; (2) more buses (e.g., 7, 8, 36, 48, 49, 75); (3) more things downtown; (4) Ballard south of Market has become more of a self-contained community; (5) Northgate North (I forget when it opened); (6) less hipster silliness and no more grunge-band-wannabes; (7) more of a commitment to density and walkability, even if it’s only small steps at a time.

        Or perhaps you mean the steep decline in Seattle’s population since 2000, as people flooded to the exurbs. That only happened in a parallel universe.

  10. Glad to see the Sounders running on a holiday. Now if we only get them to run on weekends, at least a one daily RT between Everett and King St.

Comments are closed.