116 Replies to “News roundup: checking in”

  1. I wouldn’t get TOO cocky, Sealth. This was just the first four months of the pandemic and first few weeks of the George Floyd demonstrations.

    But Damn! is it sweet to see Daniel munching headgear!

      1. Yeah, I guess you were right. I was thinking Tom just posted on the blog by accident.

    1. It says right in the owners manual that you must have fingers on the keyboard when running your autonomous posting software. But do people follow the rules? Nope, they’re asleep in the back seat of their Tesla while on the way home after last call :=

      1. OK, for the bleachers, a translation:

        “Sealth” = “Seattle”
        “This” = “the time period for these data [e.g. the population changes]”
        “George Floyd Demonstrations” = “this ought to be clear for anyone”
        “munching headger” = “eating his hat” after having bragged about Bellevue leaving Sealth in the dust.

        Capice?

      2. Capice?

        I think so. I’m still confused about “Daniel”. Is “Daniel eating headgear” essentially Seattle kicking ass?

      3. Just for future reference, as you strike me as someone who cares, it’s spelled “capisce”

  2. I have worked in shops with pits, but I have never been lucky enough to work in any shop with cat walks. That is pretty nice. Some old fasion shops still do everything with a bottle jack. In 2021. Plus the cat walks are in the same bays as the pits, so you can have one person on the roof while someone is underneath. Efficient. Many places you would have to move the equipment from one bay to another to do multiple repairs.

    Wonder how clean that place will look in 10 years. It usually takes a few years to start scuffing the place up. And you will have the first gen light rail trains at or past middle age. Needing way more repairs. Not just warranty and light maintenance.

  3. Is there a way to find out if there will be any new bus stops created along the new routing on NE 45th St. (along the northern border of the UW campus)? I believe the 31, 32, and maybe 372 will use this routing.

    In other words, will there be any stops at all between the U District station and the viaduct? Or will commuters to/from the UW campus be walking to the U District station to board the buses?

    1. Great question. If the plan is implemented as expected, the 31/32 will go along 45th (the 372 won’t). It wouldn’t definitely make sense to add stops along there. Right now there are no stops between University Way (the Ave) and Union Bay Place/Mary Gates Memorial Drive. The viaduct starts east of 20th. So I could see 20th, along with Memorial Drive. If you wanted more aggressive stop spacing, then maybe just one stop, at 18th/Clallam Place. There are existing crosswalks.

      East of the viaduct it is a bit challenging. Eastbound, you could probably just move the existing station on Montlake Boulevard a little bit east (somewhere around the no parking sign here: https://goo.gl/maps/ax3nCTtw7WqPKvg99). Westbound you want something similar, but there are a lot of driveways in the area — I’m not sure if there is enough room to add a bus stop. At worse you live with the existing bus stop, since it is at least east of Union Bay Place. The drawback to that is that it is a long walk to 25th. That would likely push it out of the range of much of what exists in the U-Village area, and make transfer to the 372 harder. I suppose folks could always just “round the horn” with the 372 if that is where they are headed.

      1. Related question: In the forthcoming rerouting of Routes 31/32 through the U District that’s part of the Northgate Link/North Seattle bus realignment, is there any confirmation if the current westbound stop on the northeast corner of NE 40th Street & 7th Avenue NE will be eliminated and a new one added in its place at/near the current location? From my deciphering of the various bus network realignment maps of recent months, it looks like from NE 40th Street, the rerouted eastbound 31/32 pathway will go north on 7th Avenue NE, then east on NE 42nd Street and onward to the U District station via the Roosevelt Way NE/11th Avenue NE one-way couplets, which means the current Route 74 stops at NE 42nd Street & 8th Avenue NE would be serviced by the rerouted 31/32. Will the bus stops at 8th Avenue NE & NE 42nd Street be the primary 31/32 bus stop for the far southwestern frontier of the U District between the University and I-5 Ship Canal bridges? (The next 31/32 stop west of 7th Avenue NE & NE 40th Street is around N/NE 40th Street & 1st Avenue NE, well west of I-5.)

    2. When the 30 (predecessor to the 43 when it ran all the way from downtown to Crown Hill) went to Laurelhurstm it had stops at 20th. They will likely be re-established. The trip down the viaduct is quick, with no turning traffic.

      1. Looked at the intersection; I don’t think that eastbound left-turn bay existed when it was the 30, so having a stop there now would mean blocking all the eastbound through traffic. I think the cross-walk at 19th is closer to the dorms, so that will be where they squeeze them in, nearside. Cars headed straight can use the center lane to get around the bus and swap immediately east of 19th.

        By the way, if you choose just the right point right east of 20th, facing west, there’s a 75 in the picture.

      2. Doesn’t look like they’re going to add any stops. Maybe the City won’t let them.

      3. Route 25 served stops on NE 45th street until it was shifted to the campus pathway in 2011.

    3. There will probably be a stop at 17th because it’s the main access point to campus in the south and the fraternities and boarding houses to the north. When there were buses on 45th it wasn’t express there. I don’t know how far east Metro can put a stop without making operations difficult.

      1. There will probably be a stop at 17th because it’s the main access point to campus in the south and the fraternities and boarding houses to the north.

        Hmmm, I think it is similar with 18th. It really depends on which part of campus you are headed to. I think the combination of 17th and 20th gives the best coverage and spacing, while 18th itself would do the same if you only had one stop.

      2. IMHO, one stop between 17th and 18th is good enough. The blocks between 15th and 20th are very, very short.

        From 20th/45th, just walking to Link will be faster 9 times out of 10 than riding a feeder bus for such a short distance. The reason to board there is if you’re staying on the bus further, for example, to go to Fremont.

  4. Durkan and Constantine don’t want the kind of realignment Rogoff is offering up to the board. Those two want a delay in the financing plan, because they think that just means another 5-10 years of tax collections. What Durkan and Constantine still don’t understand is after 2041 all the tax revenue already is spoken for (retiring and servicing the additional debt the new financing model started assuming since the ST3 vote). Only showing the “sources and uses” through 2041 in the budget documents from 2016 until now has seriously misled the boardmembers (and the public).

    1. Rogoff hasn’t offered anything up to the board yet; they’re still just discussing possibility alternatives. Durkan and Constantine’s concern is that locking in Seattle alignment changes this summer would be premature; there are too many unknowns at this point. ST doesn’t have to make long-term decisions right away; it just has to reduce spending for a few years when it reaches the debt:asset ceiling in the late 2020s. When it happens it will be good to have a plan ready for how to reduce spending rather than throwing something together at the last minute, but it doesn’t have to be fully decided this year. Spending through 2024 or 2025 is dedicated mostly to ST2, which the board has already declared as its highest priority, so it would be the same under any of the scenarios.

      1. “locking in Seattle alignment changes” – not to be too technical, but the ‘realignment’ process impacts project schedules but not project alignments, so the WSBLE sequencing might be impacted but not the representative and/or preferred alignments.

      2. Everything you wrote is wrong.

        Rogoff offered up a draft realignment ordinance yesterday. It looks like the same on he showed at the May board meeting. That’s what Durkan and Constantine don’t like.

        Sound Transit has to make decisions under the financial policies that voters approved when projected revenues exceed projected expenses.

        “it just has to reduce spending for a few years when it reaches the debt:asset ceiling in the late 2020s.”

        There’s no such thing as a “debt:asset ceiling.” Are you thinking of the debt service coverage ratio policy? The board can change that at any time.

      3. The alignments are still undecided, so it may affect which alternatives and details on 5th Avenue, Ballard, SODO, and West Seattle are chosen.

      4. I haven’t seen anything from yesterday, only STB’s reporting of the last board meeting a month or so ago. Was there a meeting yesterday, and if so what was in it?

        The debt:asset ceiling is ST’s debt limit, the one that this realignment is about. ST’s current budget will exceed the ceiling between the late 2020s and mid 2030s, so the budget needs to be modified.

      5. There was a special board meeting yesterday regarding realignment.

        “The debt:asset ceiling is ST’s debt limit.” There is no such limit — now you’re just repeating nonsense. No such thing is in the state statutes, and no board resolution ever established one of those. As I posted previously, there is the debt service coverage ratio policy — maybe you mistook a reference to it as a “debt:asset ceiling.”

      6. What does “debt service coverage ratio mean”? My understanding is the debt can’t go above a certain multiple of its cash on hand (cash-convertable assets and monthly revenue) to repay that debt.

      7. The “debt service coverage ratio is the amount of revenues available after funding operating expenses divided by debt service costs.” That’s from the 2016 annual budget document.

        Post a link to a Sound Transit document referencing this debt:equty ratio you think exists (“the debt can’t go above a certain multiple of its cash on hand (cash-convertable assets and monthly revenue) to repay that debt.”).

      8. debt:asset ceiling

        I think the confusion is the term asset. I believe they are talking about assets on the balance sheet not “assets” as in real property and “things”. It’s not assets as one would calculate net worth but an accounting term.

      9. I think the confusion is Mike Orr makes up imaginary limits he thinks Sound Transit needs to follow.

    2. “after 2041 all the tax revenue already is spoken for ” Only true if you mean that all tax revenues are spoken for by ST3 projects, which everyone understands. There are excess revenues beyond 2041; the Board is required to roll back taxes once the bonds are paid off, but the date of the final bond payment is not specified, which effectively means there is additional funding beyond 2041 if needed to complete ST3’s scope.

      1. There are not excess revenues post 2041 because staff now is planning to sell 18 billion in long term debt, which is about twice the amount of ST3 bonds voters were told to expect. You people do not understand how the financing is structured.

  5. The “free transit” article is interesting. As thorough as it is, it seems to miss some issues and nuances about the topic.

    One issue is regulating who gets on free buses. The policy can fill buses with very short trips and result in buses moving slower and being more unreliable (an added impact in reality although buses should conceptually move faster if fares are not collected). This very thing happened with the free-fare zone that used to exist in Downtown Seattle. It also may it easier to end up with more undesirable on-board activities (panhandling or belligerence on buses). It could turn long-distance buses into de facto homeless shelters.

    Poverty and homelessness are terrible societal challenges. However, transit drivers should not be forced to be frontline social workers and riders need some assurances that bus riding won’t be dangerous. It’s hard enough to drive a bus and deal with paying riders. Transit’s first priority has to be moving people reliably, frequently and productively.

    As an alternative, I continue to support the possible use of short-distance free shuttles instead. As more Link and RapidRide lines evolve and Stride opens, I think our transit system will increasingly be structured to use shorter-distance feeder routes to get to long-distance routes anyway (unless a rider is traveling on a key transit trunk already). A free-shuttle component would also allow for targeted resources for social workers and transit police to be placed on them — rather than scattered thinly across the entire system. Unfortunately, this partial resolution rarely gets presented in these binary (yes/no to universal free transit) discussions.

    1. People with unlimited passes like myself can already make many short trips. As can those with ORCA Lift or employer passes, and all Seattle public school students with Durkan’s passes. So that’s a large percentage of the ridership right there.

      I haven’t had a pass since March because of the abnormal covid situation, but I’ve started thinking about when it will be time to, since I’m now riding several days a week to various errands and recreation. I think I’m spending around $60 a month now, so when it gets close to $99 it will be time to get a pass. A $20 e-purse doesn’t go very far: seven Metro trips or six ST Express trips. And a round trip can be two trip’s worth of fares.

    2. The policy can fill buses with very short trips and result in buses moving slower and being more unreliable.

      Sorry, I don’t buy it. In San Fransisco, which implemented off-board payment, dwell time per passenger went from an average of 4 seconds to 2.5. So you would have to more or less double the number of riders to make things worse than before. That seems unlikely. The areas where people are likely to hop on a bus that would otherwise walk are pretty much limited to downtown and the UW. In both cases a high percentage of the riders already have unlimited passes (it is hard to see short distance ridership suddenly double). Furthermore, those are just tiny parts of our overall system. So even if ridership doubled in a handful of spots, overall system dwell time would likely go down.

      I think the article did a good job of discussing the trade-offs. If you remove the fares, then it is quite likely you lose the funding. There are also political issues that complicate matters (there may be more political support for a system that is at least somewhat self-funding).

      For a city like Seattle, I think the focus should be on off-board payment, not free payment. We already have this on our trains, some select buses, and a handful of areas (downtown). I think we should focus on increasing those areas. I would like to see off-board payment around Link stations, especially ones with significant feeder service (Northgate, Mercer Island, etc.). It is crazy to ask for a fare in the front, when the vast majority of the riders just got off a train, and the bus is empty. Just allow everyone to get on the bus, and figure out the fare sharing later (based on the data).

      1. SF’s massive decrease in dwell time must be, so far, thanks to all-door boarding (which works wonderfully). We don’t yet have off-board payment on Van Ness Avenue BRT (3 years delayed); not on the M light rail (the two high-platform stations out of service for a year, replaced by buses). Arguably we’ve got it on the T light rail’s high-platforms (which is slower than the 15 bus it replaced) and the N/T high platforms along the Embarcadero. On a clear day we can look east to Oakland’s Tempo BRT on International Boulevard.

  6. One thing I’ve noticed over the past month or so is that car rentals have gotten very expensive, and often require traveling a long way to find one at all. Even when booking a trip weeks or months in advance. At the moment, I’m having trouble finding anything all summer for under around $100/day (after accounting for taxes, fees, and insurance). A few months ago, I could do it routinely for under $50/day.

    While, in the short term, higher rental car prices may induce people to ride the bus as an alternative, in the long run, this is going to induce people who don’t own cars to buy cars, and may contribute to drops in transit ridership, at least among people with enough disposable income to make that choice.

    I’ve already started the process of deciding what kind of car I want and what my budget is if the rental car situation does not return to some semblance of normalcy – and soon.

    1. https://www.npr.org/2021/05/03/993205342/theres-a-rental-car-shortage-in-store-this-summer-travel-season#:~:text=A%20global%20microchip%20shortage%20has%20impacted%20car%20production,That%27s%20making%20things%20tough%20on%20car%20rental%20companies.

      Chip shortage, plus rental car companies sold off 1/4 of their fleet expecting the downturn from the pandemic to be longer, and the recovery longer. I have heard in Hawaii tourists have taken to renting moving vans and trucks due to the rental car shortage. I doubt the temporary shortage will have much influence on car buying since cars (used and new) are in short supply everywhere. Most folks who need or want a car have a car, and will simply need to put off buying a new one for a while.

      Unless you absolutely have to buy right now I would wait a few months for a better price and selection.

    2. It’s because of the shortage of car parts. Something about computer chips or lithium batteries in Asia. It’s causing a shortage of new cars, and that cascades to a shortage of used cars and fleet maintenance for car-rental companies. That sends the price of all of these higher. The rental companies additionally shot themselves in the foot by selling off much of their fleet and now they have to buy it back. That’s similar to how Metro had a lot of layoffs in the 2014 cuts and then had to hire them back for the 2015 increases and 2016 Seattle TBD. I don’t blame the car companies much though. They had to cope with an unpredictable plunge in demand and an unpredictable increase in demand. It’s hard to predict both the magnitude and the timing of the changes, since they depend on fluctuations in the infection rate, vaccine demand, vaccine supply, state reopenings, and millions of people’s decisions on how much to travel.

    3. I would think this would be a foot in the door car share companies. I think there is a market for partial share ownership. It would work the same way partial share boat ownership does. A group of people own a car or “pod” of cars that are available only to the owners. I believe with the boat share an owner can put their time back into the pool and if none of the other owners buy the time it’s put on the open market. The big difference is the car has to be returned to a specific garage or limited local area. Think of it as a car condo :-) Say you’re in a 400 unit building and there are 400 available parking stalls. 25 of those would be owned by groups of people in the building. The service company would handle the billing, make lease payments and get the cars serviced and cleaned on a regular schedule. The owner has the hassle of booking time slots but avoids the hassle of oil changes, tire replacement, etc. And in theory if you aren’t commuting on a daily basis total cost should be close to whatever percentage of a car you actually need.

      This would really catch on if fully autonomous vehicles every are legal.

      1. The timeshare approach is good in principle. I think Zipcar even offers a service like that. The tricky part is making the economics work when everybody wants the car on weekends and nobody wants it during the week (because those that need it to drive to work would not be using a shared car, they would have their own).

      2. Actually that pairing works pretty well. Say there’s a household of two, both commuting to work. They own a car and only need one car on weekends. A partial share used to commute during the week offsets your need to use the car on weekends. They also don’t need that second car weekday evenings so that slot is open to others in the pod.

      3. I’m with asdf2. The reason time shares and boat shares work is that those things are so attractive that people will revolve their schedule around it.

        “When are we going to Maui this year?”

        “Hold on, let me look it up … it looks like we get a week in February. Cool!”

        This isn’t really the case with a car. Either you need it or you don’t.

        In general, this is a temporary problem, which means that more temporary solutions seem likely. The system you described seems more permanent. Right now, a car-share membership like the one you described might be popular. Five years from now, the value of a car-share membership might go way down.

        In contrast, I could see the apps that allow you to rent out your own car becoming more valuable. It is not as convenient (somehow you have to get that car somewhere, or the user has to get to you) but if there is enough demand, car owners could make some serious money right now, while car renters (who are desperate for a car) would get something that runs. Eventually that sort of thing could catch on, or eventually the car rental companies just go back to dominating the market, as before.

      4. “In contrast, I could see the apps that allow you to rent out your own car becoming more valuable. ”

        It already exists. It’s called Turo. The way the business model works, Turo marks up the price to provide their own insurance, so I’d the renter gets into an accident, the owner’s regular insurance is not involved. (Otherwise, they’d be violating their insurance contract by participating).

        The catch is that the prices tend to be high, the locations not super convenient, and most of the inventory is either expensive luxury cars or giant SUV’s that get terrible gas mileage. If you want something simple and affordable, like a Honda Civic, you’re kind of out of luck.

        Convenience of location is very key to me, each rental involves not just one, but two round trips to wherever the car is kept, and the time wasted by going all the way to the other end of town to pick it up can be quite significant. That is one thing I loved about the car2Go cars – if you lived out in the neighborhoods, as opposed to downtown, there would pretty much always be a car waiting, within walking distance. If the Gig cars were to ever expand across the lake at least cover at least the most urban parts of the Eastside (just downtown Bellevue, Redmond, and Kirkland, forget the single family homes neighborhoods), it would be immensely useful and I’d likely use them a lot.

      5. Yeah, I figured those companies still existed. My point is this is one of those rare times when I could see it really becoming popular. If getting a standard rental car is extremely difficult, then people become more willing to pay the extra money. Car owners make more money, and word is more likely to spread.

        But in a few months, the rental car companies get more cars and take a lot of their business. It is similar to the “car sharing” companies that offered the convenience of picking up a car in more places, and hourly rentals. Pretty soon the traditional rental companies would pick you up, and offer hourly rentals as well.

        They also struggled because they were stuck in a niche market. It doesn’t work in really busy places, as parking is really difficult. It doesn’t work in sparsely populated places, because you don’t get enough cars per neighborhood. This makes them different than bike sharing, which thrive in the most urban of environments (because bike racks take up a tiny amount of space).

        Similarly, so called “ride sharing” companies are basically just taxi-cabs with a good app. The “Curb” app (which connects to traditional taxi-cab companies) would probably have pushed them out of business, if not for the fact that Uber and Lyft avoid labor laws and city regulations.

      6. The fact that drivers are making so little money off rides that are so expensive shows just how broken the ride hailing system is. This smells like a middleman flexing its monopolistic muscles to take all it can.

        Another part of the problem, I suspect, is that some trips are effectively subsidizing others and the trips I happen to make (lots of freeway driving, no traffic congestion) are the profit centers that pay for the rush hour crawls through downtown that others make.

        This is even worse for traditional taxis, where the cities set rate formulas that overcharge on distance and undercharge on time.

    4. Someone I know slightly has gone into the Lyft rentals deal, where apparently you rent the car from Lyft and also drive for them. Had not heard of such a thing prior to a week ago.

      Maybe take a look at it and see if it might work for you?
      https://www.lyft.com/rider/rentals

      Convenience wise? Owning a car is nice. Math wise? It would have been financially better for me to rent every weekend and invest the money properly. Hell, by now I probably could have retired and be off doing something actually useful rather than my current employment.

      1. I didn’t follow the link, but my intuition is that, for the driver, it would be a terrible deal. Lyft’s pay is poor to begin with, and the rental fees would likely make it even worse.

  7. Sound transit resumes ten minute headway link frequency on weekends starting June 12th

    1. There is an entire industry devoted to getting people out of timeshares. I like Ross’s idea about some kind of app that lets car owners rent out their cars and wonder if one doesn’t exist. You would think Airbnb could add this feature to its existing platform easily. The one issue I could see is the insurance on a car is primary so the premium for a rental car could be high.

      Of course the shortage will be gone in 6 to 12 months, and rental car companies have the advantage of being at the airports. Plus Uber/Lyft have an advantage for short trips because hotel parking can cost $25/day, and you can drink as much as you want with Uber and don’t need to figure out how to get there.

      My guess is this will be a non-issue by the end of summer.

  8. If I board a KCM bus for $2.75, then board the Monorail 1.5 hours later for $3.00, then board a ST bus 1.5 hours later for $3.25, will it all be covered for $3.25 under 1 ORCA transfer? I can’t find anything on the ORCA website that says whether the 2-hour timer restarts when you get upcharged, or not.

    1. Your ride started when you boarded the KCM. Getting upcharged for transferring to a premium service should not “reset the clock”. Cake, eat, have.

    2. In the past, going from Metro/ST to Link has indeed reset my transfer timer. I haven’t ridden a route that would require it lately so I do not know if that is still the case, and I couldn’t speak for the monorail part of the equation either.

    3. In the (distant) past you could ride all day if you just hopped on Link every so often. I took the 255 and transferred to Link in the Bus Tunnel. I got off a Beacon Hill to admire the art. Then of course got off at the airport and back on to make the return trip. Tapping off and back on each time reset the transfer window so I didn’t even get charged for my return Metro ride to South Kirkland P&R. I had no idea it did this until I looked at my ORCA statement. I fully expected two bus fares and a max Link fare but only was charged for riding Link. No idea if they have fixed this loop hole. If you change direction it should be a separate fare (i.e. return trip). I believe this is the official policy for Metro. I seem to recall a driver calling me out once for making a return trip with my transfer.

    4. Each time you pay a fare or surcharge you get two hours. So in that scenario your total fare would be $3.25. (If monorail transfers work the same as Metro and ST.) I sometimes have trips like this. For instance, a trip to Costco (SODO), stop home to empty my bags, a Pike Place produce stall, Trader Joe’s & Central Co-Op (15th & Madison), a visit to a park, etc. it ends up being one or two fares depending on whether I have a long stopover in the middle or surcharges.

      1. Yet another weirdness of our fare system. The fare really should just be based on origin and destination. It should not matter which agency operates the service or has its branding/paint job nor whether the wheels are rubber or steel. We should have a single fare policy, transfer policy, etc., and just one board to make and approve the rules. Instead of doing everything twice and reaching different decisions on policies and more complexity.

        So taking an ST bus like ST 550 or 545 to Link means you get a shorter transfer window than it you can take an MT bus? (I think that when you board Link it tries to charge you for the longest possible trip, or is that when you exit? If it’s when you exit then your transfer window is reset if you go to Airport or Angle Lake but not if you take a shorter trip? It’s all strangely complicated, and not in a good way. At least for riders who pay cash or by ePurse.

      2. Is this “reset” incompetent programming, or is it a conscious decision to reward transferring between carriers? If the latter, it should be publicized as a “selling point” for the complicated multi-carrier model.

        If the former, somebody should ask id ORCA II will have the same bug.

      3. The transfer policy is the same across Metro, ST Express, Link, Sounder, CT, PT, and ET. The monorail may be included in that; I’m just not certain because the monorail only recently joined ORCA and I haven’t ridden it since. The ferries don’t accept transfers (because their operating costs are so high). For Link if you board within 2 hours you’re OK. For post-Link transfers I assume the relevant time is when you boarded Link.

        Link’s fare itself works slightly differently: at tapin you’re charged the maximum fare from your station, and at tapout it refunds the difference between your trip and the maximum trip. Or if you don’t tap out within 2 hours, the maximum charge becomes permanent. I’ve forgotten to tap out of Sounder in Kent because the readers aren’t in the line of sight, and when I remember I’ve already gotten on a bus to eastern Kent so it’s too late and I’m not going to backtrack.

      4. The fare really should just be based on origin and destination.

        It kinda is, but with numbers fudged a bit to keep it simple. Link charges by distance. Metro used to have a formula based on zones, but it was dropped. ST express buses are just that, express buses. They tend to be longer, and perform worse. Charging more is quite reasonable, given the unique value they provide (e. g. Tacoma or Everett to Seattle). For both Metro and ST, routes get lumped together, but a rider is more likely to pay what is appropriate (since the average ride on a Metro bus is short, and the average ride on an ST express bus is long).

        The monorail is a bit overpriced, but not ridiculously so. I could see them dropping the fares a quarter. On the other hand, I could see Metro raising the fares a quarter for cash fares since $2.75 is such an awkward fare. That way both Metro and the monorail would be $3 cash fare, and $2.75 Orca.

  9. Anyone have a schedule update on the NG ped bridge? They seem way behind schedule.

    I’m guessing it won’t open in time for the NG Link opening.

      1. Yeah, that very website says they are opening when Northgate Link opens. Both are behind the original schedule (maybe that is why you think it will be late). The main spans will be hoisted over the freeway the next couple weekends. If anything, the pedestrian bridge looks to be done before the trains start running. Hopefully they will open it up before the station opens.

      2. @mike mike?

        Why do I think it is late?

        Because the original target date for the span hoist was early to mid May – about 4 months before the then targeted opening of NG Link. Now the span hoist is scheduled for mid to late June. That delay burned 25% of their remaining total schedule time!

        Ya, ST picked Oct 2nd for NG Link opening, which gives them back 2 weeks, but the schedule is still very tight. Additionally, this is an SDOT project and not an ST project. SDOT is pretty much always late.

      3. SDOT is pretty much always late.

        As is ST*. They just reset the clock to make it look like they are on time (or even early).

        Anyway, it appears as if SDOT is planning on opening the bridge at the same time the station is opened. That gives them plenty of time, which they will probably use. If I’m wrong, and they open it up before the station work is complete, I’ll be thrilled.

        *https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/st2_plan_web.pdf — This extension is scheduled to be open to Northgate by 2020 and to Lynnwood by 2023.

      4. @Rossb,

        I don’t normally respond to you, but this is a bit too much to ignore.

        The link you provide is not a schedule or a technical plan, it is in fact a “proposal”. If you don’t beleive me then I direct to the third word in the very first sentence of the very first paragraph of the introduction: “Sound Transit ‘proposes’…”

        So, if your idea of a firm schedule is a “proposal” that was presented to the voters well before there was voter approved funding, before there was a voter funded technical plan, before there was a cost estimate associated with said plan, before there was a firm schedule associated with said technical plan, and before the ST board approved the schedule and funding and gave authorization to proceed, then I’d say you live in a fantasy world.

        A ballot proposal is not a firm plan. Give the full proposal (from early 2008 mind you!) an honest read and you’ll understand. Well, at least I hope you will. Because I still consider myself to be an optimist.

      5. “A ballot proposal is not a firm plan. Give the full proposal (from early 2008 mind you!) an honest read and you’ll understand. Well, at least I hope you will. Because I still consider myself to be an optimist.”

        Shouldn’t the voters be voting on plans, not proposals? I mean, given the level of malleability in a proposal, one might call offering them to the voter to be disingenuous if not outright fraudulent.

      6. @ajoy,

        The voters should read what they are voting on before they vote on it.

        Sometimes it is a proposal, sometimes it is a plan to develop a proposal, and sometimes (rarely) it is an actual firm plan. But the voters should read first and then vote!

        In this case it was clearly a proposal. Just read the link, almost every paragraph uses some variation of the word “propose”, or words to that effect.

      7. What? This is the official document from the official page for ST2 (https://www.soundtransit.org/get-to-know-us/documents-reports/sound-transit-2). Its full title is:

        Sound Transit 2
        A Mass Transit Guide
        The Regional Transit System Plan for Central Puget Sound

        It is literally called a plan! It is a plan that includes dates and costs. The appendix includes even more detail. It was published in July 2008. It is based in part on the more detailed plans of the larger projects that were published months earlier, like the one for UW to Northgate (https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/n06_link_uw_to_northgate.pdf). This is the original plan.

        Of course plans change. But you can’t claim that you are building things faster than expected, if it takes longer than the original plan. That is just revisionist history. It is downright Orwellian (although with much less important outcomes).

      8. Oh, and Lazarus, I’m not sure if you know what the word “propose” means. Just because it is a proposal, doesn’t mean that it isn’t a plan. It can be very specific plan and proposal at the same time. The Oxford dictionary definition of “propose” shows an example in the first definition:

        1. put forward (an idea or plan) for consideration or discussion by others.
        “he proposed a new nine-point peace plan”

        Websters definition for propose:

        to form or put forward a plan or intention

        Definition of proposal:

        1. a plan or suggestion, especially a formal or written one, put forward for consideration or discussion by others.

        This was a proposal. This was a plan, not a suggestion.

  10. we can’t see how much of Seattle’s growth was due to in-migration vs. out-migration, and we don’t know how many moved to the city from within Washington

    The U-HAUL GROWTH CITIES is a good measure of that. The link is for 2019 but if you click on the link to the U-Haul site and type “growth rate” in the site search it brings up 2020 info and past years. The 2020 link ranks by State. CA is #50! They lost I think 3 congressional seats but that likely doesn’t show growth from immigration; certainly not illegal immigration.

    Washington slotted in at #36, down from #5 in 2019. Colorado on the other hand jumped from #42 to #6. Oregon dropped from #29 to #45. Tennessee jumped from #14 to take the top slot. Florida fell from #1 to #3 and Texas held steady at #2.

    2020 U-HAUL GROWTH CITIES

    1. Congressional seats are only apportioned every 10 years. California lost one and Oregon gained one.

      I wouldn’t put much credence in U-Haul moves in 2020 as a new trend. Many people lost jobs and were financially forced to move in with relatives or maybe friends for a year or two. That way overshadowed normal job-related migration. That’s like saying that the increasing percent of drunk people between 1 and 2 am is a trend that would continue hourly for several more days. I expect that 2022 will look more typical and be much closer to 2019.

      1. Right, and based on the census from 2020. Going back to 2017, CA was #50, 2018 #48, 2019 #49 and 2020 #50. Texas has been 1-3# for at least the past 5 years. So it’s not a trend that just started with the pandemic. Typical means CA will continue to see an outward migration. The ability for tech workers to work remotely has driven part of it but companies (like Tesla, Oracle, H-P) are relocating factories and HQ because of taxes and over regulation. Of course the moves also tend to turn some traditional red states purple like CO and AZ. But overall it looks like the GOP will net +6 congressional seats.

        Oregon’s population growth rate increased every year from 2010 to 2016 and dropped every year since. It’s rather a surprise that Oregon gained a seat and not Washington.

      2. California didn’t see net outward migration. It grew less fast than other states. Increase was still in the 6% range.

      3. These are the growth rates for CA:
        2020 39,368,078 -0.18%
        2019 39,437,610 0.00%
        2018 39,437,463 0.25%
        2017 39,337,785 0.48%
        2016 39,149,186 0.63%
        2015 38,904,296 0.82%
        Pretty steep decline starting back in 2015. You can’t pin the negative growth rate in 2020 on the Pandemic because every State was facing the same thing. FL and TX continued to boom even though the news media was telling people everyone was going to die because of slack government mandates.

        Wikipedia claims there is a natural population increase (more births than deaths) in CA of 4.7/1000. That’s a net 185,000 people a year in CA. So starting in 2017 net migration into CA was zero and people have been leaving at a higher rate than moving in ever since (i.e. net outward migration).

      4. 2017 was also the first year of the Trump administration, and the corresponding immigration policies.

        Census bureau has California population growth at 6.1% 2010 to 2020. Everything else is an estimate that isn’t based on the actual census.
        https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/CA

      5. California is more dependent on international migration than most states. Lots of people come from other countries to California, and lots of Californians move to other states. Both the recession and Trump’s election hurt international migration.

      6. Oracle has factories? What do they manufacture, foreign key constraints?

  11. Looking for updates on the Eastrail ped bridge construction there’s not much info more current the 2018 at King County or ST. KC says:

    I-405 overpass (construction 2021), Wilburton Trestle rehabilitation (open 2023), NE 8th Street bridge (open 2022).

    The only thing I know of that’s happened with the Trestle is structural inspection of the existing bridge. From what I’ve heard all they need to do is put down a deck and railing. Don’t know why that’s scheduled so far out. I haven’t seen anything as far as construction over I-405 to replace the tunnel that WSDOT excavated to widen 405. I’ll have to do a drive by to see if anything has happened at NE 8th ($3M project!). Story from City of Bellevue was they had to finish construction before the OCS was energized. Looks like “they” are pushing out construction to coincide with East Link opening. Construction is underway at Totem Lake. Kirkland has really made their section of the trail a priority. Totem Lake to Woodinville should open really soon (if not already a soft open). I’ve walked it quite a ways north from Totem Lake.

    1. It would be interesting to know the demographics of those leaving CA. One of the ironies not lost on states like IL and NY is they negotiate very generous public service contracts that require large tax rates, but when those public service employees retire they move to states with more sunshine and no income tax. NY state sends a lot of pension and retiree medical checks to FL every month.

      CA is hard to beat for weather and nature, but cost of living and taxes are hard on retirees.

      One issue with CA is any state with 40 million residents is going to seem crowded. A real estate agent I spoke to yesterday told me his client has authorized him to bid $600,000 above listing on houses on MI, and they have lost out on every house. The last house the buyer bid $900,000 above listing, and most of the buyers are coming from CA.

      CA residents are not only bringing their politics to this area but their cost of living, which is what my brother in Spokane complains about with Seattleites moving to Spokane.

      I tell him the sellers are not complaining because they are making a windfall and probably moving someplace else. I think it is getting very hard for any retiree to live in this area anymore, and 2/3 the year the weather is cold and wet.

    2. From what I’ve read it’s mostly lower-income Californians moving away, mainly because of housing prices. Taxes don’t compare to a million-dollar cost of even a basic house or a $2400 rent for a one-bedroom. Less-affluent teleworkers who left San Francisco tended to move to other sunbelt states, and more affluent teleworkers tended to moved to Bay Area suburbs or the Central Valley.

      Housing prices are rising in most of the country because the housing supply hasn’t kept up with population growth. California has an acute case of that, but it’s also affecting cities it never did ten years ago like Spokane.

      1. Housing prices are rising in most of the country because the housing supply hasn’t kept up with population growth

        Housing prices are “through the roof” because interest rates are being kept artificially low; below the inflation rate. The more you borrow the more you make. The opposite of owning bonds or CDs where you are losing buying power. People buy whatever payment they can afford. Low interest == high sale prices.

      2. Californians who already own a house are not affected by the high cost of housing, except for taxes. If the reason Californians are leaving is due to housing that would apply only to renters.

        The housing issue in Spokane is housing prices have been depressed for at least a decade, and population growth has been slow. You can’t blame Spokane for not predicting a desire of many Americans to exodus large, mostly blue, cities, growth most Spokane residents don’t want and resist. Spokane does not want to become Seattle.

      3. They didn’t start going through the roof in 2020, they started going through the roof in the 2010s. Low interest rates accelerate it, but it’s a critical problem even without it. Interest rates make a difference only if you could almost afford the house before interest rates went down. Only a few people are right at that threshold; many more are below it.

        The 2020 exodus from San Francisco, we’re told, is renters wanting an extra room or a house for a home office and more space. They’re mostly renters because that’s who lives in central San Francisco. Then there are renters who lost interest in inner-city living, especially with the shutdowns, and those who could hardly afford rent. Those are the ones moving to the sunbelt, to either a house or another apartment at half the price.

        It’s restrictive zoning that’s causing most of the problem in California. That’s why housing prices are so high, because so many people are competing for each unit.

      4. @Mike,
        Housing prices started to rebound in 2010. Did you completely forget the housing bust in 2009? It took years to clear the inventory of bank owned property. From previous posts I take it you’ve never owned real estate. While there are a few high net worth individuals that decided to be life long renters that only works if you have a huge salary, inherited wealth or win the lottery. Buying rather than renting is the key to “generational wealth”. And don’t start with the “can’t afford to buy in this market” crap. We didn’t move from Lake City to Woodinville in the 80s because we wanted to live with the cows. We moved because we couldn’t afford to buy in Seattle (barely above gas station attendant incomes and relying on a roommate to make ends meet). And trust me, we tried for nearly a year. Who knew Hollywood Hill would become trendy?

        Yes, people are leaving CA (SF in particular) because they can buy so much more somewhere else. What’s driving insane valuations in ID is celebrities and other high net worth individuals leaving a State with a high income tax (and sales tax… regressive and progressive all at once). Same thing is driving the migration of people from NY to FL. Used to be they’d keep homes in both States and live 51% of the time in FL. Now they’ve just given up on NY.

    3. CA is not going to suffer because out migration exceeds in migration by a small amount. If anything, too many residents (rather than density or zoning) is CA’s issue. CA is a wonderful place to live or go to school if you have the money and can avoid the congestion of so many people, and one nice thing about having lots of money is bad state policy doesn’t affect you or your family. If necessary send your kids to private schools and live in a gated community, as many do with private security, or move to Santa Barbara. One thing CA was never designed for is transit.

      CA has never lost a congressional seat, and out migration exceeding in migration is new for CA, so it is naturally causing some self-reflection, in part because CA is quite arrogant, and sees itself as the leader of the progressive movement (and was the leader once in the Reagan revolution). CA was the only state to negotiate its terms to become a state. A new governor probably would not hurt CA. CA already has plenty of pretty and dumb people without having one in the governor’s mansion, and the last governor Brown was quite smart.

      I am sure housing prices, and prices in general, have a lot to do with out migration from CA, as well as taxes and policy for employers, but more housing for more housing sakes is not the cure.

      Last night I watched the movie “Too Big To Fail”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_Big_to_Fail_(film)#:~:text=Too%20Big%20to%20Fail%20%20%20%20Based,Crudup%20P%20…%20%2013%20more%20rows%20

      “Too Big to Fail is an American biographical drama television film first broadcast on HBO on May 23, 2011 based on Andrew Ross Sorkin’s non-fiction book Too Big to Fail: The Inside Story of How Wall Street and Washington Fought to Save the Financial System—and Themselves (2009).”

      It is a fascinating look at how America almost fell into another deep depression, a very scary thought. What was the cause: too much housing, sold to too many folks who could not afford the housing, the mortgages were then bundled but not segregated for risk and securitized, and then the securities were insured through Credit Default Swaps. So builders built as fast as they could because it did not matter whether people could actually afford a house.

      The issue in 2008-09 and today was not too little housing, but too few owners who could truly afford the housing once the AMR reset, or there was any bump in the economy.

      Building more and more housing for those who cannot afford it is not the solution unless you address the wealth divide, and naturally housing starts post 2009 declined because qualifying to buy a house or condo became more realistic after reforms were implemented (which unfortunately has led to a higher percentage of renters).

      I think we are heading into the same bubble right now. Housing in hot markets should not be rising 15%/year when population is increasing at a fraction of that, and total wealth has not increased that much.

      People are buying as much house as they can possibly qualify for (which is not the same as affording it, during good and bad times) which means of course adjustable rate mortgages at near zero interest rates that will reset in 5 or 7 years, all based on the exact same assumption as in 2008: housing prices will never decline, even though 2009 was not that long ago. Meanwhile, with $27 trillion in debt and likely rising inflation the U. S. government has less ability to manipulate interest rates when they begin to rise or the dollar loses some appeal as the reserve currency, or fund expensive bailouts.

      The American Dream is a single family house with a yard, dog, and kids, which is why Fannie May and the tax code incentivize them, and cities zone for them despite the cries of Urbanists. The pandemic drove that home as we nested. As many on this blog note the desire for a SFH manipulates transit, which is why we are building 90 miles of spine through many SFH zones: not to upzone them, but to serve them, expensively. People love their homes; few love transit.

      Now more and more citizens want a SFH, and interest rates and the same loan tricks are allowing folks to pay more than they can afford over the long haul, because no one thinks housing prices will decline, just like in 2008. Just a small decline in housing prices causes massive problems when everyone starts to sell the securitized mortgages — which of course are hot right now because interest rates on treasuries and savings are zero — and the CDO’s are called upon default. The default rate that triggered 2009 was only 5%.

      As Bernie noted the artificial manipulation of interest rates has inflated all assets, which is usually a good time to sell, unless you think stock and housing prices will never go down, until they do, rapidly.

      CA is suffering more out migration than in migration for many reasons, although the amount is insignificant (and politics is probably near the bottom), but building more homes for folks who cannot afford them in the long run is not the solution.

  12. Hey STB staff and web controllers,

    We are now just 119 days out from the greatest improvement in Seattle area transit service since U-Link opened in March 2016! But where is the online countdown clock?

    Come on, let’s get with it. Let’s embrace the change. Let’s get a countdown clock to the revolution.

    1. Yes it’s great!

      We also have rail extensions coming to Tacoma Hilltop, Bellevue/ Microsoft, Lynnwood, Federal Way and Downtown Redmond in less than four years! Plus we will reopen the Fort Defiance bypass!

      That’s a lot of possible upcoming countdown clocks too! A countdown clock could be repeatedly used!

      1. None of those are in the same league as Northgate Link. To be clear, Northgate Link is not about Northgate. It is about finally completing the urban section we should have started with, and is arguably the only section we should have built (with the rest of the money going into bus service): U-District to downtown. Yes, there should be three stops in the U-District, not two. Yes, it should include First Hill, and a stop at 23rd and Madison for better bus integration. But it still includes the one section that everyone knows is essential for mass transit.

        Roosevelt and Northgate are just bonuses. But they are very nice bonuses, as both stations have strong all-day ridership, with combinations of trips that can’t easily be replicated with bus routes (even with the proximity to the freeway). Roosevelt to Capitol Hill could have been done with frequent bus service to the U-District along with Link, but it would have been very hard to pull off with just buses. In contrast, everything you mentioned, Al, could have been done reasonably well with buses (the trip to downtown Bellevue would have skipped South Bellevue and East Main — oh, the horror). Just to be clear, I’m cool with East Link, but it is very easy for the Maggie Fimia’s of the world to argue that East Link could be done with just buses. It is a lot harder with U-District to downtown.

        Northgate Link is the big kahuna. East Link is the little kahuna. Everything else you mentioned is small potatoes.

      2. @Al.S,

        You are absolutely correct, there are multiple transformational transit projects that ST is set to deliver on in the next 4 years! In 4 years transit in this region will hardly be recognizable compared to the pre ST, bus only situation. It really will be a different world.

        But can’t we just start with a simple acknowledgment that in 119 days a major and revolutionary improvement in transit will occur? Can’t we just start with one countdown clock to that one momentous event?

        Can’t we at least acknowledge that one thing and celebrate that one achievement?

        But ya, after that let’s start another countdown clock! Because there are more worthy things to celebrate after NG Link opens.

  13. Brown had become an engineer in 2013, following nine years as a conductor,

    I thought the conductor was the highest ranking member on a train crew?

    Anyway, how much time left to take the scenic waterfront route before it’s lost forever. Unless of course they run another excursion train like the SP Daylight.

    1. The Conductor is indeed commander of the train, but not necessarily the highest paid member of the crew. On a freight run they sit together in the lead cab, typically, so Conductor is mostly a paperwork job. But on a passenger train there’s the paperwork AND the passengers…..

      Most passengers are great, for sure, but there is an irreducible minimum of I-Rate! [pun] morons who ruin a lot of otherwise pleasant trips.

  14. Does anyone know the trade offs of a single overhead wire vs a double pantograph system? Is reason for choosing the later based on speed requirements or current capacity? Or is it more about how reliable the rail can be as a return (ground) conductor. The single conductor must be a lot cheaper to install and maintain. I’m wondering what the downside is.

    1. When there is a rail, it is always used as the return, either with third-rail or overhead catenary. Two wire distributors are limited to rubber-tired systems like ETB’s. A second pantograph in high powered rail systems doesn’t put juice back in the wire; it just collects for a different set of motors.

      1. Oh, I didn’t understand you meant two closely-spaced parallel wires serving the same pans. That can only be for capacity enhancement, increased contact area.

      2. Looking at pictures more closely what I thought were two wires supplying power on some railways are really the catenary above the powered conductor. When looking from the side it’s not always apparent. The wide pantograph is a single wide shoe so that the pantograph doesn’t have to rotate like on our ETBs.

      3. Does this mean you can get electrocuted when touching the track even if it’s not third rail?

      4. If you were outfitted like Huckleberry Finn (barefoot and a looong metal fishing pole), you could possibly accomplish that.

      5. Absolutely not, unless you are also holding a very long metal rod with which you touch an uninsulated portion of the “hot”, uninsulated overhead. That is only the contact wire or pair of wires. Everything else is insulated to minimize that risk.

        It’s 1.5 KV, so I wouldn’t trust most shoes either.

    2. The only places I know of that use two overhead wires for trains do so because they use three phase power, with the third phase being the track and always operating at ground voltage. Instead of a floating neutral they just tie one of the legs to ground.

      These are extremely complicated systems and really not suitable for most operations. One or two Swiss mountain railroads use it, as well as the line up Corcovado in Rio de Janeiro. Great Northern first Cascades tunnel used it, but the second electrification used conventional single wire single phase overhead.

      Certain older trolley wire systems had two parallel wires, but only one was used at a time. They would avoid a junction on the wire and manually move the trolley poles to the other wire. However, I only know of museum type operations that do things this way today. (Manx Electric Railway is the one that comes to mind, which hasn’t changed its electrification since the 1890s).

      If you want more power delivered to the train than what a single pantograph will deliver, you put a second pantograph on the locomotive. The limit is the contact area, not the wire. See Pennsylvania RR GG1 as an example, but even those rarely had both pans raised.

      Milwaukee Road’s lines into Seattle could see heavy freight and passenger trains. It was single wire 3,000 volt DC, which is fairly low voltage, yet worked fine.

      1. I was thinking I’d seen dual overhead wires on Swiss rail but couldn’t find any examples of it. Three phase power is confusing since you can’t just multiple volts x amps = watts.

        To have three phase power you have to have three conductors all going from -1/2 total voltage to +1/2 total voltage and they have to be in phase (120 deg apart). All three phase wiring I’ve used in commercial operations also had a forth neutral (not ground) which could be used to supply single phase power off of any phase. One advantage is you can double the current capacity with only a 50% increase in conductor size. The other and biggest advantage is there’s no “dead spot” so you don’t need a startup capacitor for an electric motor. Like DC it’s full power available 100% of the time.

        Interesting discussion… good thing this is an open thread or we’d be short circuited by the moderator :-)

      2. Thinking about this some more what I believe they are doing is distributing 2 phase power (like to your dryer) and then converting it to three phase onboard the locomotive to drive the motors. If it were three phase distribution then yes you would be electrocuted touching the rail carrying the third phase; bug zapper style.

      3. No, it’s fully three phase power. The “neutral” at the center of the three phases floats at somewhat above ground voltage, and the third leg is tied to ground, but is a fully functioning third phase. Otherwise the motor speed wouldn’t be locked to the overhead frequency. Remember this system was developed in the 1890s, so single phase to three phase converters were heavy motor-generator sets. Even mercury rectifiers were a few decades off, and solid state semiconductors to replace liquid mercury ones even more decades off.

        So, on-locomotive conversion for the large traction power stuff wasn’t that practical for many systems. Small motor-generator sets would be used for lighting (16hz is great for traction motors, but on-car lighting would have a terrible flicker of operated at that frequency).

        Unfortunately I can’t find a good diagram of this. It’s not something easily visualized.

        It doesn’t matter that the neutral point in the big three phase traction motor is allowed to float, because you aren’t powering any significant single phase loads. In a house it matters because you need the neutral for the majority of the loads, which are 120 volt, one of the phases plus neutral. On these, the neutral voltage wanders a bit and is always above the ground voltage.

      4. Here we go:
        In stationary systems they apparently call it a “corner grounded” three phase system. See figure 2 here:
        https://iaeimagazine.org/features/installations-and-inspections-of-corner-grounded-systems/

        It’s a 480 volt line to line system, so if there were a neutral point it would be 277 volts from each line to neutral. However, phase C is tied to ground and is therefore always 0 volts, even though it also forms part of the three phase system. The floating neutral, at 277 volts above ground, would wander around a bit if a few small single phase loads were added, but not too badly because what dominates the system most of the time is this huge 100 hp + three phase traction motor. Unlike house wiring, the single phase loads would never be enough to really make things too unpredictable.

  15. When the Lander Street bridge opened, the 50 seems to have reverted back right away. The 21…didn’t. Anyone know why?

  16. Did anything about restructuring system expansion openings come up in the Sound Transit board meeting last week?

    1. I watched the video in pieces. There is a long non-broadcast executive session in the two-hour video.

      The good: Many Board members called out ST staff for the seemingly arbitrary rescheduling of projects. They complained about lacking relevant data like ridership and cost per rider not disclosed in the various projects. They generally felt that alternatives were not fully presented because benefits weren’t shown. The word “equity” was used but it appears that it means different things to different members. Durkan noted that Graham was treated unfairly.

      The bad: The debate was ultimately restricted to opening years only. No one dared to question whether cost savings were possible by doing things like changing technology, dropping stations from multi-station projects, revisiting the second Downtown tunnel now that’s apparently several billions more or any other plan change.

      It is interesting that a new Delridge-Denny scenario was proposed. I have no idea what that means for tunnel boring.

      In sum, it was all about timelines only.

      1. I haven’t seen the video yet, but your description sounds similar to a board meeting I saw a couple months ago. Namely, several boardmembers pushed back that staff hadn’t given them enough information to make the expected decisions, and that the definition of equity was missing some factors that would probably affect the numbers. It sounds like those issues haven’t been resolved yet.

  17. I expect stops will be provided. In 2011, former Route 25 served that pathway and had stops. Before fall 1998, former routes 30 and 32 served stops there. There are several signalized intersections. Note there will be congestion along the routes. The Fremont Bridge opens at off-peak times; the openings are more frequent during sailing season, May through September; Roosevelt Way NE will be congested; it attracts traffic to the reversible lanes, the medical clinic, and is slower due to the SDOT PBL.

Comments are closed.