Sound Transit launched a colorful and playful new website introducing the Northgate Link extension in advance of its October 2 opening. Featured are “local gems” or unique activities that each of the three new stations offer.
No details of the festivities on Opening Day are available, yet, but there’s no doubt that transit fans from all around the region and maybe even the country will join in.
Why do the local media give Katie Wilson a free ride? She calls herself the general secretary of the Transit Riders Union. But there is no membership and there has never been an election. She created this entity and is its self-appointed leader. She writes about all kinds of things beyond transit, and the media gives her publicity and credibility based on her self-created entity, without any analysis or question about what it is she really represents. I imagine that she has political ambitions and this is her platform to get recognition?
Maybe the problem is that you don’t know anything about TRU?
They are a membership driven org and have annual elections. Every time I’ve been to a TRU lead event there were a *lot* of people there.
Their focus is beyond transit, you have that part right.
I, for one, would vote for Katie Wilson for any office she wants to run for. And I’m not even a TRU member.
[spam]
[spam]
I’m beginning to dread the political tea leaves that the CDC and FTA are likely to remove the mask requirement for public transit in September, and thereby render it unsafe to ride, just before Northgate Link opens.
The county should take action to continue the mask requirement indefinitely (that is, until the pandemic is truly over, which is to say the virus is declared extinct, based on overwhelming data and general consensus among epidemiologists, not the politics of one business-captured government body).
The boards of all the other transit agencies should move quickly to extend their mask mandates indefinitely. Sending formal letters to the CDC and FTA bodies that decide the federal mask policy would also help mightily. Same for the Port of Seattle in regard to air travel.
I don’t know how the CDC slipped on a banana peel and decided to discourage the wearing of masks, when the overwhelming evidence shows that masks have been quite effective at slowing the spread of the virus while we waited for the vaccines. Now, the data is showing that the vaccination campaign is failing to stop the new delta variant surge, with new daily cases almost double what they were a couple weeks ago. Urging everyone to wear a mask when in public (especially indoors) around strangers and urging everyone to get vaccinated are both needed to win the war. The sum of the two key measures is a far more powerful arsenal than encouraging just one and stigmatizing the other.
The virus will never be “extinct”. It is in too many places and populations for that. The best we can hope is that the vaccinated portion of society will continue to climb slowly. But the virus will continue to circulate.
And, yes, vaccinated people should wear masks in enclosed spaces unless they know that every other person in that space is also vaccinated.
Masks were a great tool at slowing down transmission to protect public health infrastructure in the absence of vaccines and effective treatments and, unfortunately, for many places in the world, are still one of their only tools to do that. The mask requirement was one of the reasons we felt comfortable resuming riding transit several times a week back in May 2020, sometimes for trips of several hours.
Now that we have vaccines that are many, many times more effective than masks at actually protecting ourselves and others, and treatments in the pipeline that can actually cure someone who becomes infected, masks are much less important in the US. I hear many people talking about how one can still get sick after vaccination and can still transmit after vaccination (both true statements, but very, very rare), but let’s remember that the same is many, many times more true of masks, particularly since the type and quality of mask has never been regulated as part of the requirement. It is still very possible to transmit when wearing a mask, and it is still very possible to become sick while wearing a mask. If one is not vaccinated, wearing a mask does nothing to influence the course of the disease after infection.
Given the effectiveness of vaccines compared to masks, I would rather see one more vaccinated person than 10 more masked people. I know people who think that masks are just as effective as vaccines, and I fear the continuation of mask mandates will just feed that mistrust of vaccines.
[spam]
Skylar, sure, vaccines are way better than just masking and social distancing. But until everyone who is medically able to be vaccinated is, relying on other peoples’ claimed vaccination status is a fool’s game. There are simply too many people who will lie about it, if it is to their advantage.
Skylar raises a good point: most of the masks are rubbish. Like most people I have a hodgepodge of used masks floating around in my car I grab if going indoors, just in case.
None really fit well, even the ones I got from the Polyclinic. All have been used many times. The “fit” leaves large gaps. Most of the masks I see on others are just as bad, or the old bandana. It blows me away I used to rely on this hodgepodge of masks before being vaccinated.
Being immunosuppressed is a heavy burden. I have a close relative whose current treatment does not allow her to be vaccinated. It has been very lonely for her, although we try to Zoom. But she misses the young kids, who are germ balls anyway.
Even without Covid-19, and even with a vaccination, the risk is too high for her to go out, even if everyone wore masks, and the masks fit. All she can hope for is her treatment is successful and her immune system allows her to rejoin her society, something she truly appreciates now, and her goal is to rejoin society without a mask to see smiles, and kiss little germ balls.
Rubbish masks exists. Therefore there is no point in wearing a good surgical-style mask, that is readily available in bulk at Lowe’s and Home Depot. Hmmm.
So, let me clarify: There is a year of solid evidence that the good surgical masks helped a lot in stopping the spread. (There is also century-old evidence from the “Spanish flu”.)
There is also now good data showing that the vaccine campaign alone is failing to stop the delta variant spike in the US. If you aren’t panicking yet, check out the latest data. Neither you, nor I, nor the most public-health-risky policies of the CDC can force the remaining eligible-but-unvaccinated population to get vaccinated.
But we can apply peer pressure to make sure they wear masks in public settings. Unfortunately, that requires all of us to wear masks. I’m happy to make that tiny sacrifice. Others seem to be afflicted with extreme American fragility.
Comparing whether the vaccine or a surgical mask is better on an individual basis is a red herring. The two together should have a multiplier effect. Even if masks are only 50% effective (which I think would be a way-low estimate), I’ll still opt for 95% effectiveness over 90% effectiveness (or 97.5% effectiveness, since I always wear two masks in public).
If you get lost in the math, here is a simple explanatory cartoon.
For the Northgate Link opening, I’d like to see commemorative face masks for Opening Day (surgical style, not the cheap red “rubbish” ones ST was giving away at stations a few months back), and I’d like ST to make sure Northgate Kaiser is open for the day and operating a vaccine clinic.
Daniel, I’m frankly disgusted that you have an immunocompromised loved one and think it’s okay to ignore masks after vaccination.
But I’m not surprised. Abled people regularly put their own comfort over disabled people’s ability to exist and survive without pain or fear of death.
I have a 10-pack of disposable surgical masks somebody gave me. I’m still on the first one because it has held up through a few dozen wearings and washings and is still going strong. It fits as tightly as my better masks and the elastic is as intact as ever. My only complaint is aesthetics: I don’t want to look like a hospital. So I usually wear cloth masks from Stark’s, a Portland/Vancouver vacuum-cum-mask manufacturer somebody on this blog suggested to me. The surgical mask takes just a few hours to air dry while the cloth masks take a day, so I use the surgical mask when I’m going out for a short period of time and don’t expect to run into anybody I want to impress.
P.S. Both the Stark’s and surgical masks have three layers.
I saw bandanas several months ago but I don’t think I’ve seen them recently. All the masks I see in central Seattle and on buses seem to be reasonable. I can’t tell from the outside how many layers they have, but they look substantial. And sometimes there’s somebody outside Macy’s handing out free masks.
Those tea leaves are great news. I’ve been vaccinated, I’m not wearing a mask. Simple as that.
And trying to keep mask mandates in place for the vaccinated is exactly the wrong incentive for getting the holdouts on board.
I believe the holdouts will keep holding out and piggy back the removal of the mask mandates and potentially spread infections (if infected), to other unvaccinated and a few vaccinated folks. Possibly many more infections will be spread once the delta and the lambda variants take hold in the region and the immunity from the vaccines taken in the spring start to wear off in the winter.
I wonder what Brent and Ness did before Covid 19 when no one wore masks? Are they saying it is safer for them to go out in public during Covid 19 with unvaccinated folks wearing cloth masks than before when there was no Covid 19 but no one wore masks?
[spam]
I wonder what Brent and Ness did before Covid 19 when no one wore masks?
Thank you for you interest in my schedule, Mr. Thompson. [Checks old calendar book.] I lobbied Congress to fund gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
I’ve been vaccinated, I’m not wearing a mask.
If you are riding transit right now, you are wearing a mask. I don’t believe you are obstinate enough to risk a confrontation and possible trespass warning from transit security.
And trying to keep mask mandates in place for the vaccinated is exactly the wrong incentive for getting the holdouts on board.
Ah, I must have missed that tsunami of reluctant people getting vaccinated just so they could take off their masks after the CDC misguidance came out. What incentive is left? They’re all getting to take off their masks now, *without* getting vaccinated. Smooth move, CDC.
Feel free to go into the grocery store without your mask, have people run away from you or give you angry glares. You do realize they see you as being rude, right?
I am vaccinated and, at this point, do not wear a mask anymore, unless required. Which, in practical terms, means wearing a mask only when riding the bus – even when I’m the only person on the bus.
Daniel Thompson is also right that most of the masks (including those available on board buses) are rubbish, and leak far too much air to be of much real use. It is possible to buy better masks that actually do protect you when worn properly (I have some), but it’s not possible or practical to enforce that. In practice, those that wear masks because they actually fear the disease will wear we’ll sealed masks offering good protection. And, those that wear masks only because someone is making them will wear the garbage masks that leave big air gaps around the nose and droop down to the chin. So, requiring masks doesn’t actually help much.
Some will wear garbage masks, which is still better than nothing. Some will just follow the rules — most of the riders — I predict, and if they don’t have surgical-style masks available, they will pick one up from the receptacle on the bus. Your argument is akin to we shouldn’t have wasted money developing the vaccines because some people will refuse to take them, and therefore they won’t be effective.
I’d much rather have a few wearing garbage masks and a few oblivious to the mask requirement, than everyone drinking the CDC’s filtered kool-aid that if you are vaccinated, you are completely safe to take your mask off forever.
I just heard about a breakthrough case in my home town who did not make it. His whole family, all vaccinated, were infected. His death was probably preventable, if he (or whichever member of his family contracted it first) had simply worn a mask. But they followed the advice of the CDC and it probably cost him his life.
“Rude” – LOL. Nobody’s running away from me or giving me angry glares at the store because the bulk of people where I shop are also vaccinated and unmasked.
And no, I’m not going unmasked on transit, because I’ve stopped riding it until the mask mandate is gone. Keeping it in place encourages a lot of other people to do the same. Pretty strange position for a transit advocate to take.
Daniel, your clear inability to use the “Reply” button correctly calls into question the efficacy of the LSAT, not to mention the degree of the UW Law School.
“…your clear inability to use the “Reply” button correctly…”
Lol. It is indeed baffling, isn’t it? (RQ)
You have to look at the vaccination rates in the local community to guide masking decisions. The places where the Delta outbreaks are happening are where vaccinations are low. In King County, vaccinations are high, with over 70% of adults fully vaccinated. In Seattle and Bellevue, vaccination rates are even higher. If Tri-cities has low vaccination rates, they can require universal masking on their transit system, but that shouldn’t force King County to do the same.
[ad hominem]
“Daniel, your clear inability to use the “Reply” button correctly calls into question the efficacy of the LSAT, not to mention the degree of the UW Law School.”
TT, I have raised this issue before. Some posts on STB have reply buttons directly below the post, some don’t, like your post above. According to Al I believe the best protocol is to find the nearest reply button if replying directly to a post, like this one. Or do you prefer someone simply reply at the end of the thread and quote or reference the post that are responding to? I am open to either approach.
The reply buttons go three levels deep. if the one you’re replying to doesn’t, go up to the parent, the one that’s a little left of the column you’re replying to. Right now I’m replying to your comment, which didn’t have a Reply button, so I went up the column until there was a Reply button just left of it, in this case asdf2’s 8:44 PM comment. It is confusing until you figure out how it works, and sometimes I make a mistake and post at the wrong level.
There, Mike explained how to do it, quite clearly. Thanks, Mike.
I grant that it is not intuitively obvious, but the rest of us have figured it out and for the most part use it properly. I will certainly admit to having made mistakes.
However, for a person who works in a profession ostensibly based on logical argument from a base of precedent and explicit legislation, to need an explanation ought to be embarrassing.
Thanks Mike for explaining this. Instead Tom Terrific spends several posts insulting me about not understanding this quirk without explaining how the system works, which is a pretty good difference between you and Mr. Terrific.
Hopefully Mike’s explanation helps you out, DT. Seriously, I think most of us regular blog readers want to follow your commentary but it can get lost when your replies aren’t nested in the proper spot. With that said, we’ve all messed up on this at one time or another.
[spam]
Have to disagree here – the vaccines are crushing the spread currently, far more effectively than masks and lockdowns ever did.
Making transit one of the only places in the US that permanently requires masks is a good way to make people think transit is uniquely and particularly dangerous. A great way to encourage people to buy cars and drive everywhere is to make masks required in every other transportation option.
Which is why I’m particularly bemused by your argument here:
“The county should take action to continue the mask requirement indefinitely (that is, until the pandemic is truly over, which is to say the virus is declared extinct…”
“Urging everyone to wear a mask when in public (especially indoors) around strangers and urging everyone to get vaccinated are both needed to win the war.”
So you want indoor and outdoor masks in all settings, not just transit? Does this include walking and biking outdoors? The virus won’t likely go extinct anytime soon, if ever.
I’m not generally worried about outdoors. though I have my masks on and ready to cover my nose and mouth if I am going to pass by someone. It really isn’t much of an inconvenience. Sometimes, maskless people will give me a wider berth. Fine.
I am worried about indoor places that we don’t have much option not to go into, like transit, grocery stores, schools, and occasionally medical facilities.
Sure, grocery stores have curbside pick-up for the smartphoned. The people on the other side of the information divide are kind of stuck having to go in, are less likely to have gotten vaccinated, and from what I’ve seen, are less likely to own or wear a mask.
I’d be okay with having just one masked-up grocery store at which I could shop safely. All the grocery store owners and the rest of the anti-maskers won’t even let me have one. Wearing a mask is a temporary inconvenience while doing one task. Not being able to shop for groceries because of grocers (including the co-ops) all racing to the bottom of public health protection efforts, and the government giving them cover to do it, is an all-day all-the time inconvenience for me now.
Brent, you and me both.
As the spouse of an RN, the idea of re-entering society after so many “friends,” neighbors, extended family members, co-workers, and businesses willingly chose to risk my spouse’s life in order to maintain their personal conveniences or financial outlook, just isn’t a priority. We’ll happily put our noses down and get our work done, but all of these paychecks over the past year have been hoarded. Many relationships have been strained, and many more completely severed. America showed its true colors this past year. At this point, I honestly don’t care if we never get back to a pre-pandemic normal ever again.
Next time your favorite (and maybe my favorite) small business closes their doors permanently, it will be partially as a result of folks like me who are done with all of it. America had a chance to do the right thing. It failed. And for me, that was the straw that broke the camel’s back.
PS, if you want to protect yourself, follow W.H.O. guidelines. They are more stringent than CDC. And not driven by capitalistic greed.
PSS, our carbon footprint fell tremendously this year. We hardly ever use our cars anymore, beyond two trips per week for a shift at the hospital, and a monthly trip to pick up groceries. We’re also growing much of our own food, this year with seeds stored from last year’s harvest. And baking bread. And making our own lattes. All with equipment we already owned.
The video shows how much Seattle has changed. The only things I recognized were Link, Ravenna Park, Ravenna Boulevard, and the aerial view of Northgate. I don’t know where that UW “W” is, the concrete skate park, the red stairs, etc.
It’s amusing that ST has a clip of people happily taking an escalator up but the camera angle just misses the lack of an escalator in the down portion. That platform may have a down escalator but many existing and future stations don’t.
What’s amusing to me is how a certain handsome gay heartthrob of mine is shown in the video only with female companionship. This is Seattle! It’s ok to show a same sex couple!
[spam]
@Al S.
Amen to that.
Late last night at Capitol Hill station, I saw a sardines-packed northbound train full of mostly mariners fans unloaded. One of the up escalators was out of service. It took a long time for the platform to clear up the remaining escalator. Some people pushed aside the caution barrier and walked up the broken escalator as stairs. At least one person ran up a moving “down” escalator to egress. A few people waited for a couple elevator cycles, but I didn’t see anyone opt for the newly opened stairwell.
It still bothers me that there are never reserved spaces inside our new Link stations to add elevators or escalators when the need arises or the funds arrive. Like freeway on and off ramps, escalators are natural constraint points and mechanical failures meter that flow significantly. Meanwhile U Village installed escalators in both directions for their new small parking garages.
The ST escalator standard is universally set at 95 percent no matter how many escalators are in a station. It seems to need to be higher where usage is heavier or alternatives aren’t effective.
I suppose, someday, we could make one of the stairwells the default path to the underground platform, and set both escalators at that end of the station to run upward. Of course, then, that makes that stairwell less available for emergency purposes.
If the “transit-grade” replacement escalators are more capable of reversing directions during a period of crushload, that would come in handy.
Great video. I think I can identify these places during the middle section of the video:
Block W at 17th Ave NE and NE 45th St
Thornton Place at Northgate
Ravenna Blvd protected bike lanes
?
?
Maple Leaf Reservoir Park
Burke Museum
Ravenna Park
SeaTac pedestrian walkway
?
Northgate Station
Roosevelt Station
U-district Station
17th Ave in Greek Row
Apparently the big W was installed in October of 2010 at a cost of $122,000:
https://segd.org/unexpected-‘w’-university-washington
Apparently it’s at the “main entrance” to campus, which I assume is the roadway at the north end that I have never used, as it is inconvenient to get to from pretty much everywhere except the residential area north of campus.
It also looks like in reality it’s completely surrounded by auto traffic, and nobody would ever walk past it like they show in the video as the place where they are walking is the middle of a road.
I have noticed Sound Transit taking photos like that before. I’m sure most companies do. I have a ST3 project update flyer with a picture of people walking on a trail with a light rail track directly behind it. It looks like the track is almost at their height. In order to take that picture, the photographer had to be almost laying on the ground. Otherwise, you would see more clutter in the photo, and the tracks would look alot higher. Which they are. The true scenes in some of their photos are borderline fake.
I’ve taken a picture with that W before, specifically when I was driving some out-of-towners around the city. It’s a good ‘place-making’ feature & wayfinding mark, particularly for someone arriving at the campus for the first time, and it’s also public art for bus riders using that entrance (a few routes loop through that entrance?)
That ‘main’ entrance is convenient if you aren’t already in Seattle and are driving into the city anyways, which is likely true for the vast majority of people *visiting* campus (staff and students presumably are much more likely to arrive by other modes). Visitors arriving by Link currently have the magnificent Rainier Vista, but with Northgate Link the pedestrian entrance from the west will be more important. The new Burke museum footprint helps, but I think there’s still work to be done to create more of an ‘entrance’ for those arriving on campus on foot for the first time.
“Apparently it’s [“W”] at the “main entrance” to campus, which I assume is the roadway at the north end that I have never used, as it is inconvenient to get to from pretty much everywhere except the residential area north of campus.”
Glenn, the “residential area” is Greek Row, and has incredible density. The “W” is there because this is the main entrance for students, and Greek Row for many is the heart of campus life. For example, when I lived in a house on 47th and 17th in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s there were nearly 100 people living in one single house, and as a freshman 35 sleeping in one room. That is the kind of density to make an urbanist salivate.
This Seattle Subway video showed up in my YouTube feed last night:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GwjvlgkBRXc
The gist of it is that the “realignment” is nothing more than forced schedule delays and that alternatives to timely delivery are not being pursued. In particular, the delays of Graham and 130th are highlighted as unacceptable.
That is hardly a surprise Al, except the “realignment” is much more than an extended schedule.
Never take any announcement by ST at face value.
Begin (and end) with the money. Although some think ST has a mandate to continue uniform tax rates forever I don’t think four of the subareas, voters, or legislature would agree. Extending the taxes would require ST 4, to complete ST 3, and would fail at the ballot.
Ross gets at the nut — although I disagree with his idea of a convertible tunnel first — because it isn’t affordable: what is driving this is the four other subareas now realize DSTT2 is not necessary for their capacity, they didn’t get billion dollar tunnels, and they really don’t have $275 million each lying around for WSBLE, let alone a second $275 million for the real costs.
If N. King Co. doesn’t have the money for the tunnel (alone) don’t start digging on the hope it will find the money somewhere later on. It won’t. Construction costs and ROW costs are increasing to fast to cover through a schedule extension. The YouTube video simply states the painful truth: N. King Co. does not have the future revenue for WSBLE, OR stations at Graham St. or 130th. Or of course they would get built. Basically Tier 4 in N. King Co. is all ST 3 projects b
A true “realignment” would have begun with a third party analysis of just how much ST 3 revenue N. King Co. will actually have through 2041. My guess is not much, certainly not enough for any tunnel, two very expensive bridges, and WSBLE.
But ST and the Board already know that, so why have it publicized by a third party who would find a much larger deficit in N. King Co.
Instead the first rule in politics is extend the problem until someone else is in office or at an agency like ST. Make someone else break the bad news to the citizens, ideally after Dow’s run for Governor.
The tunnel is fasting? That is two funny.
ENOUGH with the lies about ST2 consuming all of North King’s ST3 revenues. North Link wS under budget. Lynnwood Link is $200 million over budget, but only half is North King’s responsibility. So County is responsible for everything North of 185th. The Federal Way extension is 100% South King.
You are entitled to your reactionary opinions about Seattle, but you shoulxnot be allowed to lie over and over.
Block him, please, Frank.
“is under budget”
“Sno County”
“north of 185th”
“should not”
What remains a political mystery to me is why Board members from outside of North King are so willing to sign on to the costly DSTT2 delay rather than to force a cheaper way to open the project more timely. Politically, projects locally funded entirely by one subarea are usually given unquestioning support from the other subareas. However, since all subareas are kicking in dollars, why aren’t the Board members from other subareas pushing harder to revisit the project? Balducci seems to be the only one who is encouraging a revisiting of the current DSTT concept to see if billions can be saved and the project can be kept on schedule — and East King doesn’t have the “urgency” to build Link that Snohomish, South King and Pierce should have.
Dow as governor? Did Bob Ferguson die or has someone started a rumor that he was born in Kenya and therefore not eligible to run for governor?
Both Peel and Balducci are from outside North King, so the other subareas are divided. This is just a preliminary phase; we’ll hear other boardmembers’ positions later.
Dow is running for another term as King County Executive. ($)
I certainly hope so. Bob Ferguson would make a terrible governor. I believe that AG is a poor training ground for a governor. The law hinges on black and whitedistinctions. It takes a much greater flexibility to be governor of all the citizens of the state.
@TomT
“North Link wS under budget. Lynnwood Link is $200 million over budget, but only half is North King’s responsibility.”
If by North Link you are referring to Northgate Link, while it is true that this extension project is anticipated to come in under budget, that is largely due to an additional $50M contingency left over from the U-Link extension project being transferred to the former. Additionally, this readjusted budget is still greater than the original ST2 YOE estimate. As far as Lynnwood Link is concerned, that extension was some $700+M over its YOE estimate when the project was baselined in May 2018 (see Resolution R2018-16). I believe the $200M figure that you mention is the approximate amount the planners shaved off the project after their “value engineering” workshops were held during the eight-month delay in baselining. I’m not exactly sure of the current subarea split on the extra costs, but it is probably close to the 50-50 split you mention.
Tlsgw, you are correct. The proper amount is $700M. But that is still only $350M for North King, and ST3 expected revenues for the subarea are about $7B over the life of the bond amortization. IOW, it’s a classic “rounding error”.
“IOW, it’s a classic “rounding error”.”
This is hardly a rounding error in the context of the financial plan for this subarea within the confines of the ST2 capital program, even with said plan pushed out the additional year to 2024. Looking at this from the perspective of all the additional revenues for this subarea from the ST3 program, which actually are far greater than what you’ve stated above, misses the point and actually serves to bolster DanielT’s argument. There are only so many ways that these increased costs for all of the overruns on ST2 projects, such as is the case with the Lynnwood Link extension, can be met: project delay to extend the period of tax collections, getting lucky and realizing higher than expected revenues, additional borrowing, shifting capital program dollars (DanielT’s narrative) or some combination of these strategies.
I used $7B because that is the North King portion of the headline $15B the whole project was supposed to cost in 2016 dollars. Yes, that is unrealistic, but the only “knowable” value at this time.
Three hundred and fifty million dollars IS “a lot of money” for sure, but is only 5% of the admittedly too small amount of the “project” as voted on.
If as has been asserted ST3 taxes can continue to be levied until the bonds they back are amortized and the Board can continue to issue bonds to pay for the approved project list, than what can stop them from “realigning” the projects to any schedule?
Sure, they might be voted out of office, but their successors will be faced with the same problems and, very likely, “solve” them in much the same way.
Like the initial segment of Second Avenue Subway in New York, once construction begins on a DSTT2 the “sunk cost” argument will almost certainly carry the day.
Remember that the Legislature which convenes in 2022 will be even more heavily weighted toward the Sound Transit District service area. With the exception of Clark County, The District is the most rapidly growing region of the State. The Leg will ratify whatever is needed for Sound Transit needs to succeed.
“Three hundred and fifty million dollars IS “a lot of money” for sure, but is only 5% of the admittedly too small amount of the “project” as voted on.”
Not to beat a dead horse here, but that’s not correct either. The blown estimate was off by more than $700M. (Again, see the aforementioned board resolution.) The initial project estimate was $2.4B, all in. Thus the miss is in the neighborhood of almost 30%, or 15% per subarea assuming a 50-50 split. I won’t belabor the point any further other than to restate that this is far from a rounding error in the scope of the ST2 financial plan.
As far as the remainder of your reply, I tend to agree with your assessment of the politics involved in “solving” such capital program funding shortages. I think we are on the same page in that respect.
I was curious about what kinds of advanced planning is going on in Downtown Everett. I found this new station location concept that puts the Link station two blocks closer to Downtown and Arena.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/536d5952e4b0074de674821b/t/5c1d3bad0ebbe8b64de8bbec/1545419709446/Metro%2520Everett%2520Subarea%2520Plan_Final_8-29-18_web.pdf
Any interesting thoughts on what else should be happening in Downtown Everett?
TT, there is no reason to get hysterical. I never mentioned in my post ST using ST 3 revenue to complete ST 2 in N. King Co., although that is my suspicion.
But it doesn’t matter. A few months ago ST stated it has a $12.5 billion shortfall. Then it is $7.9 billion. For cost estimation errors alone, although future revenue is the real concern, fare-box and general.
No one knows how ST is calculating these figures, ST would never allow an outside third party audit, I don’t know if this includes the true cost of DSTT2, or the common 30% to 50% cost contingency on these huge public projects.
What I do know is it means DSTT2 is not affordable, which makes WSBLE pointless.
To answer Al’s question, the reason the four other subareas don’t want a less expensive tunnel option is because they don’t want to pay $275 million each. They love the idea of a WS stub to Sodo. It costs them nothing. Ross gets this. A less expensive tunnel will still cost them $275 million.
These four subareas now understand there is plenty of capacity in DSTT1 for their light rail. TT even talks about enough capacity in DSTT1 for a WSBLE. They know ST lied to them about capacity to get them to agree to pay for 1/2 of DSTT2, and are angry about it, since ST lowballed the costs of their ST 3 projects as well.
The stub from WS to Sodo is such a terrible idea, but no one really asks why ST came up with such a dumb “realignment” plan.
Because ST and the board knew there was going to be a revolt over the four subareas paying 1/2 of DSTT2 when it does not benefit them. $275 million is a lot of money for three of theses subareas. So ST and the Board selected a realignment in which there is no DSTT2 and the four other subareas don’t have to contribute $275 million each, which they were going to make a big fight over.
Luckily ST’s dishonest costs estimations for ST 3 in N. King Co. did the trick for the other subareas, plus a pandemic.
N. King Co. can build a dozen stubs if it so chooses (and has the money for) because the four other subareas don’t have to contribute toward stubs. They only have to contribute to a second tunnel according to ST 3, and there ain’t going to be a second tunnel.
End of story. Four subareas just realized $275 million for their own projects.
Yes you have said that, over and over. The other folks who follow the blog regularly know you’re lying.
Not exactly lying but making unsubstantiated a priori assertions: “DSTT2 is not affordable”, and “These four subareas now understand there is plenty of capacity in DSTT1 for their light rail. TT even talks about enough capacity in DSTT1 for a WSBLE. They know ST lied to them about capacity to get them to agree to pay for 1/2 of DSTT2”.
If he’d said “I think”. “I assume”, “probably”, etc, I woudn’t complain. But he presents them as definite, as absolute facts. Is he a transit engineer or accountant who somehow figured out what the all the others missed? Does he have back-end conversations or family ties to several boardmembers to know what they’re thinking? Why single out DSTT2? Why not talk about the Ship Canal crossing or Duwamish crossing or the proposed Ballard and West Seattle tunnels, all of which push the boundaries of affordability?
The fact is that DSTT1 might not be overrcrowded without DSTT2, and the full Ballard and West Seattle might break the edge of affordability. Not definite, maybe. And DSTT2 is not just about passenger capacity but train capacity. DSTT1 will be full with trains every 3 minutes on two lines. ST says it would need capital improvements to get to 1.5 minutes reliably. It decided not to pursue those when it adopted DSTT2. The passenger crowding is not just about Ballard and West Seattle but also about Everett and Tacoma. It’s all one thing. And ST rightly pointed out that all subareas should pay for their share of trains in both tunnels, rather than those in DSTT1 getting a free ride because ST arbitrarily assigned those lines to DSTT1. And people from all subareas go to SLU and Seattle Center, which is on DSTT2.
Finally, ST’s estimates are these can all be done within a few years’ delay. Daniel has given no concrete evidence to refute this. If it goes with the four tiers Keel is recommending, then all of DSTT2, Ballard, and West Seattle will be done within 6 years of schedule. Also importantly, the three Stride lines will be in that timeframe too. The only things pushed out to 10 years are other things. Even if it turns out that the North King Link projects need to be pushed out even further, maybe it’ll be only three more years, or ten years total. That’s nothing to panic about, especially since we’ll have ST2 Link as a fallback during it, which we don’t have now. You can grumble about ST getting more years of taxes if it extends the timelines, but that seems like a minor issue, well within precedent. If that’s the worst problem we have, we’re not doing too bad overall. And we can focus our energy on getting better bus service around Link and in non-Link corridors.
“TT even talks about enough capacity in DSTT1 for a WSBLE.”
TT is not ST, nor a transit engineer as far as we can tell. So you can’t just take is word for it as absolute. We all experienced buses and trains sharing the tunnel, and have different impressions of it. Buses definitely are less reliable than trains because traffic throws them off-schedule, they break down in the tunnel more often than trains, and they take time to open their wheelchair lifts at arbitrary times. This leads to bus bunching and trains waiting behind buses. So yes, it’s possible to have some kind of enhanced C and D lines in the tunnel, but I doubt enough people would be willing to sacrifice Link’s subway-quality reliability it has finally achieved with buses gone from the tunnel, not after we’ve worked so hard to get it.
And that subway-quality reliability will benefit a larger cross-section of the population when ST2 is finished. It’ll benefit even Ballard and West Seattle to a limited extent, since they’ll have access to Link at U-District and SODO. And remember that not all trips are to downtown. If you’re going from Ballard to Bellevue or Ballard to Capitol Hill, taking the 44 to U-District may be just as good as taking the D or 40 to downtown and transferring there.
Mike, in no way have I ever advocated putting buses back in the tunnel. For one thing, there’s no longer a north entrance. Even bus-afficionado Ross wouldn’t suggest it.
If DSTT2 can’t be built and none of the ideas others and I have floated for getting at least SLU served using DSTT1 are feasible, then remove all private vehicle traffic from Third from 5AM until 11PM. Also, to give the buses easier flow, also remove cross-traffic from all east-west streets between Yesler and Virginia except those with bus service (e.g. Virginia, Stewart, Pine, Pike, Spring, Madison, Cherry (for the express lanes), Columbia, James and Yesler.
Run the D and C every five minutes all day every day until the wee hours of the morning. The 38 Limited does that, overlaying an equally frequent 38 Local.
Apologies. For clarity I should have said “In San Francisco the 38 Limited…..”
This quote is from TT’s post above [I note STB tends to not place a “reply” button directly after TT’s posts]:
“If as has been asserted ST3 taxes can continue to be levied until the bonds they back are amortized and the Board can continue to issue bonds to pay for the approved project list, than what can stop them from “realigning” the projects to any schedule?
“Sure, they might be voted out of office, but their successors will be faced with the same problems and, very likely, “solve” them in much the same way.”
“Like the initial segment of Second Avenue Subway in New York, once construction begins on a DSTT2 the “sunk cost” argument will almost certainly carry the day.”
“Remember that the Legislature which convenes in 2022 will be even more heavily weighted toward the Sound Transit District service area. With the exception of Clark County, The District is the most rapidly growing region of the State. The Leg will ratify whatever is needed for Sound Transit needs to succeed.”
Not only does TT get the numbers wrong, he completely misunderstands subarea equity. Yes, the legislature will be more heavily weighted for the Puget Sound region in 2022, but there are five separate subareas in this ST taxing district/legislature area. So you will have N. King Co. vs all of eastern WA and every other ST district in western WA for bailing out DSTT2.
Even if ST could extend bond payments indefinitely the ST legislation still requires subarea equity and uniform tax rates. There is zero chance four subareas would agree to modify subarea equity, and if ST even suggested modifying subarea equity or extending bond payments to complete WSBLE Pierce Co. would secede, and next would be East King Co. because EKC can’t hitch its ST revenue to a train wreck. The N. King Co. subarea alone does not have the future revenue for DSTT2 or WSBLE if uniform tax rates were modified, and so end of story. There is not enough money, but the spine got built so make that as good as possible with the money available.
From what I hear the four other subareas are balking at paying 1/2 of the $2.2 billion 2016 estimated cost of DSTT2 as provided in ST 3 because: 1. the estimate is about 1/2 the actual current cost and they certainly won’t agree to pay more; 2. it does not benefit them; 3. they feel ST duped them into agreeing to the deal on the claim DSTT2 was necessary to meet their subarea’s capacity (the spine); and 4. they don’t have the first $275 million because ST underestimated project costs and overestimated farebox and general fund revenue in their subareas as well (except for East King Co. whose general fund revenue looks pretty strong even though ridership recovery was wildly overestimated by ST, although there is no place to spend it — wisely at least).
There is virtually no chance the four other subareas will agree to sign on to an unknown completion cost for DSTT2 that does not benefit them at all (and they know that now), and neither will the state legislature. There is no one to “bail out” the N. King Co. subarea if it starts on DSTT2 and exceeds $2.2 billion, which is a certainty.
Uniform tax rates to complete DSTT2 and WSBLE in N. King Co. (basically ST 4) would create way too much revenue in the other subareas, especially East King Co., and non-uniform rates to complete DSTT2 would be crippling for the N. King Co. subarea (Seattle) that has many other funding issues, like $3.5 billion in bridge repair/replacement and the homeless issue (Charter Amendment 29 alone dedicates 12% of Seattle’s entire general fund for 5-6 years to affordable and emergency housing, but even with wildly optimistic housing costs houses maybe 20% of the current homeless in Seattle).
Although Tisgwm’s explanation of ST 2 costs is helpful, I would like to clarify that I think all three factors are at work with the “realignment”: 1. the cost underestimation in ST 2 and ST 3, although that should not be a surprise to those who follow these issues, although the amount of the costs and how quickly ROW and construction costs are increasing tends to rule out the plan to simply extend projects to collect more revenue; 2. using ST 3 revenue to complete ST 2 projects, which is the smallest of the problems but still a problem when N. King Co. has no margin for error; and 3. the really big issue: short term revenue losses due to the pandemic, but more importantly long term revenue losses due to lower farebox recovery on some runs, and lower general fund tax revenues in the N. King Co. subarea post pandemic.
Ross has raised the issue pretty well: is there any other option dumber than a stub from WS to Sodo before DSTT2 is built, which includes all the cost of a new no-loss-of-car-capacity bridge ( a certain demand if only a stub to Sodo is guaranteed) plus light rail with access to …. Sodo, plus all the hassles of first/last mile access in WS. If this crazy idea had any hope Ballard would be up in arms. Are ST and the Board really that stupid, or is there something else, like politics, at play?
WSBLE does not have any hope, and both Ballard and WS know the realignment means no DSTT2, which means no rail between WS and Ballard, which is better for WS because of the excellent access to I-5 and I-90 across the bridge.
Had ROW and construction costs not escalated so quickly, ST could have weathered the short loss of revenue from the pandemic (in part set off by federal funding), but it always banked on very high increases in farebox recovery (ridership) and general fund revenues in N. King Co. (Seattle) to cover the deal with the devil made to pass ST 3. When those took a dive the gig was up.
No way the Board allows ST to begin digging DSTT2 without the true cost known (including 30% to 50% cost contingency) and the funding in place for both DSTT2 and WSBLE. But once ST acknowledges the true cost the other subareas will balk, knowing they all just banked an extra $275 million.
In the end, it really was a “realignment”, sold as a reschedule, because most people prefer to believe pretty lies than an ugly truth.
“: is there any other option dumber than a stub from WS to Sodo before DSTT2 is built..,”
The political forces of getting West Seattle’s Link stub first may be irreversible. With this in mind, it’s the quality of the SODO transfer that can make it more useful. I think this needs to be a focus of concern.
Right now, ST prefers making every WS rider make two level transfers at SODO. Each transfer will require walking to a staircase or elevator or maybe an escalator (probably not one going down) twice. That’s going to take a rider an extra 1-3 minutes depending on how mobile they are and where on the platform they are.
If same-direction cross-platform transfer platforms are built at SODO, a rider could walk the 20 feet between trains in less than 10 seconds. That transfer penalty becomes much less of a disincentive.
If the WS stub outcome looks likely or is confirmed, can there be a more outspoken effort to change the SODO station layout? As a non-subway station, ST would incur a much lower cost for changing track configurations here (as opposed to the ID or Westlake stations) and the benefits would last for decades.
One other thought: the timing of stations north of Lynnwood may necessitate that the “stub” will be the Rainier Valley – Seatac – Tacoma Dome part of the system. That would mean that every Seatac traveler, SE Seattle resident and South King resident would be forced to change trains at SODO (instead of WS residents). This is because train drivers wouldn’t have a break between Tacoma Dome and the terminus somewhere in Snohomish County. Right now, 2038 is the date for both the DSTT2 and South Everett Link extension — but if the latter happens first, ST would almost be forced to make a stub out of the current line.
“From what I hear the four other subareas are balking at paying 1/2 of the $2.2 billion 2016 estimated cost of DSTT2”
Where are you getting this?
“There is virtually no chance the four other subareas will agree to sign on to an unknown completion cost for DSTT2 that does not benefit them at all (and they know that now),”
They’re doing it right now. The two directions the board is potentially leaning toward are Peel’s four tiers which finish DSTT2 in the second tier up to six years later, and Balducci’s vague concept that she says can get all projects closer to their original schedule. There’s no motion to cancel DSTT2, or such vague uncertainties that we don’t know what it will cost, or any plan that doesn’t include DSTT2. I haven’t heard any city or county politician or any large group of voters say we should ditch the tunnel and that that’s the #1 most urgent thing in ST3. That all seems to be in your imagination.
The subareas are paying for their share of trains in both tunnels. If that happens to add up to 50% for non-North King, that’s accidental, each subarea is paying their share.
Daniel, after Mike explained how the “Reply” button works you STILL didn’t get it. “STB” does not “place” a reply button after posts it judges as “worthy” of a reply. The software only places “Reply” buttons on the original post, original comments and on “first-level” replies [e.g direct replies to an original comment] Any reply to a reply does not get a “Reply” itself. Instead, to reply to a reply to a comment (or any further replies), you reply to the reply and either “@” the comment, address the person by name, or let the content identify the target.
To the content of your Jeremiad, you certainly may be correct: the entirety of the District may attempt to secede from The District, but the courts will absolutely forbid them to do so. Counties are administrative divisions of the State which calls the shots and is ultimately responsible for the Sound Transit bonds. “East King” is not even a county, bit rather an accounting function.
The Legislature is not going to allow the State’s fiscal record to be sullied by a bunch of pouting MOTU’s in the Box Seats.
Hot Take: The WS high bridge will fail and be decommissioned after the WS to SoDo Link segment is open but before DSTT2 opens. President Constantine will visit Seattle for the ceremonial demolition and give a speech referencing his immense foresight in insisting on the priority of WS-SoDo over the vociferous objections of the nationally renowned bloggers of STB.
AJ, missing Sam while he is on summer vacation.
Al, you might want to re-post your original question about Everett….
Al, with hot-seating the Northgate tail track could turn twelve minute Federal Way trains. The five stations beyond Westgate on The Spine are one less than those on the Ballard Extension, and the mileage is almost identical.
Rainier Beach could do the same for Lynnwood trains which don’t go East. Daniel assures us that East Link will be empty except for those AM and PM Specials to The Hamptons with parlor cars for the MOTU’s. So why run East Link more often than every twelve minutes?
Doing this leaves room for a pair of trains from Lynnwood to SoDo, one of which hot turns at Forrest Street and the other of which goes to West Seattle when that is finished.
This gives the minimum six minute headways allowable on the at-grade run down Martin Luther King Blvd, twelve minutes in each of the extensions beyond IDS/Rainier Beach, and three minute headways through North Seattle where they are essential.
Grant, this means three-six-three-six service between Lynnwood and Northgate, but waiting six minutes half the time and three the other is a reasonable proposition
All this can comfortably fit into DSTT1 with three minute headways at absolutely no capital cost. Yes, hot seating is spendy for operations, but not ruinously. There must be two operators more than required to run the trains in simple two-track terminal service.
With modest capital costs, Sea-Tac could be the southern turnbuckle for the Lynnwood-Rainier Beach trains.
“turnback”, not “turnbuckle”. Darn autocorrect!
What does hot seating and hot turning mean?
My understanding of hot-seating (and by extension, hot-seating) is swapping in a second driver when the first one is scheduled in for a break, so that the train can keep running while the first driver takes their break. That way, you don’t have trains idling while the driver gets their union 10 or their lunch hour.
*hot-turning)
Nathan, you’re right. That has been a common usage of the term. So I probably should have used “double seating”.
I’ve explained the process briefly several times in longer comments, but here it is in detail:
1) A train to be short-turned using a tail track just outbound from a station enters its terminal station. As it arrives an announcement “This train is terminating at this station. Please leave the vehicle.” plays.
2) A second operator boards the trailing car.
3) As the train leaves the station and enters the tail track, the second operator makes her or his way to the trailing control cab, unlocks, enters the cab and prepares to take control of the train.
4) When the train comes to a stop at the end of the tail track, the operator who brought the train “transfers control” to the trailing operator by some means. I believe only one control cab can move the train at a time as a safety measure, so this may require that trains be specially equipped to make this transfer quickly.
5) When control has been transferred, the second operator signals the ATC that the train is ready to resume service and awaits the signal to enter the running track.
6) When the train re-enters the station, the first operator deboards for a break. Depending on the operating agreement, that person becomes the next or second person awaiting another sjhort-turning train.
This is essentially what happens any time a train turns using a tail track, except that it usually is the same operator who moves the same train both directions. That operator has to “walk the train” between the two control cabs. That takes time and is a lot to ask in a winter rainstorm.
So what new destinations near these stations will seem more accessible with Northgate Link’s opening?
I’m particularly looking forward to getting to the U-District and the Meany Center for performances. I may also visit Green Lake a bit more as well.
It’s not just new access to the 3 new station areas, it is new and improved access all up and down the line, including improved access to neighborhoods adjacent to existing stations.
For example, as a Northender, I’m looking forward to being able to go to Husky games without game day traffic, Cap Hill without parking woes, and the ID without crossing DT. And when I need duck for confit I can go to Bob’s in CC to get it.
Think of it. With the opening of these 3 stations the number of available station pairs goes up by 43%. That represents a lot of possibilities!
Yes, exactly.
Here on Lake City Way, I’m eagerly awaiting the doubled frequency of bus 522 to 15 minutes and its truncation at Roosevelt Link. It is going to be a total game changer for my transit use.
1) No more slogging through the backups on the general purpose lanes of the ship canal bridge on reverse peak trips.
2) More reliable One Bus Away times for northbound 522 buses, since it will be starting at Roosevelt. One Bus Away used to show wildly varying times since it wouldn’t update between Pike St. and NE 85th St.
3) The 522 now effectively goes to the U-district as well with a Link transfer. Going to the U-District used to require walking up to the 73 or down to the 372.
4) On weekends, instead of waiting for a 30 minute bus downtown to get home, I’ll be transferring from Link at the much nicer Roosevelt. Looks like there will probably be a shared northbound stop at Roosevelt for 67, 73, 322, and 522 for quick transfers to one of these northbound buses at most times. I’ll just get on the one that seems most convenient at the time. The northbound stops for these buses used to be in scattered areas.
5) Obviously looking forward to quick Link rides to Capitol Hill etc., but also looking forward to less obvious things like being able to take Link from Roosevelt to Sodo to get to Alki on the 50 without needing to transfer to the C downtown. And being able to use the above-mentioned better northbound transfer at Roosevelt when returning from places like Fremont (62) or Golden Gardens (45).
6) Although less popular with some on this blog, I’m also coming around on the idea of peak expresses to SLU/Denny Triangle (64) and First Hill (322). I don’t work in these areas, but I might someday and for the many people in the 522 corridor who already do, they will be benefiting from most of what I mention above, plus a two-seat ride to their places of work as long as they’re on a bus that connects to Roosevelt or Northgate. I think it’s a reasonable compromise because it gives so many more people a two-seat ride who probably would just drive if it were a 3-seat ride.
The 522 now effectively goes to the U-district as well with a Link transfer. Going to the U-District used to require walking up to the 73 or down to the 372.
So I’m guessing you are on Lake City Way, but not Lake City (e. g. somewhere around 20th/85th). The corridor in general will benefit from better connecting transit, but that area will especially benefit. It is a bit of a hole, with only the infrequent 522 and 73 to get you anywhere. Since the 522’s last stop is 20th/80th, it means to get anywhere but downtown or Lake City, you need to walk. This will be a big improvement.
I wonder how many people will transfer to Link, or transfer to another bus to get to the U-District. You will be able to catch the 45 or 73 to get you to The Ave., while you can catch the 67 to go down Roosevelt. I suppose it depends on where you are going, and how often the buses and trains are running. Given how few buses cover that area in between, the 522 should really go to the U-District. Hopefully when Metro takes over that corridor it will.
On weekends, instead of waiting for a 30 minute bus downtown to get home, I’ll be transferring from Link at the much nicer Roosevelt. Looks like there will probably be a shared northbound stop at Roosevelt for 67, 73, 322, and 522 for quick transfers to one of these northbound buses at most times.
The 322 doesn’t run on weekends, but if you are trying to go north, those other buses (along with 79) will get you in the general area. This begs the question: Are there readers by the bus stops outside the Roosevelt Station area? I haven’t been there in a while and don’t remember them. It seems like they would be useful for exactly the situation you describe. The 73 might get you a couple blocks closer, but as you exit the station, you see a 522. Do you take it, or wait?
“I suppose it depends on where you are going, and how often the buses and trains are running.”
Right-o. I would take Link if I’m going to within a few blocks of 43rd & Brooklyn or on campus. I’d take a bus if I’m going closer to 55th, 50th, or 40th. The 45 and 67 southbound both stop at 65th & Roosevelt so you have two frequent routes, and sometimes both of them get close enough to where you want to go. Northbound it’s a different story since they stop on different streets so you have to choose beforehand.
There are no bus-stop ORCA readers at 65th & Roosevelt. And I’m not sure how you’d take the 73 because will it really share a stop with the other routes, or will you go to the 73 stop and find it’s the least frequent?
> the 522 should really go to the U-District. Hopefully when Metro takes over that corridor it will.
Yeah. This would get you to UW or get you a 2-seat ride between Lake City Way and Bellevue (271), Eastlake (70), Ballard (44), and Central District (48), which which be really nice. But if I had to choose between this and frequency to Roosevelt, I’d take the frequency. Double frequencies with East Link will also take the edge off those 3-seat trips in a few years.
> And I’m not sure how you’d take the 73 because will it really share a stop with the other routes, or will you go to the 73 stop and find it’s the least frequent?
I haven’t yet seen a bus stop layout map for Roosevelt Station, but I was assuming the 73 would share a northbound stop with the 67 etc. at Roosevelt, since it’s being re-routed to Roosevelt/12th between Ravenna Blvd and Lake City Way according to the proposed Northgate Link restructure.
Metro is not planning to take over the corridor. Metro is focusing on the 25th and 35th Avenue corridors, not the Lake City-Roosevelt corridor. ST apparently made a late decision to send the 522 to Roosevelt instead of continuing to downtown, and when the 522 goes away it’s not clear that anything will replace it: a route from Lake City Way to Roosevelt or the U-District (to replace the former 72) isn’t in Metro’s 2025 or 2040 plans at least.
No service at all down Lake City Way to Roosevelt leaves a big hole, especially for a corridor that has bus service today on the 522. In 2016, Metro had an excuse for the hole, that too many service hours were being spent running rush hour service down I-5 to downtown, which was higher priority. In 2024, they don’t have that excuse anymore.
How Roosevelt->Lake City fits into the broader transit network, there are multiple ways to do it, the key is to just pick one and go with it. Maybe the 62 could form a branch, with every other bus alternating between Lake City and Sand Point, after Roosevelt? Maybe the 372 moves to Roosevelt and some other route (perhaps Lake City->Bitter Lake, if 130th St. station every gets built) gets extended to take over the 25th Ave. corridor.
Metro is not planning to take over the [Lake City Way] corridor.
I disagree. I’ve talked to planners, and they are thinking about it. This makes sense, because eventually they will have to take over the corridor. Once ST runs their Stride bus from Bothell to 145th, the 522 route will be gone. This means no service on one of the more productive corridors in Seattle. There will be something there.
In theory it could consist of peak-only service, but I doubt it. Somehow they found enough money to run the 73 and 79 — at worst they would run a bus every half hour along there. I think 15 minute service is to be expected.
Like every change, we can’t think of this in isolation. Altogether, there are 8 corridors that run through Lake City (although some may be considered sub-corridors). Starting in a clockwise direction, heading due east, these are (with their current buses):
1) 125th to Sand Point Way (75)
2) 35th Ave. NE (65th)
3) Lake City Way, then 25th (372)
4) Lake City Way to its end — right now it continues onto the freeway, eventually it will go to Roosevelt Way (522)
5) Lake City Way to Northgate Way (75)
6) 125th (westbound) (41)
7) 30th Ave. (northbound) (65)
8) Lake City Way to at least 145th (northbound) 522/372
With the proposed restructures, the pairings are:
1 and 6 (the bus just keeps going straight on 125th).
2 and 7 (65)
3, 4 and 8 (both the 372 and 522 just keep going north)
5 is not paired. It will layover by the Lake City Fred Meyer (where the 41 currently ends).
With Lynnwood Link, all of that looks good to me. With or without a 130th station, it still works. The only issue is with corridors 3 and 4 (from the south end of Lake City Way). The first thing that has to be determined is if they can find a layover/turnaround spot near 145th. If so, then both of the 3, 4 buses would be terminated there. That means running a new bus up Lake City Way (like so: https://goo.gl/maps/j38WAeSYYXSVs6xv6) and also terminating the 372 at 145th.
If they can’t find a turnaround spot, then one of the buses is sent to Kenmore, while the other bus terminates by the Lake City Fred Meyer. I would terminate the 372 there, since it is shorter. From a service cost, it wouldn’t matter, which is why it is easier to think of this as a new route (with the 372 unchanged).
That means that even if they can’t find a layover at 145th, Metro is on the hook for additional service from Lake City to the U-District. Worse case scenario, they just run the bus to the Roosevelt Station. This is a pretty short addition (https://goo.gl/maps/kdfrWqg7DPLyB7Si7). Given the number of people that would ride this, and the speed, this would be a very cost effective bus.
I haven’t yet seen a bus stop layout map for Roosevelt Station, but I was assuming the 73 would share a northbound stop with the 67 etc. at Roosevelt, since it’s being re-routed to Roosevelt/12th between Ravenna Blvd and Lake City Way according to the proposed Northgate Link restructure.
I was thinking the same thing. This is not an obvious decision — they could have kept it on 15th, which is significantly faster, and would provide coverage where there are significant number of riders (the high school, as well as the new apartments being built around it). But the advantage of moving it to Roosevelt/12th, is that it becomes a “might as well take it” bus. If you are in Pinehurst trying to get to Link, you will probably take the 347/348 (since they are more frequent) but if the 73 happens along, you might as well take it. If you are headed north or south on Roosevelt between 75th and Ravenna, you will probably take another bus, but if the 73 comes along, then you might as well take it. This includes the area by the station. This will boost ridership, making the route seem stronger than it really is. If the bus was timed with other routes, this would be fine, but it won’t be, making it a relic, and the result of poor planning.
I was wrong about the 79 in my comment earlier. While it does go north, it runs along 65th and turns at 15th. This makes it practically useless for someone heading north, unless they are going very close to 75th (e. g. if they are going from the Roosevelt station to 78th you would be better off catching the 73 or 522). On the other hand, if you are heading east, towards Sand Point it would work if you miss the 62. Given the lack of significant destinations there (even when combined with the 74) and the overall low density of the route, I think the 79 will perform very poorly when it runs infrequently (which is most of the day). People will find alternatives, just because they are a lot more frequent.
I think by “the corridor” Mike meant Lake City Way to U District via Roosevelt.
The KCM LRP shows the 372 (more or less) upgraded to Rapid Ride, which is OK for connecting to UW but doesn’t connect Lake City Way to the U District. It looks like Ross’ corridor #4 will not be served if ST retires the STX522 once Stride-522 opens. To take the trip Ross sketched on Google Maps will require a transfer somewhere. If KCM runs a 522 express to SLU/First Hill, there should be a good transfer to the frequent bus on 15th, but otherwise riders will need to follow the grid rather than take a very convenient diagonal route.
I think it’s fine if Lake City to U-District is a 2-seat ride after Lynnwood, after all, there will be many 1-seat rides that will become 2-seats with the Lynnwood restructure. But I think this route deletion is more notable because it’s a trip pairing many people may plan around and the transfer penalty will be perceived as higher given the shorter overall distance compared to most of the other 1-set rides that will be sunset at the same time.
I think ST’s late decision to send the 522 to Roosevelt — which transit fans have asked ST to do for years — threw Metro by surprise, and Metro’s formal plans haven’t caught up to it. It’s good that Metro’s planners are valuing it behind the scenes.
Historically this was route 72, which was deleted with U-Link. The 72 didn’t go to Roosevelt but it did go to 15th and University Way close to it. The problem was it ran only every 30-60 minutes so it was hard to time your trip to it. The 72 was the one corridor of the 71/72/73/74/372/65 that was completely lost in U-Link. The implicit argument was that it was too redundant with the 372 and 73.
The 372 does go to the U-District, it just goes through U-Village and the Montlake bottleneck first. So instead of pedestrian-orented Roosevelt and University Heights you get residential-only 25th and car-oriented U-Village instead.
The 372’s upgrade to RapidRide is unlikely, as all new RapidRides have been deferred due to lack of money, including the 62, K (Totem Lake-Factoria), 7, 40, 44, and 48. Only a few lines are going through: the G (Madison) because it’s ready for construction and a showcase, the H (Delridge) and I (Renton-Kent-Auburn) for equity reasons, and Roosevelt because Seattle is picking up its funding gap. Some former RapidRide candidates will get partial improvements, notably the 40 and 44. But there won’t be a RapidRide 372 in the next decade, or maybe ever.
Another problem is if no additional service hours appear, then a Roosevelt-Lake City route would have to come out of other Lake City routes. That would hinder attempts to beef up the 65,. 75, and 372. The 20 might be low-hanging fruit since some people think it’s overservice, but I doubt they’ll convince Metro to turn away from Latona and 1st Ave NE homeowners. And there’s also that Lake City-Ballard route we want. I tried to think if there’s a way to serve both Lake City-Roosevelt-North Ballard, but of course that would duplicate half the 45 and be slower than a route that went straighter west, and not serve Northgate-Greenwood.
I think by “the corridor” Mike meant Lake City Way to U District via Roosevelt.
Yes, as did the original author, as well as me. I think everyone who has read the comment knows what corridor Mike was writing about.
The KCM LRP …
is painfully outdated. If you assume that an “express bus” is peak only, it means that most of the day, that corridor would get nothing. At the same time, it shows the 372 going all the way to Woodinville. Not only that, but as BRT! It is completely out of whack. It ignores where the people are, and where the rides are. To but it bluntly, they are in Seattle. The fact that Sound Transit — an agency with a mandate to serve distant suburbs — decided to go back on their original promise and *not* run the Stride to Woodinville shows how crazy it would be to double up service there. It would be a reverse split in an area that doesn’t need it. It would be crazy to double up service there, while leaving the 85th/25th area with nothing.
That isn’t the only issue, of course. Asking riders from Lake City to take a two or three seat ride to the U-District might not bother you AJ, but it bothers me. We aren’t talking about serving downtown (where the bus stops are close together) but the greater U-District, where they aren’t. If I want to get to 55th, or Campus Parkway — I’m gonna have to take another bus. It is nuts to ask riders to take a three seat ride, or take the very long trip through campus (rounding the horn) for what is clearly a very popular — and very short — trip.
Meanwhile, service between 65th and 45th is clearly underfunded after Northgate Link. Look around — this is where the city is growing. Yet you have the 45, the infrequent 73 and … the 67, running on an entirely different street. There is a need for more bus service along the main corridor connecting these two areas (the Ave) and this bus is as good as any for that purpose.
Mike raises a very good point — where do you get the money? In short, from other, much less productive routes. It is very difficult to justify the 73 and 79, while neglecting to serve this corridor. It is also hard to justify the long version of the 372 to Woodinville (running every 15 minutes). You can run the infrequent 331 there instead. Then you have all those expresses, running from Link stations to downtown. At worst this corridor will get half hour service, but it really should get 15, if not 10.
Oh, and the stop at 85th and 20th got around 400 riders with the old 522. That is more than any stop outside the city. It is more than twice as many riders in any stop in Bothell and Woodinville. This is all before the recent development boom there. It should definitely have all-day service.
“The KCM LRP … is painfully outdated. If you assume that an “express bus” is peak only,”
Express routes in the LRP are half-hourly daytime until 7pm. So like the 101. On the home page of kcmetrovison.org: “A growing network of express buses, running every 15 to 30 minutes all day between areas where many people live and work.” I asked a Metro rep back in 2016 whether this would really apply to the Auburn-Snoqualmie express, Renton-Enumclaw express, or Seattle-Federal Way express. He said Metro was still deciding which ones would be all-day and which ones might be peak only, so the website isn’t telling the full truth. But any Express route in Seattle would presumably be all day. Although Seattle has a singular lack of Express routes; they’re mostly in outlying areas. About the only Express route within Seattle I see is the Fauntleroy-WSJ-SLU one. In any case, a Lake City-Roosevelt route wouldn’t be express.
“Meanwhile, service between 65th and 45th is clearly underfunded after Northgate Link. Look around — this is where the city is growing. Yet you have the 45, the infrequent 73 and … the 67, running on an entirely different street.”
Both the 45 and 67 are 15 minutes, so they overlap for average 7.5 minute service at 65th & Roosevelt southbound. With the previous Seattle TBD they were each 10 minutes. The new TBD was lower so it didn’t include that. Metro actually wanted the base service on the 67 to be 10 minutes in U-Link, but it was cannibalized to resurrect the 71 and increase the 73’s span. The 45 may have been originally 10 minutes and cannibalized too for another route; I don’t remember.
Northbound the 45 and 67 don’t share any stops since the 45 comes up Pacific Street and UWay and the 65 comes up Stevens Way and 15th, but hopefully that will be improved in Northgate Link.
OK, I misread. You have talked to planners and expect KCM to serve connection #4 (Lake City Way to UD station via Roosevelt) despite that route not in the most recent LRP. I thought you were writing you were comfortable with the expected Lynnwood restructure, but I wasn’t seeing the KCM replacement of the 522 in my mental restructure so was confused.
My understanding from ST is the re-route of the 522 is only temporary between Northgate and Lynnwood openings. For KCM, I use the LRP as a starting point for what KCM thinks is important. If the 372 is marked as “RapidRide,” then I read that as a routing that KCM will prioritize in the Northgate & Lynwood restructures, not that it would become a RR per se, or even that the improved service would go all the way to Woodinville. Similarly, if I see that there is an express bus from LKW to the freeway but no frequent route from LKW turning onwards to Roosevelt, then I would expect there to be no like-for-like replacement of the ST522 when the STX route is deleted.
But if the 522 gets great ridership between Lake City and U District, then hopefully the planners do indeed deviate from the current LRP (if they can find the hours & the fleet)
It really isn’t clear what the terms mean on the long range plan. I realize they are purposely vague, and I take them to mean service levels. In that sense, “RapidRide”, “Frequent”, and “Local” are pretty clear (they are frequency levels from high to low). My guess is that “Express” then is peak-only service. We have a lot of those in our system, including in Seattle (15, 17, 18, 19, etc.). In the 2025 version, you can see the 15, 17 and 18 marked as “Express”.
When I wrote that the LMP was out of date, I specifically meant that it was our of date for this corridor. Back in the day, running only peak service there was reasonable. It isn’t any more. It doesn’t make sense to run the 73 all-day, when the unique part of the 73 is low density, and the unique part of this corridor is high density.
In general though, the map is not outdated, it is merely irrelevant. It changes based on the restructures, not the other way around. There were few changes in any of the proposals for the Northgate restructure that followed the earlier long range plan. There was no 79, for example in the previous versions. Now, like magic, it shows up on the long range plan. It is highly unlikely that Metro will run the 372 to Woodinville, while leaving a far more productive region with nothing most of the day.
As for the Ave and Roosevelt, my statement stands. It is nice that the 45 and 67 actually share a bus stop or two, but they do so for a very tiny section of the corridor. If you are on Campus Parkway, 45th, 50th, 55th, Ravenna, 70th or 75th you have to choose a street, and live with one bus. It is only when you get very close to 65th that you get to combine frequencies. This means that a lot of people will have to live with infrequent service, even though they are on one of the busiest pedestrian corridors in the city. Or, to put it another way, any bus that is added to that corridor will pick up a lot of riders, as there are a lot of people traveling along there, and only one frequent bus per corridor.
> Northbound the 45 and 67 don’t share any stops since the 45 comes up Pacific Street and UWay and the 65 comes up Stevens Way and 15th
There’s a shared northbound stop at 12th Ave NE and NE 61st St. It’s too bad there’s not a shared stop in the U District.
From ST’s perspective, East King is paying for the 522 (and maybe a bit for Lake Forest Park), and what those cities want is a fast ride to downtown. Lake City doesn’t factor into it; Lake City just happens to be on the way. Seattle’s ST service is Link, not the 522. RossB will say, but Lake City and 85th are half the 522’s riders. Still, what matters to ST is which subarea is paying for it, which cities its goal is to serve, and what those cities want. The 522 serves LFP, Kenmore, Bothell, and Woodinville, not Seattle. So when Stride opens to Shoreline South Station, ST will wash its hands of south of 145th.
Metro’s RapidRide 372 terminates in Bothell, not Woodinville. That’s per the Metro Connects vision from 2016. That’s pretty outdated but it’s the only official plan we have, and it shows what Metro wanted at some point. That plan has no Lake City-Roosevelt service after the 522 goes away. Seattle’s Transit Master Plan from 2012 might have a corridor there; I don’t remember. But Metro incorporated the TMP into its plan, as much as it intended to do, so if it’s not in Metro’s plan it’s not being moved forward. Unless the city does something more, like funding it in the TBD, or reaffirming it in the next TBD update. The TBD doesn’t have money for anything more; it can’t even fund all the service in the previous TBD. But a good chunk of the TBD’s money is mitigating the West Seattle Bridge closure. So when the bridge gets fixed, that money will be freed up for other routes.
The Metro Connects vision defines four levels of service: Rapid (RapidRide), Frequent (15 minutes daytime Mon-Fri, often longer), Express (15-30 minutes daytime until 7pm), and Local (30-minute coverage service). These are general targets; some routes might be more or less than this. Metro confirmed early on that “Rapid” means RapidRide. Many Seattle routes already meet the Frequent standard, especially with Seattle’s TBD, so those routes might not get any improvement over what they already have. Many Rapid lines in the plan will probably be downgraded to Frequent; the plan just hasn’t caught up with recent events yet. Even if the Rapid lines are downgraded, they’ll probably get some improvements, just not the full RapidRide treatment.
So Metro hasn’t yet acknowledged any Lake City-Roosevelt service after the 522. But according to RossB, its planners behind the scenes are trying to make it happen. It may be in Seattle’s older Transit Master Plan; I don’t remember all the priority corridors in that.
Metro connects depends on a countywide transit levy that hasn’t happened yet. King County has been dragging its feet on it. And then with covid last year the county said it didn’t have time to think about it now, and it didn’t want it on last November’s ballot to compete with the Harborview measure, so it has been punted to sometime in the next few years, if it ever happens. It’s also uncertain whether it would pass, because the last countywide Metro measure failed. South King County keeps saying it needs more bus service but it’s too poor to pay taxes for it, and the Eastside is the Eastside. So Seattle has been going it alone with the TBD, but that’s not enough to fund all of Seattle’s part of Metro Connects. If additional funding doesn’t happen, then the upcoming Link restructures will revenue-neutral, as U-Link and Northgate Link were, meaning some corridors will gain service and others will lose it.
I thought you were writing you were comfortable with the expected Lynnwood restructure
There is no expected Lynnwood restructure. Nothing has been discussed, or proposed. Maybe you are thinking of the Northgate restructure.
For KCM, I use the LRP as a starting point for what KCM thinks is important.
Yeah, sure, but I think you are confusing the map with the actual plan. The plan is a vision, detailed in the 80 page document. It lays out goals, like spending 68% of the money on frequent buses, 9% on express buses, and 23% on local/flexible service. It includes everything from transportation demand management to transit oriented development. Most of it is rather basic, and would be consistent with any transit plan found in the United States. The particulars are for things like RapidRide. But by covering the basics, they make a strong case for more frequent service along the Lake City Way/Roosevelt/UW corridor. This is a “Long corridor with many destinations densely spaced along the corridor.”, which means that it should have somewhere between 5 to 15 minutes service (see page 21).
I think there is a tendency to look at the map, and think that is the plan. It isn’t. It is merely a set of ideas to represent the plan. A way in which the plan could potentially be met. This is stated quite clearly:
This map is not a service change proposal, but a long range vision developed for the purpose of generating representative costs and benefits. Final decisions on project elements or alignments will require additional outreach, analysis, engineering and appropriate council or board approval. Elements on this map should not be construed as a commitment that all representative features will be included in the final projects.
It is not a proposal, and when the real proposals come out, it carries very little weight. This was clear with the Northgate restructure. There were several iterations, and very little of it looked like the previous version of the long range plan. To be clear, many of the ideas there are very good. But at the end of the day, those ideas don’t matter, and what matters are the ideas of the planners at Metro (and the public, based on feedback).
Note: It is very difficult to find previous versions of the interactive map. The Internet Archive saved a few, but the map has various layers, and not all of them are saved. I have yet to assemble anything that is readable.
But if the 522 gets great ridership between Lake City and U District …
We already know there is great ridership between Lake and the U District. It represents the bulk of the ridership of the 522. It is where it gets the highest ridership per mile. That won’t change just because people have to transfer. If anything, this disparity will simply increase, as all-day service tends to be more urban oriented. Metro’s express buses will poach a lot of suburban rush hour commuters, while the 522 will provide relatively frequent urban connections (oh, the irony).
… then hopefully the planners do indeed deviate from the current LRP (if they can find the hours & the fleet)
It would not be a deviation of the long range plan — quite the opposite.
so if it’s not in Metro’s plan it’s not being moved forward
Again, you are confusing the map with the plan. Every proposal, good or bad, was consistent with the plan (so far as I could tell) but had nothing to do with the map. For example, they were going to eliminate all-day service for Victory Heights. They were going to run a bus on 80th, and another bus on 85th. The 20 (AKA 26) will cross the freeway on 50th. There are a plethora of express buses coming from various areas in the north. Like most of the proposal, these were not on the original long range plan map, and many of them aren’t on the current long range map (for any year).
It really isn’t that complicated. The long range plan map is simply a set of ideas. It is not a proposal. The real proposals drive it, not the other way around. After a real proposal has been approved, the long range map maker goes back, and adds a few changes (to make the map look plausible). Even then, they don’t add them all. They 79 is there, but not the 20. Some of the express routes persist, some don’t.
Overall, it is just a set of ideas, some of which sound silly as I write them. In a few years, the 79 will be moved to serve Laurelhurst, while abandoning 55th (really?). But a few years after that, 55th will get frequent service. That’s not a plan, but merely a set of ideas.
That’s because the plan does not go into that level of detail. Again, it says it clearly, right on the map “This map is not a service change proposal”. The real proposals come from Metro, and they do follow the guidelines, but they aren’t basing their decisions on that map.
Maybe you are confusing this with the “Bike Master Plan”. That really did have a map, which people argued over before publishing. That is why when the city deviates from it, people complain. There isn’t nothing similar for Metro. When Metro came up with the Northgate proposal (or the U-Link proposal) no one wrote “Wait, that doesn’t follow the LRP Map!”, they merely critiqued the proposal based on its merits.
So Metro hasn’t yet acknowledged any Lake City-Roosevelt service after the 522.
Metro hasn’t acknowledge anything that far into the future. If you know of a “Lynnwood Link Restructure” proposal, please share. None exists, because the actual planning hasn’t started.
But according to RossB, its planners behind the scenes are trying to make it happen.
Not quite accurate. I know of one planner who wants to see it happen. But as a group, they haven’t started the actual work. It is merely sketching — coming up with ideas for how it might look. It is way to early to do the real work of coming up with a proposal. Lynnwood Link is way into the future. At this point, we have no idea what it will look like. It could include a station at 130th, or maybe that gets delayed. That would alter the map enormously. Likewise, maybe the Stride project gets delayed, but ST decides to send the buses to 145th anyway. Or maybe they don’t, because there is way too much traffic there. Maybe Metro will have a lot of money, maybe they won’t. Maybe Seattle will have a lot of money for buses, maybe they won’t.
The point is, there is no way that Metro would tip its hand regarding a Lynnwood Link restructure that far ahead. There are too many moving parts. They also have plenty of other work to do before then.
But what is clear is that when ST abandons the corridor, Metro should step in. It is possible they won’t, but that seems highly unlikely, given the obvious value of the corridor (for people like Dave as well as plenty of others).
Consider a similar situation. The 550 is now the only bus on Bellevue Way. Before the pandemic, it was the only frequent bus. When East Link gets to Bellevue, the 550 goes away. Will Metro backfill it with additional service? Of course. Not because it is on a map, but because it is pretty obvious from a routing standpoint. Whether that consists of one frequent route, or the combination of two (or more) infrequent routes is anyone’s guess, and if you think you can figure that out by looking at the map, you are delusional.
As I wrote earlier, the more interesting question is not *if* the corridor gets covered, but *how*. I make the following assumptions:
1) We do not find a good layover/turnaround spot close to 145th.
2) That means that the bus from Lake City goes to Kenmore (the first good layover).
3) There is only one bus that does that.
For sake of argument, I will call the replacement of the 522 the 322 (not be be confused with the planned express bus). This bus goes along Lake City Way to Roosevelt and the U-District. One of the two buses (the 372 or 322) will start at the Lake City Fred Meyer (the current layover of the 41). The other will start in Kenmore.
I’ve argued that the 322 should go to Kenmore. For those on Lake City Way between 145th (the 522) and the Fred Meyer, this is their only bus. The 322 makes a much faster connection to Link, and a much faster connection to the UW. The 372 connects you to U-Village, but if you want that, you can walk over and catch the 65, which also connects you to Children’s Hospital. The 322 will connect you to Roosevelt, which is just as big a destination as the U-Village. Throw in the places along the way (between Link stations) and it hits more destinations.
For those north of the city, the same thinking applies. Both buses will get you to Link and the UW, but the 322 will get you there much faster. This means that the new Stride line and this bus will both provide fast connections to Link. If you miss the Stride, you catch the 322 and still get downtown fairly quickly. If your only other option was the roundabout 372 (and the very time consuming walk to the UW station) you might think twice about catching the 372. You would lose your one-seat ride to the U-Village, but there are other ways to get there. You can catch the 322 and transfer in Lake City, where you can catch the 65, 75 or 372. If you catch the Stride, then you can transfer to the 65 at 145th (and 30th) or you can get on Link for a three-seat ride. It is a trade-off, but I think the destinations are largely a wash, while the speed with which you can get to the UW and Link make it better if the 322 is extended to Kenmore.
How this is accomplished is not obvious. Ideally it connects with a bus coming from the south (e. g. the 48) but that is problematic. It would be a pretty long route, and there is value in *not* crossing the bridge (to improve reliability). This is why the 67 and 65 through route. It adds a few connections (Roosevelt to U-Village) but mostly it avoids the layover and keeps the buses moving. The 45 is going to be connected to the 75. That pretty much leaves the 372. It would be a weird combination, but not that different than the other two. It wouldn’t be too long (from what I can tell) and if Metro wanted to shuffle the buses around, that would work. Regardless, you end up with one less layover, and the bus running along the Ave.
Speaking of which, this is just one example of how frequency improves along this corridor. From Kenmore to 145th, you would have both Stride and the 322. From the Lake City Fred Meyer to 92nd, you have both the 322 and 372. Between 75th and 65th you would have the 67, 322 and 73. In that tiny section between 65th and 61st, you get all that and the 45. But south of there (Ravenna) all the way to Campus Parkway and through campus, you would have the 45 and 322. Not only do you serve an area that should definitely be served (https://goo.gl/maps/gRnbXBFUjWBCaHDU7) and not only do speed up a lot of trips, but you substantially improve frequency in an area that really needs better frequency (after this restructure).
Ross, it’s clear there must be frequent service on 25th NE, so the 372 has to go that way. But why is it essential to give the rather non-dense area along LCW south of 110th a direct connection to Roosevelt? Extend the proposed 26/75 north of Fred Meyer and share the 30th NE turnaround at 145th. That gives unbroken service through Lake City’s core and a connection to Link at Northgate.
It seems a bit like overkill to run a third bus between Fred Meyer and Northgate Way and then double service down to 92nd, just to give folks a direct ride to Roosevelt and the Ave. If the 372 is poorly terminated, run it back north a few blocks?
@RossB
An aside….
“Note: It is very difficult to find previous versions of the interactive map. The Internet Archive saved a few, but the map has various layers, and not all of them are saved.”
Yeah, this can be incredibly frustrating at times. I’m a big fan of the Wayback Machine/Internet Archive and use it fairly frequently when doing research on any number of topics. I really appreciate what they do so I’m not complaining too loudly, but what you’ve experienced is a bit of a pet peeve of mine as well. I wish every so often when they are archiving more developed sites, particularly .gov or .edu sites, they would do a “deep dive”, maybe like once per year. That’s what I keep hoping for at least.
But why is it essential to give the rather non-dense area along LCW south of 110th a direct connection to Roosevelt?
Because your premise is completely false. The area close to Dave (20th and 85th) is dense and this would be the only bus service for it. I linked to an aerial view to show how dense the area is. As I mentioned previously, it is dense enough to get more riders than any stop north of Seattle on the 522*. That was published *before* the recent building boom there. They added a six-story 215-unit mixed-use building, along with well over a hundred townhouses since that report was published. What hasn’t been developed soon will be, as unlike most of Seattle, it is zoned for apartments.
But serving high density areas is not the only reason why you run a bus like that. You run a bus like that because you connect people to where they want to go for very little money. If you are south of 125th and want to get to Link, you don’t want your only choice to be to go to UW Station, with its long bus ride, and transfer from hell. There are also people who want to go to Roosevelt or the U-District, no matter where they are on Lake City Way. Of course there are alternatives, but why ignore one of the most productive routes in the area, while we funnel money into experiments (e. g. 20 AKA 26) or wasteful peak-hour routes that mimic Link.
It is the same with service along Northgate Way. In an area that really is low density, they managed to restore service there, because they didn’t want people in Lake City to walk a long ways, and then take the slow bus to get to Northgate. This is the same sort of thing, only more so. That’s because the speed difference is greater, and this really does have riders all along there, which again make it one of the most cost effective corridors in the area.
Extend the proposed 26/75 north of Fred Meyer and share the 30th NE turnaround at 145th. That gives unbroken service through Lake City’s core and a connection to Link at Northgate.
First of all, there is no turnaround at 145th and 30th. If there was, then any bus that got as far as Fred Meyer would certainly keep going to 145th. I would also truncate the 372 there. But I would still run a bus along that corridor, for the reasons mentioned, which are:
1) Provides unique coverage for a high density area.
2) Fastest connection to Link for various parts of the corridor.
3) Doubles up service on a lot of areas that should be doubled up.
4) Only one-seat ride from that corridor to Roosevelt or the U-District.
There is a reason why Dave (and many others) are really excited about the 522 bus running every 15 minutes all day long, and connecting to Roosevelt. They would be even more excited if the bus kept going to the U-District. Speaking of which, that brings up another point. Imagine you move into that big new apartment, and start enjoying that bus service. You start feeling special, like you can go anywhere without a car. Then, a few years later, after Link gets to Lynnwood, the 522 goes away, and in its place … nothing. To get to downtown — what used to be a painless trip involving a transfer at Roosevelt — requires a long walk to the 372, followed by a long bus ride, followed by a long walk to the train station. To get to the U-District is not a matter of making an easy transfer, but a matter of waiting, as the bus loops around campus, finally getting to your destination. Getting to Whole Foods or Safeway is no longer an easy bus ride. Instead you have to walk a quarter mile to the 372 and when you get off the bus, walk another quarter mile to the QFC or Safeway. To get to a PCC requires a half mile walk, followed by that same walk from Roosevelt you did before. To heck with it, you’re buying a car.
Which really is the 5th reason:
5) People who live there expect decent transit.
Yes, I realize things change, and sometimes Metro can’t justify a route. But the only reason Metro would ever consider abandoning this route is because it isn’t theirs. Sorry, but that is crazy. The average rider won’t care, they will simply be pissed. You’ve suddenly made transit much worse for them, and everyone around them, because of an inter-agency snafu? You really don’t want to do that.
At the very least, you extend the 48 to Fred Meyer. If they have a turn-around at 145th, then extend it to 145th. That would mean three buses running on the most densely populated corridor north of Northgate. Sounds good to me.
* https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/2020-service-implementation-plan.pdf#page=75
“The long range plan map is simply a set of ideas.”
It’s not just a throwaway brainstorming sketch. It’s what Metro wants and thinks is the ideal network. It’s what Metro would do if it had full control and full funding. Why would it leave any of its best ideas out of a once-in-decades opportunity to really reshape the network? Previously all restructures were done one district at a time, with the public not seeing the proposals until a year before the service change, and squeaky wheels arguing not to change their route, and the county council accepting those special-interest carve-outs and throwing the rest of the restructure off kilter. This was a chance to show an entire potential network and to get the public used to the concepts so they’d be more likely to accept them when the concrete restructure proposals eventuall come out. The problem is that other events tend to overtake it and it falls behind, and the prospects of full funding keep diminishing so it can start to seem futile. We need another draft based on Metro’s current and likely near-future funding so that we can get a clear picture of which direction Metro is going in the current environment. At the same time, we also need a vision of a full no-underservice network so that there a direction in case more funding does become available.
And Metro’s targets are just minimums to ensure it meets them. When it says “Frequent means 15 minutes weekday daytime”, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t think the 67 should be 10 minutes daytime and 15 minutes evenings every day. It said the corridor needs that high level of service and it tried to fulfill it in U-Link, and when that didn’t work out it fulfilled it when TBD funding became available. It just keeps the general targets low so it has an easy chance to meet them and claim success.)
“They 79 is there, but not the 20.”
We know how the 20 came about. Metro proposed to reroute the 62 to Latona to prepare for the LRP’s RapidRide. It also proposed a Lake City – NW 85th Street route that prefigures part of an LRP route (the Fred Meyer to Fred Meyer route). It can’t do the full Fred Meyers route yet because Ballard Link isn’t running yet so it can’t delete the D. But it at least gets it from Lake City to 15th Ave NW, and continues west to 24th in the interim. But then covid savages the budget, the threat of losing MVETs due to Eyman’s initiative was still alive, the city proposed a smaller TMP renewal, and Metro had to assume the renewal would fail because it wasn’t certain it would pass. So it axed the Ballard-NW 85th route and yanked all service from NE Northgate Way. Meanwhile it decided not to go through with the 62 reroute yet because it would have to pay for increased street maintenance on Latona. So it proposed something else on Latona to replace the 26 which was being deleted. It also reduced the 5th Avenue Lake City-Northgate corridor to 30 minute evening, again due to the dire budget situation; the council decided not to replace the 41’s hours but to just let them die, and that was what was going to fund the Ballard-85th route and 15-minute evening service and the Northgate Way corridor. The council also got on its equity horse and said if it did keep the 41’s hours it would shift them to South King County or South Seattle, so they wouldn’t be available in Lake City anyway.
Transit fans raised a ruckus that coverage service on Northgate Way was needed. And Latona squeaky wheels apparently got Metro to raise its daytime service to 15 minutes. These got combined in what looks a lot like a backroom deal, and the 20 was the result.
That doesn’t mean the 20 is Metro’s ideal, so it’s not in the LRP. It’s just the way the sausage is made. Maybe with Lynnwood Link Metro will split the 20 and downgrade Latona or move the 62 to it like it wanted to originally. Maybe SDOT will take care of Latona’s street hardening by then. Or maybe the 20 is a new Metro ideal that simply hasn’t gotten into an LRP update yet. Or maybe the 20 will become so successful and popular that transit fans will drop their opposition to running it so frequently on Latona. What’s clear is that the 20 wasn’t Metro’s ideal when it wrote the TMP, or even when it made the first Northgate Link restructure proposals, because if it had been it would have been there. So it’s clear what the 20’s reputation was before it was proposed. It’s not clear what the 20’s reputation is now: whether Metro really likes it in its current form, or it was pressured to create it that way, or it’s just a stopgap for a few years until Lynnwood Link comes around.
Ross, there is no bus using the 30th / 145th / 32nd / 143rd loop today, but the “7 Lake City” followed by the 72 did for decades. If a bus is coming from Lake City Way to the loop, it would have to turn left at 32nd, which is certainly sub-optimal, but not impossible. The loop could be reversed with the bus turning left at 30th if necessary.
Or the buses could turn left from LCW at 143rd. There is a refuge lane there, and a transit-only-activated left turn signal could be installed.
And, yes, the neighborhood would probably not like the buses returning. Again, not an impossible hurdle.
If you must have a 322 and you insist that it go all the way to campus, figure out some way to serve 25th NE without the 372. Maybe have the bus on it be the one that goes to 130th and on to Bitter Lake. There would still be duplicative service between 125th and 92nd, but most of that stretch can support it. But not all the way to 145th: two frequent routes to car lots.
And don’t invoke “redevelopment” there if you forbid it in West Woodland. Plus, of course, the City will protect its car sales taxes.
[The Map] is not just a throwaway brainstorming sketch. It’s what Metro wants and thinks is the ideal network.
Nonsense. You keep claiming this, but providing absolutely no evidence. In contrast, I have two counter arguments:
1. Metro has not based any of their proposals on the long range plan.
2. The web page that contains the map clearly states that it is not Metro wants and thinks is the ideal network.
But let’s back up a second. “Metro” is not some dude. It is an agency. There are various opinions on how this or that restructure should be done. For an agency to come up with a proposal, planners have to spend an enormous of time, and painstakingly go over each and every proposal. Not everyone agrees with what other planners come up with. Sometimes those changes are debated; sometimes a manager overrules a proposal before it gets released. Other times it goes out as-is, despite grumbling and eye-rolling from colleagues. This is way any professional organization works. Every software company I ever worked for operated this way — it isn’t hard to imagine how Metro planning operates.
Except Metro is also a public agency. For them to actually come up with a detailed proposal, they need to get public input. That is why those conflicts may be ignored initially, since others on the team figure the public will see the same thing they do. It is a long and somewhat tedious process, but eventually you get to what Metro wants, and by that, some sort of consensus amongst the planners and the public as to what is the best proposal going forward.
None of that happened with this map. There was no big debate, no big discussion, no careful analysis of each and every line on the map. How do I know? Because it is written, very clearly on the web site:
This map is not a service change proposal, but a long range vision developed for the purpose of generating representative costs and benefits. Final decisions on project elements or alignments will require additional outreach, analysis, engineering and appropriate council or board approval. Elements on this map should not be construed as a commitment that all representative features will be included in the final projects.
I encourage to read this paragraph carefully. There are several very important points. To be begin with, it makes clear that this is *not* a proposal, and for Metro to come up a proposal would take “additional outreach, analysis, engineering and appropriate council or board approval”. It isn’t what Metro wants, because Metro didn’t do the work on this map that it does on a proposal.
What then, is the purpose of the map? Again, it states this quite clearly. It was “developed for the purpose of generating representative costs and benefits”. It is merely a tool. An example, of what could happen, if we implemented the plan (as described in the document). If Metro ran buses as shown on this map, it would provide a certain amount of costs and benefits. The costs and benefits, or course, are listed in the actual plan. That is the entire purpose of this map, and it is stated quite clearly on the web page that contains the map.
It isn’t hard to guess how the map got created. They didn’t start with a map. They started with a plan. A plan that involved service hours, and types of service (everything from micro-transit to RapidRide). The plan had costs and goals. But at the end of the day, it is hard for people to relate to just numbers. They want examples. They want a map, even though it isn’t anything like the map that will eventually exist. Because if you look at a map, and it says your bus will run more often, or a different bus will make a connection that you’ve been advocating for for years, you get excited. So Metro asked a few planners to come up with a map. They did none of the usual work (outreach, analysis, engineering and appropriate council or board approval) that would make it an actual Metro proposal. They simply asked a few planners to come up with a map that would represent the parameters of the plan, and they did.
It really isn’t that complicated. Imagine you are pushing for a big levy to improve transit funding in Seattle. You can talk about service hours, and increased frequency, but at the end of the day, people will get bored, and wonder if it is really worth it. Or you can show them a map, or what *could* be made, if there was more money. New routes, going this way and that. Old routes, running a lot more frequently. Is it what will happen if the levy is approved? No, of course not. It says so, quite clearly on your map. But it is the type of thing that could be built, if there is more money.
That is exactly what this is. The actual plan is the document, with the extra service hours, types of service, levels of service, costs and benefits. The map is just an example of what can be built if we spend the money in that way.
If a bus is coming from Lake City Way to the loop, it would have to turn left at 32nd, which is certainly sub-optimal, but not impossible.
So you mean a left at 145th, then another left at 32nd? Yeah, that would suck. Not only does the bus spend a lot of time making left turns, but the connection is bad. Northbound, after waiting for the bus to make two left turns, you have to walk a block, and cross two busy streets. Southbound would be a little better, as you could cross 32nd, and catch the bus before it leaves the layover. I think 143rd would be better, although it still isn’t ideal. It would likely mean that you skip a northbound stop, because the bus has to get over to the left lane early. Another alternative that might work is to turn left at 145th, then take a right at 32nd and 149th to get back onto SR 522 heading south. The bus would likely layover on 32nd. If you are headed northbound, that means crossing at 145th (where there is a light). For southbound riders (Kenmore to Lake City) it means a same stop transfer. It is also possible you could make a series of right turns, in the housing development next to the Taco Bell (https://goo.gl/maps/rEeo5U2aVFGP6AW76).
There are a lot of possibilities, and Metro would have to explore them, and verify that they actually work. It is a little trickier than usual, since half the options involve Seattle, and half involve Shoreline. It is possible they will find a good layover/turnaround, and it is possible they won’t.
This gets back to why the map can’t possibly be an accurate representation of what Metro wants. They don’t know if it is even possible. If you can add a layover there, it changes the dynamic dramatically. It would be silly to have buses layover by the Fred Meyer, if you can make a key connection (and serve lots of people) by simply going a little bit farther. It is just as silly to propose something that is impossible. With the map they came up with, they just went with existing layovers, and other basic assumptions. Those assumptions are a moving target (e. g. we don’t know if the 130th station will be built with Lynnwood Link or not) and those changes will alter how any restructure looks.
If you must have a 322 and you insist that it go all the way to campus, figure out some way to serve 25th NE without the 372.
Why? They are two very different corridors. I have no problem with the 372 — I just don’t think it is a substitute for my proposed 322. But connecting Lake City and the campus via 25th is fine, just as connecting Lake City and the campus with Sand Point Way is fine.
there would still be duplicative service between 125th and 92nd, but most of that stretch can support it. But not all the way to 145th: two frequent routes to car lots.
Dude, that is where the people are! Even before the latest building boom, you can see this stretch show up on the census maps (https://arcg.is/1byi9O). There are a lot of apartments, with a lot of people, on both sides of the street. Only recently did they add a lot of apartments *on* the street. But add them they did. They are also adding more of them as we speak (https://www.seattleinprogress.com/project/3032100/page/1, https://www.seattleinprogress.com/project/3033600/page/1).
And don’t invoke “redevelopment” there if you forbid it in West Woodland. Plus, of course, the City will protect its car sales taxes.
What a ridiculous analogy. First of all, the city has already rezoned the area (so I guess they aren’t too worried about the car sales taxes). Second, the case for the bus I propose is strong *now*, with no further development. It is made stronger with the development that is currently happening, as well as what is planned. In contrast, citing the Ballard Station in West Woodland would require that area to suddenly leapfrog Ballard to make up for not being the cultural and economic center of the area. So not only would you need six story apartments (more of which are west of 15th than will ever be east) but big office towers or a hospital, as well as new concert halls and clubs. It would be like building the Capitol Hill Station inside Volunteer Park, and saying “don’t worry, eventually something even better will be built nearby”. In short, it will never happen. It is a fantasy that pretends that stations like Mount Baker and UW were not built for the same reason (too cheap or too ignorant to realize the importance of station placement) and that this one will be different, because, well, it just will.
“ The web page that contains the map clearly states that it is not Metro wants and thinks is the ideal network.”
Thanks for pointing this out! Transit advocates in our region have a hard time understanding what is “representative” versus what is “planned”. Both Metro and ST put out proposals for service and sometimes funding that begin with concepts but then claim anything that is different is deemed “inconsistent”.
A few months ago, Metro began taking input on the East Kink restructuring: https://kingcounty.gov/depts/transportation/metro/programs-projects/fares-routes-and-service/east-link-connections.aspx
It’s the proper process where services should get analyzed and refined.
By the way, Metro 8 is on this list but no other Seattle routes are. This seems very odd as the Judkins Park service should seemingly involve more route changes and the process ignores how Madison RapidRide will affect many routes in the area. Rather than flag changes only to Metro Route 8, shouldn’t a different and more comprehensive effort focused on Central and SE Seattle to coordinate Judkins Park and Madison RapidRide service changes be happening?
By the way, Metro 8 is on this list [of East Link related change] but no other Seattle routes are. This seems very odd as the Judkins Park service should seemingly involve more route changes and the process ignores how Madison RapidRide will affect many routes in the area. Rather than flag changes only to Metro Route 8, shouldn’t a different and more comprehensive effort focused on Central and SE Seattle to coordinate Judkins Park and Madison RapidRide service changes be happening?
I agree, it is odd. I can see how they could do the changes independently. Since East Link will happen before Madison RapidRide, they could make minor changes with East Link, and then come back later, and make a bigger restructure. I would just wait, and to do all the changes with Madison RapidRide, but I could see them taking this approach.
No matter what though, it is weird. Why single out the 8? It doesn’t make sense to me, unless they are just using this as an excuse to straighten out the 8.
Ross, OK you are right about the census tracts north of 125th. But don’t the frequent service along 125th to the 130th station and of the 522 BRT along 145th to the 147th station provide quicker access to Link for someone between 125th and 130th or 140th and 145th?
That leaves just the strip between 130th and 140th — basically two stops — and riders south of 120th to fill the bus unless it began as a local all the way back in Kenmore.
I expect that folks north of Seattle heading for the U District will be strongly students and would prefer the routing direct to campus on 25th rather than the belly out to Roosevelt/12th. That may be wrong, but they should be asked.
You make a good argument for service both ways, but it shouldn’t be equivalent. One should be a RapidRide “BRT” and the other a less frequent “local” down Lake City Way within Seattle. That makes the cost problem less severe. But which one goes which way isn’t clear.
I believe that the route via Roosevelt should be the lower frequency route, because it’s competing with Link service.
That leaves just the strip between 130th and 140th — basically two stops — and riders south of 120th to fill the bus unless it began as a local all the way back in Kenmore.
You are forgetting the main reason the bus is going that far north. It is to connect to Stride. It is a very cheap way to make that connection. The fact that it also serves a high density area along the way makes the case stronger.
Just to back up here, let’s assume that there is a good layover and turn around stop at 145th and Lake City Way. You’ve got three buses coming from the south going north on Lake City Way. One of them is the 372, the other what I’m calling the 322 (Ave/Roosevelt/Lake City Way), and the third is a bus that goes along Northgate Way to Northgate, then continues to Greenwood (more or less what the original Northgate restructure planners proposed). You have to send one of them to 145th, otherwise you have a coverage hole. So that leaves a few choices:
1) Send one of the buses to Kenmore, and truncate the other two at Fred Meyer.
2) Send all of them to 145th.
3) Send one of them to 145th, and terminate the other two at Fred Meyer.
The first option is the most expensive. It assumes that the only bus that someone from Kenmore is interested in is the one that we send there. The second option is cheaper, and provides the most connectivity, as well as the most service for those two stops. The third saves only a tiny bit of money, while making for awkward three-seat rides.
For example, what if Dave wants to go to Kenmore, or Bothell. He would have to take the bus north, then take a bus a few blocks, then take Stride. There would be only one bus between 125th and 145th, which means the frequency for each bus would not be great (ten minutes at best). What if you
live close to 145th and Lake City Way, and work at Target (at Northgate Way and 5th). This would not be a horrible commute — but it would be worse than now. Right now you can take two buses to 125th (372 or 522) and two buses to Target (41 and 75). Instead you would take the 372, followed by the 75. Or what if you just want to head down to 125th (the cultural and economic center of Lake City) from north of there. It isn’t that bad now (with the 522 and 372) but it would be a lot better with three buses. Sending the buses up to 145th makes the connections a lot better and provides additional service for an area that is dense enough to take advantage of it.
Sending the buses up to 145th does a lot of little things for very little money (we are talking about running a bus about a mile on a very fast corridor). Just to be clear, if the Stride bus turned on 125th instead of 145th, then it wouldn’t make sense to send buses past the Fred Meyer. Likewise, if we can’t find a turnaround at 145th, then only one bus will go past the Fred Meyer, as it is just too expensive to send buses to Kenmore. But it would be silly to develop a layover/turnaround spot at 145th, and not take full advantage of it.
I expect that folks north of Seattle heading for the U District will be strongly students and would prefer the routing direct to campus on 25th rather than the belly out to Roosevelt/12th.
First of all, it isn’t just students. There are a lot of people who work in the U-District. Some in big office buildings (which are expected to increase*) and some in retail. The U-District is a major cultural center, with activities all over the area. It is similar to Capitol Hill; yes, a lot of the ridership is because of the college, but not all of it.
Second, most students just want the fastest way to campus, and for a lot of trips, that would be the 322. It is quite possible that bus would go through campus, but even if it didn’t, many would prefer walking from that direction. But again, that is just one of the many reasons why this bus route makes sense. I listed five earlier, but this thread is so long, it bears repeating:
1) Provides unique coverage for a high density area.
2) Fastest connection to Link for various parts of the corridor.
3) Doubles up service on a lot of areas that should be doubled up.
4) Only one-seat ride from that corridor to Roosevelt or the U-District.
5) People like Dave (who live in a relatively high density area) have come to expect good transit.
I believe that the route via Roosevelt should be the lower frequency route, because it’s competing with Link service.
That is like saying the 70 should be low frequency for the same reason. Sorry, no. Frequency should be based on a routes potential. Run the 19 frequently, all day long, and you still won’t get that many riders. Run a bus along this corridor and you will. It is the combination of density, destinations and speed. There are lots of people who would benefit from the bus.
* From page 6 of this http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/OPCD/OngoingInitiatives/UDistrictUrbanDesign/UDistrictDirectorsReport.pdf: “we estimate that 3,500 to 5,000 of those new households and about 4,800 jobs will locate in U District west of 15th Ave NE”. That is probably already out of date (with the numbers too low).
So now you want a bus between 125th and 145th every three minutes twenty seconds? [Of course the schedule would be three-three-four.]
Where will you get the money for this extravagance? I agree that it would be the best of all possible worlds, but there are several other places in the city where that might be true. You preach “transfers among frequent buses.” What is so special about the folks who live in northern Lake City?
So now you want a bus between 125th and 145th every three minutes twenty seconds? … Where will you get the money for this extravagance?
You are forgetting the main reason the bus is going that far north. It is to connect to Stride. It is a very cheap way to make that connection. The fact that it also serves a high density area along the way makes the case stronger.
If those words sound familiar, it is because I wrote them in my previous comment! You are ignoring the crux of my argument, while creating straw men. You are implying that the *only* reason I would send buses past the Lake City Fred Meyer is to increase service between 130th and 145th. You also imply that doing so is expensive, even though it takes about two minutes to travel that distance by bus.
When routes combine, sometimes it is for additional service (to form a spine*), but often it is for another reason. Consider service across the Aurora Bridge. Four routes go from there all the way to downtown (the 5, 26, 28 and E). That means four buses combining service for those stops on Aurora! Those bus stops definitely don’t need that much service — what a waste! Except that is *not* why those buses combine service there. It is to avoid a transfer. The people at those stops just reap the benefit. Perhaps a better analogy is the 13. It could end on the top of Queen Anne, saving Metro some service. The problem with that is that riders from the top of Queen Anne would be cut off from the 31/32, which is how you get to Fremont or the UW. It also cuts them off from SPU. Those along 3rd — a low density area — reap the benefit, but that is not why all those buses go along that corridor.
All transfers, or lack thereof have to be considered from a cost/benefit standpoint. Of course this is a judgement call. Extending each run to 145th is worth it for the reasons mentioned:
1) Each route connects to Stride (for trips to Kenmore and Bothell).
2) One seat connection for people between 130th and 145th to places like Northgate, Roosevelt, UW.
3) Combined service along more of Lake City Way.
4) It is very cheap.
It is the combination of those arguments that make the case — not just one. Again, sending three buses to 145th is way cheaper than sending even one bus to Kenmore. It is hardly extravagant.
* https://humantransit.org/2018/09/dublin-what-is-a-spine.html
Whatever. Good luck with your project or giving your friends in Lake City great bus service.
Of the things I go to or have gone to:
NORTHGATE: Best Buy for computer stuff, Dick’s and Big 5 for shoes, the mall, the movie theater, North Seattle college, a job I had for a year at 107th & Meridian, two friends’ houses, buses to Shoreline.
ROOSEVELT: Greenlake, Ravenna Park, Whole Foods, stereo shops, Rising Sun Produce, a bus to another job, the pizza place on Roosevelt, the middle eastern restaurant on 65th around 25th, Third Place Books.
U-DISTRICT: my former home, the farmers’ market, the library, the university, Big Al’s used records, Magus Books, the U Bookstore, thrift shops, Thanh Vi Vietnamese restaurant, the Irish pubs at 55th & UWay, and the one in Latona, the Monkey Pub, the Friendly Foam Shop, tons of other restaurants, the Neptune, the Varsity. Bulldog News for magazines, several friends’ apartments, the Burke Gilman Trail, buses to Wallingford, Laurehurst, Fremont, and Ballard.
This list is more 100% more interesting and useful than ST’s dumb website.
From West Seattle, I look forward to going to the University District again–Street Fair, Asian Noodles restaurants, Varsity Theater: Used to go a lot more when I lived in Capitol Hill many years ago since there were timely multiple buses from the Hill to get to the district and back. From West Seattle, one has to drive and pay for parking. Theoretically, you can take the buses to the University District from West Seattle, but the last time I did so, it took somewhere between 1.75 and 2 hours to get there.
Northgate link will be great for going to the Kraken practice facility for scrimmages:).
To get to Capitol Hill, it may be a hybrid thing depending on what I’m doing–for the block party or anything in the evening, I’d drive downtown and park in one of the store mall lots and take link to capitol hill for I could not depend on timely bus service to West Seattle in off-peak hours. For daytime wandering around, I’d take the bus downtown to the link. I’m near the 120, which is going to be a rapid ride bus next year, so I might change my mind depending on how rapid it really becomes.
A lot of the destinations I look forward to going to more often are going to have to wait until the pandemic is over, like my favorite U-District restaurants. Too many restaurants are afflicted with customers wandering around maskless.
There is the Vegan Haven grocery nook at the north end of the Ave, which has been closed over a year. I can’t wait for that to re-open. Currently, I’m in a bad bind with having to resort to curbside pick-up at regular grocery stores, thanks to the so-called “re-opening”. Grrrrr.)
There are more restaurants I’ve been meaning to try around Roosevelt Station, but it was also a pain to get to them.
That said, the big game-changer is the pedestrian bridge to the far north end of the North Seattle College parking diaspora. Not a destination for me, but it makes for a more pleasant walk to my favorite Indian restaurant just to the north.
I’m really missing all my favorite restaurants. I’m really missing going into grocery stores. I know, it’s been just a week, but it feels like forever.
Stay at home.
Brooklyn Station opens up the Ave and the U-District Farmer’s Market to a lot more people. I guess they’re both accessible now with a transfer to a bus or walking, but Brooklyn will be much more convenient.
If you’re looking at destinations beyond those immediately around the transit center, I would go with Magnuson Park. Currently it requires taking either the 62 or 75, both of which are quite slow. The 62, however, is very fast once it gets onto 65th, so you could be at the park in 10 minutes starting from Roosevelt Station.
Who knows, we might actually visit Northgate more often too. Neither the former 16 nor the current 26X serve(d) Northgate particularly well, especially with their circuitous and slow routing, so we’ve avoided Northgate for shopping even more than we’ve avoided downtown.
[spam]
I for one am looking forward to being able to get to my friend’s place in Shoreline without having to traipse all the way up to an E stop in the middle of a homeless camp, then the hour long slog on the E. Link + 373 has already proven useful for those cases when the 373 is running, and being able to use the 346 and 348 too will be really helpful.
Mike, I think you are confusing the issues.
TT isn’t arguing — as far as I know — to return buses to the DSTT1 to complete WSBLE. He has argued there may be enough rail capacity (frequency) in DSTT1 to handle light rail from WS to Ballard. TT has also suggested some alternatives to DSTT2 that may be cheaper.
I don’t know enough about tunnel engineering to comment on alternative technology for DSTT2 except ST doesn’t seem interested, but do agree with those who argue DSTT1 can handle frequencies lower than 6 minutes.
For me, that means ST’s claims to the four other subareas that DSTT2 was necessary to meet capacity for the spine were not true (and East Link is limited to 8 minute frequencies anyway), and not surprisingly those four other subareas don’t want to pay $275 million each for a DSTT2 so WS can connect to Ballard.
Ross on the other hand believes that if the money is there building a rail convertible DSTT2 is much better than a stub from WS to Sodo, that as Ross has pointed out is the dumbest idea of all because WS has lower density and ridership, great car access to I-5 and I-90, and the cost of a no-loss-of-car-capacity bridge plus light rail is not something Seattle can afford (hence the current bridge repair).
I use to agree with Ross that the first step is to build a convertible DSTT2. Until I realized the risk and costs are too great for N. King Co., NKC does not have the money, and the four other subareas are not only balking at contributing more than $275 million each to DSTT2 but are objecting to contributing anything because it does not benefit them, there is plenty of capacity in DSTT1 for the spine, ST lied to them about capacity and the need for DSTT2, and they really don’t have the first $275 million because ST (knowingly) underestimated the costs of projects in their subarea.
Plus the WSBLE is extravagant and a terrible waste of available transit dollars by a city that thinks money grows on trees (of course so us much of the spine due to uniform tax rates).
The realignment to me acknowledges DSTT2 won’t get built. ST can’t afford the fight with the four other subareas who feel they were misled, and N. King Co. does not have the extra money to pay for a second tunnel even if the four other subareas contributed $275 million each.
The rail stub was just politics, and I highly doubt it will get built because what is the point, and the cost of a bridge to WS with no loss of car capacity plus light rail would be unaffordable, and you know West Seattle will object to any loss of car capacity if all they are getting is a stub to Sodo, plus some cheap stations.
You can bet Ballard will also no loss of car capacity in any new bridge too because they don’t even get a stub to nowhere.
Thanks for saying “to me”.
“The realignment to me acknowledges DSTT2 won’t get built. ST can’t afford the fight with the four other subareas who feel they were misled, and N. King Co. does not have the extra money to pay for a second tunnel even if the four other subareas contributed $275 million each.”
Where are you getting this? Peel’s and Balducci’s positions were published in the Times and elaborated in The Urbanist, and some other boardmembers are vaguely leaning toward one of these positions. None of those alternatives eliminate DSTT2. Peel has it in the first half of four tiers; Balducci thinks she can get it closer to the original schedule. Which non-North King boardmembers or politicians are feeling misled and want to axe the tunnel? It’s certainly not all non North-King boardmembers as you imply, because Peel and Balducci aren’t. If the non North King boardmembers unanimously want to ditch the tunnel, they could vote to do so now because they’re the majority of the board. Why spend time putting it into tiers if they really want to get rid of it? That time could be spent working on a non-tunnel plan. Why would ST keep a front-running alternative it doesn’t intend to do? DSTT2 is in the SAME tier as Everett and Stride North. Where do you get that ST intends to finish some parts of the tier but not others? Or that intends to skip parts of tier 2 but complete tiers 3 and 4.
“The rail stub was just politics, and I highly doubt it will get built because what is the point,”
I’m surprised it’s lasting in spite of a budget crisis. ST could say, “We gave you your aristocratic respect in 2016 but we can’t afford it after a major recession. Metro kept the 42, 71, 74 local, and 78 alive to appease squeaky wheels, but they all got deleted or suspended in the next recession and aren’t in the Northgate Link plan. Why doesn’t ST do the same for West Seattle, and say it can get Link after DSTT2 and Ballard are finished. Few people will ride a stub to SODO, and Metro plans to keep the C and 21 running to downtown until the full line is built. It would be different if the distance from West Seattle to the stub were longer, or the distance from West Seattle to downtown were longer, or congestion there were as bad as I-5 or 405, then more people would ride the stub and Metro would have greater justification to cut off the bus route, but none of that applies. And now Durkan is talking about an initial phase from West Seattle to Smith Cove. Talk about serving privilege and ignoring the larger, higher-ridership village. But all this is preliminary, so I’m waiting for further indication from the board whether they really intend to pursue Durkan’s or Keel’s ideas.
Not much, if anything, in the video and three-station introductions about service, either Link or connecting bus routes. Will Link headways and waits be short? What connections can be made by the bus routes?
[spam]
Absolutely useless website
[spam]
[more garbage]
I wish I had so much spare time available, the only thing possible for me to do was to post insulting nonsense comments on random web site I didn’t actually read or comprehend.
And yes, comments here are moderated (at great cost to volunteers with limited time), so racist garbage gets kicked too. (Eventually)
I saw a bus with future wiring for back door ORCA card readers. Does that mean there will be all door boarding at every stop or only downtown and transit centers?
I haven’t heard of rear-door readers being implemented. Metro says it’s too expensive to fit all the buses and each reader costs thousands of dollars. Since it can’t even keep full bus service now and fill in 15-minute evening frequency on the Northgate-Lake City routes in October or pursue RapidRide K or Roosevelt, I don’t see where the money would come from. San Francisco has has full back-door readers I’ve heard, but that’s over a much smaller area and smaller bus fleet. The part you saw may just come standard with the bus body now, like how the SLU streetcar has on-board validators for a kind of ticket that isn’t issued here.
Vancouver BC has rear door readers too. It’s definitely convenient on some of their extremely crowded routes.
I’m pretty sure it is set up for the next gen Orca system. But I will do more homework to find out. I think I saw it on a 60 ft trolley.
It’s possible that Metro is planning rear-door readers for the Third Avenue routes, which already have off-board payment at most of the stops, but I haven’t heard of it.
Oh, and ORCA2 is coming any year now, and it will have different readers. So there’s no reason to buy legacy readers now, if they’re even still available.
Metro will have rear-door readers on all RapidRide in next gen ORCA
Thanks for the open thread! It means I can finally post this:
A group called Frog Ferry has been able to get a pile of federal grant money and other funds to create a passenger only ferry service in Portland:
https://pamplinmedia.com/pt/9-news/511504-409035-a-passenger-ferry-from-st-johns-to-downtown-will-open-next-year
There’s a wee problem wi’ the Frog Ferry, laddie. It’s aboot a hunnert feet below St. John’s it is. Now, sure enough they could ha’ a zip line to get doun ta it. But how’re they gonna get back oop?
Nice for the fearh apartment buildin’s tho.
Yeah, there are reasons this works in cities with density along the water, but nobody has yet put together anything workable for Portland.
I’d like to post a page two article. Can someone point me to a link or explain how to do it?
https://seattletransitblog.wpcomstaging.com/guest-post-guidelines/
More details on Page 2 in the 2nd paragraph
Thanks. I’d found that link last week and signed up for an account but couldn’t for the life of me navigate back to that page. The trip report for our Cascades adventure to Portland is in the mail.
I am vaccinated and, at this point, do not wear a mask anymore, unless required. Which, in practical terms, means wearing a mask only when riding the bus – even when I’m the only person on the bus.
Daniel Thompson is also right that most of the masks (including those available on board buses) are rubbish, and leak far too much air to be of much real use. It is possible to buy better masks that actually do protect you when worn properly (I have some), but it’s not possible or practical to enforce that. In practice, those that wear masks because they actually fear the disease will wear we’ll sealed masks offering good protection. And, those that wear masks only because someone is making them will wear the garbage masks that leave big air gaps around the nose and droop down to the chin. So, requiring masks doesn’t actually help much.
I too am vaccinated and only wearing masks when required. Basically link and Amtrak for me at the moment. It seems silly. If you’re immunocompromised, it’s not safe to ride even with a mandate. If you aren’t, just get a vaccine.
I personally would prefer a vaccine mandate, but I know that’ll never happen. Anonymous for obvious reasons.
It may seem silly, but with so many still unvaccinated it helps reduce the speed. Vaccinated people can still be used as intermediaries, which is much more likely over long periods of exposure in enclosed spaces.
Masks help reduce this.
Extensive mask use is why Taiwan, with a dense population and heavy early pandemic exposure, has only had 11 deaths.
But, we all know nobody is going to change what they do.
It has been remarkable how much effect even the poorly worn “junk masks” have been. Still, vaccination is a much better defense. At this point, requiring masks doesn’t help much in high vax settings–at least when you’re talking about large scale outbreaks that compromise the health care system. But we shouldn’t forget that masks were the best defense prior to the vaccines, and as far as large scale outbreaks, remain the best defense in low vax situations. They also make sense in health care settings where the likely exposure to pathogens is greater and where immune compromised people and those with exacerbating health conditions are more likely to be exposed. At the very least, during cold/flu season! And it definitely makes sense to mandate vaccination among health care providers, as European countries have started to do. Perhaps transit workers and Uber/taxi drivers too. While there were no super-spreader events linked to mass transit in the US, there were definitely too many transit operators who got sick and died! I believe it would improve confidence in mass transit if operators were all vaccinated, as a matter of policy.
Surgical masks are cheap and easy to come by. Yes, indeed, they do leak extensively. But they are also obviously effective enough that they are used in surgery, to protect your body from the breathing (and spitting) of a surgical team of doctors and nurses who are hunched over your cut-open torso, sometimes for many hours.
The fact that so many ineffective masks exist just shows one more flaw of our “free market” capitalism that is largely unregulated. Why are merchants allowed to sell those things and market them as protection from COVID? We can make it impossible to buy a useful and effective decongestant because some segment of the population uses them to manufacture an illegal drug. But we can’t regulate sales of ineffective masks during a pandemic. Wow, what an effective society we live in.
The good news about our free market system is it produced three effective vaccines in record time. The other good news is positive cases — and especially vaccinations and deaths — have plummeted in areas with high vaccination rates. We were also fortunate that Covid-19 had a pretty low mortality rate among the healthy and non-elderly. The Seattle Times recently noted almost half of all Covid-19 deaths occurred at assisted care facilities and among their staff.
I personally thought the UW and King Co. did an excellent job with both testing and vaccinations, once they got up and running. I don’t know what else a government can do in a pandemic but offer free and pretty easy testing, followed by free and pretty easy vaccinations. I like most wore a mask outside and inside before vaccinations, and practiced social distancing. What else could we do. But I didn’t like it.
Forced vaccinations, or just some system like a wrist band letting people know who has been vaccinated, don’t’ look like options the government is considering (although I think Hawaii now requires visitors to show proof of vaccination, and Europe might as well if you are willing to go to Europe), and private businesses in King Co. act like everyone is vaccinated, maybe because we have reached a 70% vaccination threshold, that combined with those who contracted Covid-19 but have not been vaccinated is the supposed line for “herd immunity”.
I don’t think those of us who have gotten vaccinated and stopped wearing our masks are the selfish ones. The selfish ones are those who can get vaccinated but choose not to, but want to participate in society. But if one thinks there is still a risk of contracting Covid-19 (which currently is a 0.8% chance post vaccination, but much lower for complications) after vaccinations without wearing masks why insist everyone gets vaccinated?
The reality is society has to reopen. Otherwise the service industry dies, and many, many renters get evicted because they have no jobs. Transit ridership and commuting fund transit, and work and entertainment generate the taxes that fund this society, from Social Security to Medicare to police and fire to everything else. Even in 2020 Covid-19 was only the third leading cause of death.
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/covid-19-continues-to-be-a-leading-cause-of-death-in-the-u-s-in-june-2021/
Not only that, but left unsaid is the terrible psychological toll the isolation caused, most acutely among the young and very old. I agree with those who think the CDC’s mask rules were ad hoc, and maybe a little rushed (although King Co. kept the mask mandates for indoors for several more weeks), but the fact is the citizens had had enough, especially those who were vaccinated, and this was one of the last places to lift mask mandates, and our infection rates are no better than Florida’s. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/this-is-how-many-people-have-died-from-covid-19-in-florida/ar-AAM149p?ocid=BingNewsSearch
My nephew is director of Urology at the Mayo Clinic and he says the four keys to male life expectancy are: 1. don’t smoke; 2. don’t eat read meat, and if you wonder why try washing a roasting pan in cold water; 3. get an annual PSA test; and 4. get a colonoscopy every three years (if you can) because it takes three years for a polyp to become cancerous, so treat a colonoscopy like mowing the grass.
Funny enough, though, when the Cleveland Clinic did a large mortality test among men and women they found by far the largest factor for life expectancy was other human company and friendship, and number two or three was dental hygiene because all that bacteria goes to the heart. I think it was Faulkner who said “if I had to choose between grief and nothingness I would choose grief”, and I think that is how most feel about the risks in life, and venturing out in society post-vaccination without a mask.
Not sure where you are getting your numbers, but the disease researchers I know say “herd immunity” happens at around 85%. There’s no way to get to that number until you are able to vaccinate kids too, because of the percentage of the population they represent.
Anything much less means it will continue limited transmission until it mutates into something harder to control, eg the delta variant.
It’s much better to just get near complete mask usage for a month or so, until it dies out in the population. That’s basically what Taiwan did. Things were back to normal within a few months of their first case.
As far as the “free market” goes, all current vaccines were funded by government agencies. One of them was funded by Germany. I’m not sure any of that really illustrates anything about the free market.
There’s a reason the COVID-19 vaccine was created in record time, and it has nothing to do with the free market. Quite the opposite, in fact. Scientists all over the planet have been researching cures for coronaviruses since SARS. Epidemiologists looked at it and realized something like COVID-19 was inevitable. Most of the legwork was already done, making pretty much the novel “spike” the hurdle that needed to be overcome.
Government funded laboratories working for over a decade are the reason why we created a vaccine in record time. And that’s a system the free market attacked and cut funding for for years.
@Daniel Thompson:
“The Seattle Times recently noted almost half of all Covid-19 deaths occurred at assisted care facilities and among their staff.”
With the two closest members of my family (one of whom is now deceased) being an RN and being an assisted care resident, I’ll ask, what is your point? That my family is expendible? That’s been my takeaway.
Regarding the psychological toll, has anybody ever considered the PTSD that healthcare workers deal with? Have you had multiple friends end up in ICU? At the same time? From the same disease? All while your neighbors, ex-friends, and extended family pretended that everything is fine? Yeah, probably not. How does that work out for life expectancy?
Engineer, I don’t quite get your point. My son got Covid last summer because he was an essential worker and had to work with the public, for $15/hour. He and all customers had to wear masks, but he still got Covid. I don’t know if your wife got Covid. He was living with us since college had closed, so it was a little dicey at first. But he recovered. My daughter also worked as an essential worker for most of 2020 before being vaccinated, but did not get infected. For $14.46/hour. What did you do during the pandemic?
What are you suggesting. That people voluntarily got infected with Covid-19 before vaccinations were available, or those who did get sick were negligent? Do you know how many millions of essential workers went to work every day in 2020, like my kids? I was an essential worker and went to the office every day, although our staff level was low and I had much less interaction with the public than my kids.
Were people who were sick with Covid-19 not suppose to go to the hospital? Did those infected deserve to be infected? Are you blaming them? I am sure most wore masks who got infected. I know it was a stressful time for health care workers, and many of us gave up N95 masks so health care workers could get them. It was a stressful time for all essential workers.
But what does that have to do with today? My family is vaccinated. We are not going to be going to the hospital with Covid-19. According to the statistics 99.2% of all infections are to folks who are not vaccinated, and of the 0.8% of vaccinated people who do get break through Covid the symptoms rarely require hospitalization. If required I will get a third shot.
This idea everyone should continue to wear a mask even if fully vaccinated to protect your wife simply is not supported by the science, and the reality is the country is not returning to wearing masks even if told to do so, so for me it is a moot issue. There is nothing I can do about the past year now, except get vaccinated.
Washington State just reached 70% vaccinated (my home city is over 90%) and were are making progress every day. Continuing to wear masks to stop Covid 19 is the past, and obviously did not work well, or nearly as well as vaccinations, and I wore a mask much longer than the rest of the country because we were one of the last to lift mask mandates.
Look, if masks had a 99.2% efficacy rate I would wear one too, if I were not vaccinated. Focus on vaccinations, not masks, because masks are a pretty desperate way to fight a pandemic, whether it is smallpox, polio, measles, mumps, the flu, or Covid-19.
Came across this behind the scenes video of East Link construction
The 70% figure for herd immunity (those vaccinated not including those who contracted Covid-19 and developed some immunity but did not get vaccinated) comes for President Biden and the CDC. https://www.foxnews.com/health/no-magic-target-herd-immunity-walensky
Herd immunity does not mean elimination of Covid-19 like Smallpox was eliminated. Masks will not eliminate Covid-19, as the past year has shown, but so far 99.2% of infections in the U.S. are in those who are unvaccinated (and perhaps a third booster shot will be necessary).
I would much rather vaccinate those who are not not vaccinated than have them wear masks unvaccinated, if the government could mandate either. The hospitalization rate is so low in kids under 12 — four per million — and the symptoms so mild I am not sure they will get vaccinated, and will return to schools without masks (except perhaps in CA).
I believe Pfizer did not accept government aid although the U.S. Government did offer to buy any effective vaccine when it was developed. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/covid-vaccine-funded-by-trump/ although it did give Moderna upfront money.
The mask issue is over, and in most states was over some time ago, and the infection rates are unclear about the effect of masks. There is little chance the federal, state or county governments could force vaccinated citizens to return to mandatory mask adherence which would have the dangerous effect of questioning the efficacy of the vaccines, and the science does not support it at 0.8% of infections among those vaccinated, many of those asymptomatic.
If you ask me if citizens should have to wear masks in indoor gatherings in areas with low vaccination rates I would say yes, and that is basically CDC and WHO policy. But I don’t think the sense of emergency is there anymore for a government agency to mandate masks, and most of the vaccinated are pretty stunned how effective the vaccines are (certainly compared to the ordinary flu vaccine that has around a 60% efficacy rate).
I am beginning to agree with asdf2 that all a mask requirement on transit does — especially buses — is stigmatize bus riders, and delay any return to transit ridership, especially by commuters, although my guess is the opposite was intended. The reality is most transit systems will be badly affected by a 5% or 10% drop in future ridership, which already looks likely post-pandemic. If we start telling citizens masks are needed even if vaccinated in all public areas then people will avoid buses and transit like the plague, no pun intended.
If a government agency like the CDC tells citizens they must continue to wear masks even if vaccinated they will terrify those people, undermine the vaccines which are highly effective, throw the emerging economy over a cliff, when only 0.8% of vaccinated people are getting Covid-19, and their symptoms are mostly very mild or not noticeable.
To the extent any appreciable number of people got vaccinated because of promises to lift mask mandates, they are now vaccinated. There is no technology to unvaccinate them.
“ Masks will not eliminate Covid-19, as the past year has shown”
What the past year has shown is that Americans are terrible at following health guidelines. Again, witness Taiwan.
Sure it’d be great if more people got vaccinated. Diminishing returns right now though.
“70% figure for herd immunity (those vaccinated not including those who contracted Covid-19 and developed some immunity but did not get vaccinated) comes for President Biden and the CDC.”
Even in your lower 70% number, that is a percent of total population required to get to herd immunity. What is currently being measured is percent of eligible people. These are two different numbers, because of unvaccinated children.
And apparently your willing to trust the CDC when it tells you what you want to hear (70% for herd immunity) but not when it tells you what you don’t want to hear (congregate settings such as transit should still require masks)?
“The hospitalization rate is so low in kids under 12 — four per million — and the symptoms so mild I am not sure they will get vaccinated, and will return to schools without masks (except perhaps in CA).”
What will happen is they will return to school, get a huge number of kids sick and hospitalized, and have to shut down again. Every single place that has attempted to go back to regular schools without getting the pandemic under control first (eg Taiwan, New Zealand, etc) has had the same disaster.
It’d be great if I’m wrong, but the continued number of cases indicate it’s still pretty prevalent in the population. Throw a bunch of unvaccinated kids into schools and the same thing will happen again because for them nothing has changed.
In recent weeks, some 22% of new cases in the USA are in children:
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/05/03/993141036/children-now-account-for-22-of-new-u-s-covid-cases-why-is-that
There’s this wee thing called the delta variant, and breakthrough infections,. Studies on the vaccines’ robustness against delta are mixed, and have only been coming in for a couple weeks. Walla Walla, Benton, and Franklin counties are currently having an outbreak due to low vaccination rates. That may remain there or it may spread and lead to breakthrough infections or new variants. Not just little Walla Walla by itself, but all the similar places around the country, and airline travelers. My personal strategy is to generally wait 2-4 weeks after other people have reduced mask wearing, to see if there’s a spike in cases. I’d rather be in the last third of people who reduce than in the first third. When I worked at Harborview after the HIV-related protocol changes started, the culture was to assume everybody had it because you couldn’t ask, and that one strategy might not work as well as advertised. Vaccines and masks serve as a two-prong strategy against the virus. I also have elderly relatives I’ll increasingly need to care for, and I need to be healthy for them.
At the same time I don’t go overboard the other way. I stopped wearing masks outdoors when the heat wave hit. There have long been situations where some others wear masks that I don’t, or requirements in other states/countries that Washington didn’t have and we were able to keep our numbers down without them. Now that wearing masks indoors is voluntary, I continue to do so for now, because why not? My goal is to get Seattle’s case numbers down to zero, or at least down to their lowest since it started.
Re the mask mandate on transit, I can see the arguments on both sides. To me it’s just one of the problems in life, and a minor one at that. I’m more concerned with how frequent the buses are than how long the federal mask mandate lasts. The feds are revising their guidelines, and we’ll know soon what the next iteration is. It’s not local transit that’s singled out; it also applies to airplanes. I highly doubt the requirement for airplanes and long-distance trains will be lifted before the requirement for local transit; they’ll probably all be lifted simultaneously.
I sympathize with asdf2 who is often the only person on the bus in Kirkland, or one of two or three people. Eastside ridership has plummeted because so many people are working at home. I’ve seen that on the 550, 250, and maybe B. That’s not what it’s like in Seattle or South King County. A fairer rule might be masks are only required if there are more than three passengers on a small bus or eight on an articulated bus. But that’s too unwieldly to codify in legislation, and impractical to enforce, and the feds are looking at it from a mile-high view and don’t see those details.
Asdf2’s experience reminds me of an experience I had in the mid 1980s. It was Memorial Day. and I was in Kirkland and decided to go to the U-District. I took the 255 downtown and was the only person on the bus. I transferred to a 71/72/73X to the U-District, and it was articulated and almost standing room only. That’s been an apt metaphor for transit in the Eastside and Seattle ever since.
I think it’s important to note that King County Metro doesn’t just serve Seattle, but also East County.
Right now, in King County, the reinfection rate is 1.28, which means despite Seattle having a good vaccinated rate, the pandemic is growing about as fast in the rest of the county as it was prior to vaccines.
https://covidactnow.org/us/washington-wa/county/king_county/?s=2054974
I really don’t see how Metro could possibly ease the mask mandate inside Seattle, and then require everyone put them back on once the buses get to Mercer Island or Kent or wherever. It’s functionally the same population group.
https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2021/07/09/bellevue-mixed-use-expansion-cascade-yard.html
<10 minute walk to the Eastgate TC, and probably a bit over 10 minutes to the freeway station once you hike up the stairs. I'm in the camp that the opportunities for growth & densification outside Seattle's core are in brownfield office/commercial spaces, so nice to see this project moving along. Interesting to see the developer continue with 600K ft of office space, given the market doesn't value the I90 corridor (~$20/sq ft lower than Bellevue downtown).
Minus the parking garage, this is the kind of development that needs to occur all over Eastgate & Factoria for the Bellevue-Issaquah Link segment to merit moving forward.
Some quality transit snark from Marc at the PSBJ:
“Pulte did not respond to a question about why Two Degrees has around 315 parking stalls for around just 240 residences in a transit-rich corridor with RapidRide bus service.”
Project is “120 townhouses and 120 condos in a mid-rise building on the nearly 7.6-acre property” at the current Puetz Golf store and driving range
https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2021/07/07/pulte-plans-north-seattle-condos.html?
Yeah, I read about this a few days ago on the DJC ($) as well:
https://portal.djc.com/news/re/12141511.html
Interesting project. I was wondering what the master plan was going to look like as I wasn’t sure if they would indeed be able to squeeze in this number of townhomes in addition to the two condo buildings on this particular targeted parcel. It looks like they came up with a few options per the Early Design Guidance* on file with SDCI that can fit this number of residential units within the city’s existing guidelines.
*direct d/l of .pdf document
https://www.seattle.gov/dpd/AppDocs/GroupMeetings/DRProposal3036031AgendaID9096.pdf
Looks like we’ve got a new post on Page 2!
https://seattletransitblog.wpcomstaging.com/2021/07/12/downtown-bellevue-parking-minimums-must-go/
Thanks for mentioning that. It’s been a while.
When will the details of the service change be posted so we can see what is actually happening?
If I had to guess, it’ll likely come at the end of August or Early September. As it’ll likely coincide with typical biannual service changes announcement all the Seattle metro bus systems (KCM, ST, CT, etc) do
There’s a list of routes somewhere but the link is buried in a comment in a back article. It tells which periods have 15 or 30 minute service but not the exact schedule. I went looking for it but Metro, ST, and King County make it hard to find on their websites. There’s something wrong with the agencies when the first Google result is STB, then Metro’s last March service change which it says is “coming up” then an Urbanist article, none of which had what you’re looking for.
The announcement with the schedules usually comes a week or two ahead, so around Sept 18.
This comment is about other things than transit, but closely intersects with current and future transit trends in Seattle, so I hope it is sufficiently on-topic.
The choice of whether or not to require masks on transit going forward should be left entirely up to the drivers (and their union). Whatever their decision, it is the right one. They are best positioned to make the cost/benefit analysis of personal safety in these uncertain times vs. defunding their own jobs.
We aren’t going to have vaccination mandates in Seattle, or anywhere else, because the ~20% of people who categorically refuse vaccination heavily overlap with the percentage of the population who have multiple M-16s in their basement and a deep distrust of the government coming to ‘help’. If the federal or state government decided to vigorously enforce such a mandate, our entire country would turn into Waco. I’ll leave it up to readers to decide how likely the completion of ST3 would become under such national conditions.
Similarly, we are never going to achieve herd immunity to COVID-19 through vaccination, for the exact same reason. Not in Seattle, most vaccinated (as far as I know) place in America, and not ANYWHERE ELSE in America either. That’s the truth of it. So all that’s left is to decide how, then, shall we live?
I can see that those who are deciding to double-mask on all errands and never again visit their favorite restaurant (because There Might Be An Unvaccinated Person There) are being rational, in their way. I don’t intend to tell them to live their life differently, in this comment or otherwise. However I would like to comment on the broader context.
Seattle funds buses, trains, and all future construction through a combination of local and federal revenue. The feds seem to be able to summon money from thin air (for now), but state governments are more restrained to this thing called “the economy”. “The economy”, as far as scientists have been able to tell, involves people interacting with each other to produce and acquire goods and services. To some degree it is possible to continue this activity through a combination of ubiquitous computers and forcing poor brown people to drive around and deliver packages to wealthier individuals. But, as scrupulous isolation eventually destroys the mental health of even the most dedicated technophile who can afford the fanciest screens (and let’s not even mention those who do not fall into this demographic!), this is not a long-term solution. Whether it actually saved any lives, as we crest 620,000 dead even with all our heroic efforts to seal ourselves away from the world, will be furiously argued for decades to come.
I feel like in a perfect world, I would be able to provide the commentators on this website an opportunity to sit down with and chat to the people in this community who enabled them to keep up their pure and perfect COVID isolation by going out and risking their *own* lives day after day to deliver them the stuff of life, focusing on topics like “risk management” and “cost/benefit analysis of safety” and “what does communal responsibility mean to *you*?” I think it would be a very interesting conversation! But, alas, they are too busy continuing to support each and every one of you under the non-ideal conditions of the real world to make room in their schedules. I guess we’ll all just have to continue to discuss how we should compel them to wear/not wear a mask to fill the time, instead.
To conclude, I believe the most important thing happening in Seattle transit at this exact moment is the rash of large rocks being dropped onto cars driving on the freeway (I read there have been over 100 incidents), regularly shattering windshields, from various overpasses which are close-ish to large homeless encampments. It isn’t proven that the homeless are the ones dropping them, but even if they are just being used as a convenient cover for well-housed others with an agenda (yet another fascinating consequence of the abject failure of housing policy in Seattle), it marks a new and ugly tone of the times. How much longer will we, *should* we, continue to spend so much of our energy discussing the equivalent of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? I’m not talking about bus reroutes and delays in delivery for ST3 – I suspect we will be discussing those until the end of time itself. But if elements of this society have finally decided that terrorism against the establishment (and let’s be clear, almost everyone driving in an SOV on I-90 can be counted among “the establishment”) is a good way forward… we’ve got more important things to contemplate than all this mask [redacted], don’t you think?
Either way, I advise the readers here to take your Vitamin D supplements, thank your local bus driver for their service, and deeply contemplate the ephemeral nature of life itself.
Very “on topic”, Thank you.
I agree that ATU should be consulted and negotiated with should Metro decide to roll back the mask mandate. To do otherwise would be a huge slap in the face of Metro’s operator force.
That said, the presence of the swinging plastic driver seat shields has helped make operators less worried about the maskfulness of riders. The spittle of unmasked riders has pretty much zero chance of reaching the operators once riders have passed by the farebox. Operators rightly do not confront such riders any more. Nor do they even bother to play the safety messages.
Riders who feel uncomfortable getting close to an unmasked manspreading rider can turn away while passing and sit in another part of the bus.
But even if the operators have ceased feeling threatened by roughly 10% of riders failing to properly wear masks, riders still have plenty of reason to want everyone around them (or as many as possible who are paying attention) to keep wearing masks. The reason: to inhibit the spread of COVID-19. The data clearly shows now that the vaccination campaign alone will not suffice.
In general, essential workers are being thrust into hostile work environments, having to endure the spittle of unmasked customers whose vaccination statuses they cannot know, with their unions routinely being ignored. Sound Transit, King County, and the other transit agencies should do better than this.
When I read your posts Brent you convince me transit is just too dangerous to ride, even if vaccinated. The risk of infection is just too great, even for someone who is vaccinated, mask adherence is sketchy, and surely some of the unmasked transit riders who no operator will discipline are positive for Covid, and even if vaccinated I am vulnerable sitting in that Petrie dish called a bus or train.
I think a great majority of commuters agree with you, and I don’t think there is any doubt these commuters think non-commuter transit riders are exactly the folks who would not wear a mask even if infected, or get vaccinated.
Getting them back on packed transit is going to be very, very difficult for employers, ST and Metro, especially when commuting to work on packed transit is something no one wants to do anyway.
That means a loss of interest in transit levies and a big hole in farebox recovery, and we all know where that leads.
When someone gets on a plane there is a very small chance the plane will crash, but the passengers believe there is no chance. That is why any plane crash in the U.S. is a concern: it reminds folks there is a risk.
You and some others want to convince citizens there is a damn appreciable chance that even if vaccinated if they go out in society without a mask or ride transit with a mask they could get infected and die.
Since folks (at least commuters) like society they will accept the risk since they are vaccinated, but won’t take transit because they do think it is like getting on a Russian plane, and they hate commuting on transit anyway.
What this tells me is employers better find an alternate to mass transit if they want to get employees in the office. That probably means staggered shifts and start times, some WFH, and subsidized parking.
Super speeder events have been traced to churches, bars, nightclubs, at least one gym, and several flights.
Transit is not especially high on the list of risky activities. However, considering we’re talking about the current #1 cause of death in the USA, and considering the other activities are optional except for the employees, and considering people still need to be able to get around, it doesn’t seem like requiring masks on transit is such a big problem.
Except for a few nuts, everyone seems fine with having to wear masks on airplanes even if they are vaccinated.
Why would the response to transit by large numbers of people be any different?
Let me just say that there appears to be a movement to keep the virus alive and get people killed, by pretending the mask debate is about “freedom”, and by spreading extreme misinformation about vaccines. If you want to fight on the side of the living, don’t join with either front of the death cult.
Currently Covid is the seventh leading cause of death in the U. S. In 2020 it was number 3, but briefly rose to number one until the vaccines were available.
According to the surgeon general on TV today 99.5% of current Covid deaths are unvaccinated people.
If there is any reasonable risk in society of hospitalization or death of vaccinated but maskless people in general society — especially King Co. with over a 70% vaccination rate — the very first place I am going to avoid is public transit like buses and trains, even if everyone is masked up, because it is pretty painless to drive instead, or WFH. A car is a much better barrier than a mask on a bus.
I don’t care what ATU thinks. Glenn has convinced me taking transit rather than driving is a pointless risk even if vaccinated, although I had dinner at That’s Amore tonight and no one, including servers and their spittle, were masked. Of course,, we drove to dinner, so we were not exposed to the terrible risks of transit.
Transit for the most lucrative ridership — peak hour commuters — is mainly discretionary suddenly, depending on the costs of parking. All those commuters own cars, like the rest of us.
If they demand subsidized parking to go into the office employers will shift from transit to parking subsidies. Sure they will claim they are afraid of getting Covid 19 on the bus and spreading it to their co-workers, which will terrify their employers, but you know and I known their real goal is WFH, or parking rather than transit subsidies.
And there you have it folks: “the mask comes off”.
In fact, the people who are refusing to get vaccinated are not transit riders. Yes, there might be some impoverished transit riders who have not been vaccinated because they’re paranoid about the shot, but most of the resistance is in a completely different demographic: i.e. the “Freedumb Caucus”. Those folks don’t ride transit. Ever. They’re part of your Glorious Car Owners Federation,
You miss the point of my post Tom, which is perception and motivation.
Public transit, even in a highly vaccinated area like King Co., is one of the few areas masks are required, even by vaccinated folks. You accuse me of elitism, but I didn’t set the mask mandate. Is it really so unusual that the work commuter would see the one area a mask is still required is public transit and wonder why? What was transit ridership like on transit before vaccines? And even post vaccines? The perception is that yes, public transit, especially buses, have a higher risk of infection, and no one is willing to risk their lives based on some crummy mask they bought at Wal-Mart.
The motivation however is commuting an hour each way to work on public transit (plus first/last mile access) is miserable, which is why the executives and partners drive. I don’t know if you work or take transit to work every day during peak hours, so maybe you don’t understand.
These commuters have worked from home the last 16 months, and don’t miss the work commute. They want either full time WFH, or some kind of staggered shift a few days/week. The problem is all of ST’s and Metro’s future funding and project estimates are based on this farebox ridership returning to pre-pandemic levels (and growing exponentially), which we already know is not going to happen. The question is how many return, because that determines the scope of transit.
If people like Glenn and Brent claim even unvaccinated people are at risk in general public if anyone is unmasked, or even all are masked, then what is the risk on public transit? Obviously higher, because it is public transit, the density is high during peak commutes, and there is still a mask mandate. It doesn’t help when even very blue counties like LA county reinstate mask mandate. What do you think the ridership rate is on LA County public transit right now despite a 61% fully vaccinated rate, and nearly 70% one dose rate. http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/media/Coronavirus/vaccine/vaccine-dashboard.htm
But the real motivation is to not commute to work on public transit. These same workers are going out to bars and restaurants and to weddings and sporting events unmasked. But they enjoy those; no one enjoys taking public transit to work and back five days/week. Most of the folks on this blog are retired, and wax about taking transit to view gardens or walk in parks, not five days/week on packed buses to and from work.
So they will tell their employer the risk of infection — to them, their families, their unvaccinated kids under age 12, and to their co-workers, is too high on public transit, and everyone will have to wear a mask at work, and at home, if even one person takes the bus to work. Either full time WFH, or staggered shifts with subsidized parking, and it is damn hard to get workers these days, and WFH is set up throughout the economy.
What is an employer going to do? Argue 99.2% of infections are in unvaccinated people, when obviously there is a greater risk of an unvaccinated person on the bus, otherwise there wouldn’t be a mask mandate, would there?
I am one who believes being vaccinated protects me in public without a mask, and even then the risk of hospitalization or death is miniscule. I can also say before I was vaccinated I didn’t gather in public groups on the hope my mask would protect me. I think it is imperative people get out of their homes and back to work, both for mental health and society in general, and public transit in particular, except commuting on public transit is such an awful experience for the worker, except they are paying transit bills.
You look for the class warfare angle because you think it makes you superior. Try looking at the issue from the point of view of the common worker who can’t drive to work because they can’t afford parking, have difficult first/last mile access, and generally feel getting on a bus — or having a co-worker take a bus to the worksite — increases their risk and the risk of their families?
This comes at a time when many workers are reevaluating their lives and their jobs, and wondering do they want to do this shit for the rest of their lives, and that shit begins and ends every day on a packed bus or train to another packed bus or to a park and ride that is full by 7 am.
Forget about me because transit is never going to affect me. Think about the frontline worker if you are such a Marxist, and what transit looks like without the work commuter, or even just half of them.
Daniel, I don’t now, because I’ve been retired for five years, since age 70. I was a contract database analyst / programmer for three decades before that and sometimes got a contract in a city with poor transit or at a specific location with none. In a few of those I was able to get housing within a mile or two of the workplace and walked. Otherwise I drove, of course
But when transit was available and I was not expecting to work late or on the weekend for a deployment or “alone time” to focus on coding, I went out of my way to use it. I like reading on the bus.
For the first twenty years of my adult life I had no car at all except during two years living in the deep country. My then wife hit a rock which broke the transmission of the early ’50’s Packard given to us by my aunt, which we could not afford to fix. So we moved to Seattle where I started working in offices which eventually led to work in I/T.
P.S. Even at seventy-five I still walk to the grocery store for food and bring it home in a backpack almost every time my wife and I shop. I admit that I am lucky to be able to do so in a modern American city.
I like driving on rural roads for a journey or brief trip — the highest and best use of private automobiles, IMO — but I hate driving on urban roads packed with selfish, unthinking narcissists in their tin ego extensions. So I do it as little as possible. Obviously I can’t carry large loads of garden supplies on my back.
I missed your comment “transit is never going to affect me” [i.e. you].
Then why are you here posting your inflammatory exaggerations about Link [to give you the benefit of the doubt]?
Here is an honest question. Assuming that ST3 falls apart as you predict and ends up just being completion of the Everett and Tacoma Dome extensions and I-405 BRT, would you vote for a King County TBD of say 2/10ths of one percent for those “frontline workers”?
Well TT, I don’t know if completing the spine from Everett to Tacoma to Redmond (and don’t forget Issaquah to S. Kirkland) is ST 3 “falling apart”. But I post about it because I am paying for it, some of our staff used to use it, and so far it looks like some new thinking is necessary at ST.
It is very hard for me to believe ST’s budget deficit estimates on ST 3. In December it was $12.5 billion, then last month $7.9 billion, now just recently $6.5 billion through 2041 “based on second quarter 2021 results”. How can ST change such huge deficit estimates through 2041 so rapidly based on one quarter in 2021, during a pandemic, but my suspicion is politics. I think time will tell. I have never trusted ST numbers since ST 1, which was 84% overbudget. Call me a skeptic.
What I do know is DSTT2 looks too risky and expensive to me for N. King Co., (which many predicted in 2016), which then means the WSBLE extension is fundamentally different. The rest of the subareas don’t look too bad, although the $194 million for Federal Way Link surprised me. In fact, I had dinner with a construction engineer last Friday and he stated digging a deep tunnel under 5th Ave. would be a crazy risk, from an engineering standpoint, and any bid contingencies would be over 50%.
It looks like with $252 million from the feds Lynnwood Link and Federal Way Link can be completed (hopefully), although I don’t quite understand the need for the money if ST 2 is fully funded and ST is flush, or whether the need for that federal funding is “inflammatory”.
Anyway, to answer your question, “would you vote for a King County TBD of say 2/10ths of one percent for those “frontline workers”, I would answer as follows:
1. Are you telling me we need another 2/10th’s of one percent for all of King Co. to complete Link? Are you really suggesting a King Co. ST 4 levy? I thought you said ST was flush with cash, including N. King Co.
2. Whether commuters plan to return to commuting by transit, because that would determine whether the funding is really for them, and what the funding would be for, or necessary.
I doubt it would pass anyway.
Probably bridge repair and eviction moratoria expiring is a more pressing funding need for me. Overall I think this region is spending too much on transit, especially rail, in just about every subarea. But that will depend on future population and ridership levels post pandemic, which ST estimated to both grow exponentially.
According to Tisgwm, we will spend around $90 billion on light rail through 2041, money we could have spent on other worthy projects. I think that should be more than enough. I hope it is.
The “front line workers” don’t want more transit funding; they want to be free from commuting on transit to and from their work. 2/10th’s of one percent won’t change that complete waste of time and life commuting, even if it causes problems for ST budget estimates. Your proposal sounds to me like it is more for the benefit of ST than the poor commuters riding transit to work and back five days/week.
A King County 2/10th percent TBD would be for Metro, similar to the one which lost in 2014 but with the $60 tab fee replaced by an extra tenth of sales tax. I guess you answered the question.
And, just to correct the record, I have never said North King is “flush with cash”. I said it could build the West Seattle stub, Westlake to Ballard with a temporary surface station at Westlake and pay for the two infill stations. The routes might not be all elevated or tunnel and some other value engineering might be necessary, but it can be done.
What it can’t afford is both the extensions AND the three deep stations without the participation of the other sub-areas.
“According to Tisgwm, we will spend around $90 billion on light rail through 2041,…”
That’s not correct.
Per the first financial plan published by ST following the passage of ST3, the ENTIRE agency spending thru 2041 was some $92.5B in YOE$. The fall 2020 financial plan had that figure at about $98.5B. (The most recent forecast has the total 25-year spending well over $100B.)
With that said, I too have little confidence in the agency’s long range financial plans. The CFO’s recent presentation to the Finance and Audit Committee now shows the affordability gap being reduced from $7.9B to $6.5B. But if one takes a closer look at the details, one quickly notices that while the reduction reflects an increase in tax revenues of some $2.1B this is offset by an additional $200M in capital expenses and an additional $500M in ops expense since the last update in the spring. It’s also worth noting that the latest affordability gap announcement of $6.5B also assumes an additional $2.5B in grant funding that was not in the pre-pandemic 25-year plan.
The war on cars comes to Oslo. City Beautiful shows the results of pedestrianizing parts of city centers and neighborhoods in several European cities. Want!
According to the video, Oslo in 2017 committed to making the city as car-free as possible. It has implemented it in the city center and in areas around schools and parks. Downtown shopping increased 10%. Pedestrian and bicyclist deaths fell to zero in 2019. “Once you get rid of cars, it makes all other forms of transportation better.”
Link
Where would you put your car free areas in Seattle?
Nordstrom objected to closing Pike St., and said it would not purchase and remodel the old Frederick and Nelson building if the city closed Pike and did not permit the skybridge. The last thing Seattle needs now is to lose Nordstrom, although my guess is that store is the worst performing store per sf., and the area is declining badly with the loss of Macy’s. Plus so much of Seattle’s parking is on the street.
The point of a car free area is to revitalize retail and restaurants (think Bourbon Street without the porn), not eliminate cars. That means people want to walk the streets because they feel safe and there is retail density. Seattle businesses right now are clamoring for the city to address crime and homelessness, not cars. Zoning Westlake Center pedestrian only (which it basically is) is not going to solve those issues, or bring in new customers.
One way or the other you still have to figure out a way to get cars to the perimeter of the car free area, and provide parking. Basically this is what Bellevue Square, Lincoln Square north and south, and the Hyatt create, with tons of surrounding and underground parking so Bellevue Way is effectively car free, or the retail is inside.
If you tell retail and restaurant owners all their patrons will come on public transit they will never go for that. According to the rep. for Simon Properties when discussing transit for Northgate Mall, he stated transit is how shoplifters get to his malls. Harsh, but that is how these folks think.
I could see a car free area on Bellevue Way from NE 4th to 8th, even 10th after the performing arts center opens, but Kemper Freeman who owns all the properties and all the parking is against it, and his properties are not doing badly. After all, when you think of it a mall is a car free area with incredible retail density. If you are a business, what you are really asking for is more pedestrian only malls, with lots of perimeter parking and lots and lots of shoppers with lots and lots of cash.
Two ST light rail extension projects, Lynnwood Link and Federal Way Link, are scheduled to get additional CIG funding per the American Rescue Plan….
https://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/news/Sound-Transit-light-rail-projects-gain-federal-funding–63982
Two hundred and fifty two million!!
Uncle Sugar comes to North King’s rescue!
No more will sappers attack the munitions supply. Stand tall, doughty defenders of the New American Corregidor!!
Though you are assailed by legions of swaggering Eastside MOTU’s, the human wave assailants of “equity” from the south and the Sneeritreans at your northern border, stand tall! You have troops who will actually ride the tanks to victory!
Huzzah, North King!
I am a little confused TT. Why does N. King Co. need $94 million to complete Lynnwood Link and $148 million to complete Federal Link in federal funds since both projects are part of ST 2, and you have consistently corrected me (and called me a liar on this blog) when I have suspected ST and the N. King Co. are using ST 3 revenue to complete ST 2 projects, and this known deficit was a big reason for placing ST 3 on a 2016 ballot with desperate cost estimates so it passed.
When it comes to ST my advice is to not rely on the press releases and follow the money. Had the $252 million been for ST 3 projects that admittedly are now — four years later — billions underwater I guess I could understand that, but why $252 million for ST 2 projects in N. King Co. (and nothing for East Link) if ST 2 is fully funded?
Will the $252 million in federal funds build any new stations or lines not in ST 2 as passed?
Will the $252 million fund anything new, or is the plan to constantly underestimate project costs and future tax revenue hoping for federal or state or other subarea bailouts, and hope very naive transit advocates call anyone who raises these questions liars and asks moderators to cancel their suspicions.
It is kind of confusing, Daniel.
The Murray press release says that it is simply supplanting the local share. It’s not spending more money on the projects.
A bit of context:
1. Federal funds were always a notable portion of the project (as they are with most major Highway and transit projects). The local share is larger than the minimum needed to get Federal funds.
2. To get Federal funds, FTA effectively requires a conservative local match assumption. FTA makes ST prove that they afford the project without asking for more money from them. FTA can add money later but they committed to at least that amount in the FFGA.
3. This grant appears to change the way the bill will be paid. The “food” ordered off the menu will not change and this is like setting up settling the bill as the dinner is almost finished. It does not change what is ordered for dessert although with local money a new enhancement could emerge.
4. Sometimes, FTA also merely appropriates money from the original FFGA rather than increases their previously promised amount. The press reports that also as an FTA grant so it can be confusing. This particular grant appears to be new FTA money put on the table to pay the bill.
5. ST3 local funds have always been assigned to to Federal Way Link south of KDM. That’s listed in ST3 documents. This project is a joint ST2/ ST3 project.
Opinion: What is tragic is that the non-publicly-circulated Lynnwood cost reductions included removal of down escalators and companion narrower platforms at stations. If this money had been anticipated, down escalators could have been provided! It really disgusts me how ST does not anticipate that these small improvements that benefit riders could come about by reserving room in stations for future down escalators. It’s now too late for Lynnwood Link stations because the platforms are now too narrow for down escalators. It’s a looming system complaint as we go from having 7 non-DSTT stations with escalators to having to 28 non-DSTT stations with escalators plus the four more in the DSTT.
It’s a looming system complaint as we go from having 7 non-DSTT stations with escalators to having to 28 non-DSTT stations with escalators plus the four more in the DSTT — by 2025.
You seem a bit irony-challenged, Daniel.
‘E took the bayte, ‘e did. [Chortle]
While this is a matter of tiny concern compared to the impending Doom of Transit at the hands of the CDC, I’d like to quibble with the frequencies planned for the ST Express routes that will transition from going downtown to terminating at Northgate Link light rail stations.
The train will come every 10 minutes. Both route 512 and 522 will run every 15 minutes. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If I had my druthers, route 512 would run every 10 minutes, an actual boost in frequency, while route 522 would merely get boosted from every 30 minutes to every 20 minutes. That seems like a better way to spread the hummus of improved all-day frequency.
Yeah, I know, subarea equity. But I think the real limiting factor is Community Transit (er, First Transit) operator availability. Just a small suggestion. But do please keep the mask mandate, or this will all be moot.
Yeah, there will be some awkward transfers, but that is the nature of our system. Link needs to run more often. It is also hard to time transfers, which means that if the buses ran every ten minutes, you still might have a nine minute wait. Ideally both buses would run every ten minutes, but I would rather have them both run every 15 then reduce one to every 20 minutes. The 522 isn’t just about connecting to Link, it is about getting people along that corridor, and making other connections. Or, in the case of the U-District, maybe just a more frequent, easier connection (via the buses).
East Link will open in a couple years, and that will help. I sort of view Northgate Link as a “soft opening”. It will take a couple years before it gets the frequency that it should. Rainier Valley may never be so lucky (it may be stuck with ten minute frequency forever).