Flat-fare Link at $3 is almost a done deal. ($)
Coincidentally, RMTransit has a new video on flat fares, zones, and distance-based fares.
An in-depth look at Bogotá’s TransMilenio BRT, which was a model for several other cities. This article outlines its history, how later politicians neglected it, and follows a woman on a five-bus commute. ($)
New York City’s congestion pricing is almost in place. $15 tolls are likely. ($)
High housing prices across the country. ($)
STB’s Martin Pagel has two articles in the World Transport Journal. Page 62 discusses gondolas that have been considered in Seattle. Page 13 has a primer on ropeways, the general term for gondolas and air trams.
King County is updating its comprehensive plan next year. Here’s the proposed draft. The EIS is taking comments through January 31. (This is separate from Seattle’s comprehensive plan update, which is also ongoing.)
A list of public gardens in Seattle and the northwest, suitable for forest bathing. ($) The Seattle Sensory Garden has things for all five senses. It’s next to the rose garden on the south end of the Woodland Park Zoo. The Highline SeaTac Botanical Garden also has a sensory garden and is worth visiting, although it’s a mile from a bus stop. (128 is closest, or A).
This is an open thread.
Things are looking grim, aren’t they? ST is going to waste billions upon billions of dollars that could do much better things, and it seems that public can’t do one iota to change their foolish course.
I will give them credit for choosing the right station location at Smith Cove. The monstrosity above the access road above the railroad tracks, two full blocks from Expedia was stupid, stupid, stupid, and I am very glad that they have apparently binned it. And they’ve moved the station at Dravus far enough south that at least the westbound buses won’t have to make a loop-the-loop to the station.
So maybe they do listen a bit on the details. We can hope, right?
“ We can hope, right?”
The only reason I’ve ever seen the ST Board make changes is when a development interest lobbies for it or against it. While we have many elected officials who espouse progressive public interest values, what I’ve observed are many elected officials who care little about rider experience as they make choices pushed by a parade of development interests (in private “stakeholder” meetings) trying to shape the lines and stations like they have a curling broom. Unfortunately, all this curling sweeping reduces the velocity of the stone (aka public funding) to the point that the ability to land in the target area looks increasingly less likely.
The only way I can see any hope to change the many little decisions that almost always erode the overall future rider experience is to expose the systemic corruption that’s happening with our tax dollars.
Yeah I know it’s controversial to call it “corruption” but that is what it appears to me to be happening. While there likely is not direct bribery occurring it’s still corrupt to placate a private development interest by changing the plans to suit them in hopes of getting their next big campaign funded.
And let’s also be clear that the big engineering and construction companies like it when plans change to make a project more expensive. They will design and redesign anything the Board wants to do. Then when “value engineering” is needed the things that get cut are either the minor things that would actually improve the rider experience (like escalators) or sometimes deferment of stations (those stations without a developer advocate) which can improve the cost savings.
We really need a different decision structure that looks out for both the riders and the taxpayers on the long-running cost escalation + worse designs game. When I read that inflation gets the primary blame I want to heave.
Oh, and congratulations to Martin for getting a global audience with his articles. Grant, it’s a global audience of geeks, but who are we to throw stones at that particular window, eh?
The Burke Gilman alternative study 10% design came out a couple days ago. It’s on the south side of Leary a 10 foot extended shared use path.
Leary is suggested to move to 2 general lanes south bound, 1 center lane, 1 lane north bound and 1 bus lane. Additionally the parking would be removed. New angled parking is added to 22nd instead.
Market street is adjusted from 4 general lanes to 2 bus lanes and 2 general lanes.
The sidewalk is not shifted and instead it looks like they are removing/shifting the bus stop at market street/ Leary? I don’t quite understand the diagram here.
https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/programs/bike-program/ballard-bike-route-study
https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/SDOT/BikeProgram/Ballard%20Bike%20Study/Leary_MissingLink_Graphics.pdf
WL: at the west end, at 24th Avenue NW, NW Market Street would only have one eastbound lane; the bus lane would be added at Ballard Avenue NW. The concept retains the westbound west-to-south left turn lane. This single eastbound lane will probably be a choke point for buses (e.g., routes 40 and 44) that SDOT is attempting to improve in other projects.
The main flaw on both Leary and Market will be the 10-foot two-way mixed use BGT in between the sidewalks for pedestrians and the bus stops at the curb. There will be friction between the intending riders and the BGT users; will fast cyclists yield to transit riders? At times of high use, the BGT will be over capacity. This was it main flaw on Shilshole Avenue NW; the BGT users have multiple modes and speeds; the fast cyclists will end up using the general purpose lanes at times of heavy use.
The Seattle Transportation Plan is now in process. It is an attempt to merge the four modal plans. SDOT realized that ROW was scarce. The bike plan had more conflict with the other plans than the others. The SDOT Route 40 plan would degrade the northbound common stop transfer point on Fremont Avenue North between North 34th and 35th streets.
It’s a no-brainer on what bad choices Bogota made. Having spent a year in Colombia, and having ridden the Medellín rail and gondolla systems, when comparing the two cities, Medillin is the city that all the locals rave about.
When one can’t get out of the Bogota airport with ones limbs
attached after riding BRT, it was obvious on which chose wisely. I saw the same discomfort and chaos on the Lima BRTs. Kudos for the new rail systems finally
going in.
That sounds like a result of the neglect of the existing BRT infrastructure after the governing party changed hands. Was it always that bad, or was the original project flawed? What’s the problem getting out of the airport? Is the ride bumpy, or does it have to make left turns in a few seconds while oncoming cars are coming through?
Volume and overcrowding. Necessary capacity for the number of riders could not be met. It didn’t matter how many buses they ran there were still long lines and patrons crammed into the buses.
“While a typical bus can carry around 60-80 passengers, a light rail vehicle can carry up to 200 passengers. This means that light rail can handle higher passenger volumes, making it a more efficient option for areas with high ridership”
“or was the original project flawed”
On some level the TransMilenio was a bit of a flawed project from the beginning. For a city with 7 million people, an extensive metro project would’ve probably been a much wiser investment than the BRT they went with. But they went the fast and cheap route. It’s partly why I’m genuinely leery of BRT projects saying “it’s just as good as rail” or a suitable substitute for rail infrastructure.
@Viva Shakira,
I have not been to Columbia, but I have heard the same thing about Bogota BRT. Most complaints are about crowding, but apparently the ride quality is poor too. Supposedly really uncomfortable, but crowded for no other reason than there are no other good options. Basically it is successful because it has a captive audience.
I have heard that Bogata is bringing back rail, primarily because BRT just can’t handle the volumes.
I have been to Peru. Their overall rail system is good, but their first Metro line is not too useful if you are staying out in Miraflores. Hopefully their next 2 lines (3?) will increase coverage.
South America is awesome. Need to spend more time there.
> It’s partly why I’m genuinely leery of BRT projects saying “it’s just as good as rail” or a suitable substitute for rail infrastructure.
I mean typically we’re talking about Seattle / other medium sized American cities where the concern is about speed and reliability from right of way not about capacity.
@WL,
Even in medium sized American cities:
A). If you want speed, you would go with some sort of rail system.
B) if you want reliability, you would definitely go with some sort of rail system.
C). If you want capacity, you would definitely go with some sort of rail system.
To understand the above, consider 1-Link. It is only one line, is only 24 miles long, and yet it carries 40% of what the entire Metro system does. And does it faster and more reliably.
I can hardly wait for the next Link extensions to come on line. It’s going to be a brave new world.
“I have heard that Bogata is bringing back rail, primarily because BRT just can’t handle the volumes.”
Curitiba is also upgrading to metro after a having one of the most transformative BRT networks in the world. The main takeaway for me is that all these Latin American cities went big on transit. Whether they should or shouldn’t have started with BRT seems like a secondary issue. Alon Levy says rail should be considered a lot more down the scale (in smaller cities), and German cities are practicing that. But major BRT infrastructure is also a big deal and a good step forward. The US just needs something more competitive with driving and serving many kinds of non-work trips, moreso than it needs one particular technology. In other words, Seattle would be lucky to have Latin America’s level of transit in any form.
“It’s partly why I’m genuinely leery of BRT projects saying “it’s just as good as rail” or a suitable substitute for rail infrastructure.”
The reason to be leery is that the US waters it down too much. RapidRide and the streetcars should have full transit-priority lanes but don’t.
There is a capacity threshold above which BRT just can’t perform, even with a bus every minute. Bogatá may have passed this point. But for Pugetopolis the issue is more that we can’t convert GP or parking lanes to transit-priority lanes than that demand is just too high for bus technology. And the other issue is that we don’t have enough metro/BRT corridors for the population size, so that people could get around more efficiently to more areas. That again could be solved with BRT, or even just incremental improvements to RapidRide and building the other dozen lines in Metro’s long-range plan.
The flip side to the argument of “BRT can’t handle the capacity needs, should have built rail” is that, without the BRT, there would not have been the proven ridership demand to justify the rail investment in the first place.
“without the BRT, there would not have been the proven ridership demand to justify the rail investment in the first place.”
Where, in Seattle or Curitiba? That gets into the argument that that American cities are too rail-phobic. You don’t need seven million people like New York City to have rail. Spokane is large enough to have a high-quality tram, and would have if it were in Germany. Just having the tram would generate ridership, if it has the transit-priority lanes and frequency that would make a difference, and is not shunted away to freeway corridors that are hard to walk to.
> A). If you want speed, you would go with some sort of rail system.
> B) if you want reliability, you would definitely go with some sort of rail system.
No it’s about right of way. And many times once you build an expensive right of way sure using rail makes sense but not always.
I mean don’t forget both the sodo section and the downtown tunnel were originally for busses.
“ A). If you want speed, you would go with some sort of rail system.”
ST specs Link light rail at a 55 mph max speed. I have never seen a bus with a speedometer that goes any lower than 100 mph.
It’s not rail that makes it faster. It’s wider station spacing and eliminating potential conflicts in the alignment that makes rail typically faster. Further, it’s what type of rail vehicle is being anticipated that also affects things. So this statement is not actually true from a pure technology perspective.
And anyone with a basic understanding of braking knows that a rubber tired bus can stop more quickly and with less distance than a steel wheeled train can. Since trains need longer deceleration distances, it appears that trains are actually slower than buses are.
“I have never seen a bus with a speedometer that goes any lower than 100 mph.”
There’s no road in Pugetopolis with a speed limit over 65 mph. You can’t get a bus faster than that without building a new dedicated road, and if we’re going to spend that much we might as well build rail instead and get its capacity and energy-efficiency advantages.
“And anyone with a basic understanding of braking knows that a rubber tired bus can stop more quickly and with less distance than a steel wheeled train can.”
For passenger rail systems, the limiting factor is passenger safety and comfort. There’s a certain braking rate at which it is considered to be a hazard to standing passengers.
Glenn is exactly right. Modern railcars have big disk brakes with air channels. They can stop quickly. For emergencies most street rail systems have “track brakes” which are rough bars a couple of feet long which have electromagetic plungers to push them — hard — against the railhead. Those things can stop a tram in a few feet.
As Glenn noted, this tumbles everyone standing and some people sitting, so it’s done only in extremis as when a car stops right in front of the tram. Since grade-separated systems have many fewer such incursions, the track brakes are usually omitted, as here at ST.
@Glenn,
“ There’s a certain braking rate at which it is considered to be a hazard to standing passengers.”
That is exactly correct, but that statement is true regardless of technology. And that also represents a significant advantage of rail over rubber tired buses..
Buses are configured almost exclusively for seated passengers primarily because the herky jerky nature of bus travel, with its sudden stops and starts, can easily send standing passengers tumbling. This represents a significant safety hazard. It’s why a 60 ft articulated bus nominally carries about 60 passengers – one passenger per foot of bus.
A rail vehicle is the opposite. The smoother ride with its more even accel and decel allows a configuration with more standing passengers without risking passenger safety. The net result is that a 95 ft LRV typically carries about 200 passengers, or 2 passengers per foot of LRV. About double what a bus carries.
It’s just passenger comfort and safety, but the end result is higher capacity for the smoother operating rail systems.
@WL,
“ No it’s about right of way”
Ah, the speed, reliability, and capacity advantages of rail persist even given similar right-of-ways. This is particularly true of reliability and capacity, but it is also partially true of speed as rail has better acceleration characteristics than diesel buses, and because buses tend to have much worse dwell times than rail.
“I mean don’t forget both the sodo section and the downtown tunnel were originally for busses.”
Exactly, and how did that little experiment work out?
Metro was never able to run the promised number of buses through the original “bus tunnel”, and now ST is actually pumping more passengers through the DSLRT than Metro was ever able to. And ST is doing it more reliably and with shorter transit times.
This is why you don’t see any (zero) proposals for new bus tunnels. And why you don’t see any true BRT systems with fully dedicated ROW in Seattle. We learned our lesson.
… did I ever say rail doesnt have higher capacity than busses?
The point is that the busses practically were the same speed and reliability while in the tunnel/ sodo section. And actually provided a higher frequency.
Buses are configured almost exclusively for seated passengers
That is simply not true. Trains and buses have great flexibility when it comes to seating configuration. There are some limits based on the type of vehicle, but the same basic approach applies. Like so much in transit, there are trade-offs. If you want to maximize capacity, you minimize the number of seats. If you want to maximize comfort (typical for longer trips) you do the opposite.
Urban systems — both trains and buses — tend to have very few seats, so they can maximize capacity. In busy, urban areas, it is common to see this configuration for the buses. Not great for sitting, but lots of standing room. Same with subways. Like the bus, it is clearly designed to maximize standing room (or total capacity). Note: It is striking how similar those pictures are, even though one is a train, the other a bus. The first time I saw a bus configured like that was was in NYC, which is also the first time I rode a subway.
On the other end of the spectrum you have long-distance travel. With intercity buses and trains as well as commuter rail, the vehicles are not designed to maximize capacity. You aren’t expected to stand. Not only is their less crowding (typically) but riders have to spend more time on the vehicle. A typical trip on a bus is around ten minutes or so. For commuter rail or an express bus it is a lot longer. This is why you see double-decker buses on ST Express and Community Transit commuter routes. They minimize standing room, but give riders a lot of places to sit down (for those long trips).
Our buses and light rail tend to be somewhere in the middle. Not a huge amount of sitting or standing room — a good compromise given the nature of the system. We could reconfigure our light rail system to maximize capacity, but it would mean limiting the amount of sitting room. Since we have a hybrid system (subway/commuter rail) this would be unpopular.
Of course there are other issues. Trains reverse directions, so of course, many of the seats face backwards. But overall, the seating configuration is based more on the type of trip than it is the vehicle.
> This is why you don’t see any (zero) proposals for new bus tunnels.
It’s true not many bus tunnels, well I mean Seattle was a bit unique already having trolley bus infrastructure since normally one can’t run diesel busses.
But in any case a lot of medium sized American cities are opting for brt rather than at grade lrt. Richmond, Va, San Francisco, Oakland, and madi:son, Wi.
> And why you don’t see any true BRT systems with fully dedicated ROW in Seattle. We learned our lesson.
Are you talking about like South American style brt? Cuz that’s the wrong model.
If you’re talking about center median brt that’s more because Seattles too afraid to reallocate car lanes not from learning any lesson Lol. Though it would be nice to see on aurora or say lake city way
This is why you don’t see any (zero) proposals for new bus tunnels.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t.
Look, America is really bad when it comes to transit. We tend to mimic other countries, while having no clue as to why it works there. We lurch from mode to mode, thinking it will be the magic bullet. We build a huge amount of light rail. Why? Just because. We build streetcars — with brand new track — even though we don’t need the capacity. Now we are on a “BRT” kick. Sure, sometimes it makes sense, but often you are much better off just running the buses more often. It is no wonder Seattle voted for a monorail over and over (until an accounting error doomed the efforts). We simply don’t know any better.
America is just bad at transit. It is well established that we spend way more to build metros than other countries. It is also well established that we build very poor light rail lines as well (https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/files/economics-of-urban-light-rail-CH.pdf). Does that stop agencies like Sound Transit from making those exact mistakes? Of course not.
The point being, given the large, sprawling nature of various cities across the country, following Brisbane’s lead and building an extensive BRT system (instead of light rail) would often be a much better use of money. If that involved a bus tunnel, so be it.
It is bizarre that anyone in Seattle would think a bus tunnel is a bad idea, given how successful ours was. The time savings for riders was dramatic. I would love to see a study on how much rider time was saved when it was used just for buses, compared to how much time has been saved with Link. Once you factor in the cost, it is quite likely the most cost effective transit project built in the state (with U-Link a distant second).
“Metro was never able to run the promised number of buses through the original “bus tunnel””
It didn’t? How many did it promise and how many did it run in 2015?
The SODO busway works well, thank you.
The most unnecessary delays where the security stop at the ends of the tunnel, where they wouldn’t lower the barrier while the bus was approaching so it wouldn’t have to slow down and stop, even though they did for Link.
The DSTT was a bus tunnel. It was chosen in the wake of the Forward Thrust failures. In Essen, there was a joint ETB LRT tunnel in the 1980s and 1990s. It is true that Metro chose not to use the DSTT as intensively as first envisioned. First, the Breda dual modes were lemons (e.g., heavy, costly, slow, and noisy in diesel mode). Second, the politics of DSTT allocation failed; as the whole county paid for the DSTT, all were given a share in it; there were too many long one-way peak-only routes assigned to the Bredas and the DSTT. The DSTT was oriented to freeway access. There were promising ETB concepts that were rejected: Route 7 could have been connected via a slip ramp to/from the D2 roadway; routes 43 and 70 (and the 71 series in local mode) could have connected to CPS. The DSTT could have had many more ETB routes and trips. The DSTT dual mode routes could have been much shorter and even through routed.
But DSTT decisions were not in a vacuum. The RTA was studying LRT. They got an affirmative vote in 1996 and the council killed the CPS ETB access project. When the Bredas were retired from diesel operation, diesel hybrids with hush mode were substituted. Network change to improve the DSTT intensity of use was slow but did happen. Service subsidy was always short.
But now ST has longer headway, eight and 10 minutes. Is ST using the DSTT as intensively as it should?
> But now ST has longer headway, eight and 10 minutes. Is ST using the DSTT as intensively as it should?
It’ll actually drop from 10 to 15 minute frequency during the evenings after lynnwood link opens.
Eddie, what does ETB mean here?
WL – the tunnel is underutilized between the buses being kicked out and the 2nd line (i.e. East Link) beginning operations. Consider it an ST2 construction impact.
Definitions.
AJ:
ETB = electric trolleybus.
DSTT = Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel.
D2 = the I-90 reversible lane now being converted to the East Link pathway.
ST = Sound Transit.
RTA = Regional Transit Authority.
LRT = light rail transit.
A). If you want speed, you would go with some sort of rail system.
B) if you want reliability, you would definitely go with some sort of rail system.
C). If you want capacity, you would definitely go with some sort of rail system.
Sorry no. This is a common misconception, based on a misunderstanding of cause and effect.
I would put it this way: If you want speed and reliability, create grade separation. Vehicles don’t really matter. Sure, top speed of some trains are higher, but for urban transport, it rarely matters. Apparently the top speed of a NYC subway train is 55 MPH. Who cares? What matters is that grade-separation.
But if you add grade separation, you typically increase ridership (or are dealing with an area of high ridership already). With high ridership, you want more capacity. For more capacity, you want rail. This is the fundamental advantage of rail: capacity. This is why so many streetcar lines in America are worse than buses. They have extra capacity, but since they are stuck in traffic, are no faster or more reliable than the buses. Since they aren’t faster, they don’t have the ridership to justify the extra capacity. It is a huge mistake, that unfortunately has been repeated many times in this country. Oops. https://humantransit.org/2009/07/streetcars-an-inconvenient-truth.html.
When it comes to capacity, rail is better, but even that is complicated. Buses have very low headways. Buses on the freeway can safely be a few second behind another bus. Trains need a lot more time. Thus you can actually have more people passing by a particular spot if you have a long stream of buses. Thus if you were trying to maximize throughput across the lake, you would go with buses.
Unfortunately, if all of those buses are headed to the same spot, you have issues. They have to come to a stop. The buses can operate like trains (off-board payment, level boarding, etc.) but you are still bound to get delays caused by other buses, especially if you a lot of buses. One thing that can help is have buses be able to pass buses. This is how the Metro bus tunnel worked. It is worth noting that the bus tunnel had huge (unmet) capacity. It is highly unlikely that the trains will ever have as many riders as the buses could have easily handled. Yes, they are trains, but they arrive a lot less often (and Link trains aren’t that big).
But there are other issues, such as labor. A single train can carry a lot more riders. This means the labor costs (per rider) are much lower, as long as the train is close to capacity. The 41 worked fine for getting riders from Northgate to downtown, but it required a lot more labor than Link. However, the key is to have that ridership. Like a streetcar, if not that many people ride it, this fundamental advantage of rail disappears. This explains why so many cities run their trains infrequently. A single train actually costs more to run than a single bus. So unless you have a lot of riders, the train is more expensive. If you have a train going from say, Everett to Lynnwood, and it carries about as many riders as a bus, don’t expect it to run very often. It just becomes too expensive.
Thus two common patterns emerge. If you have a relatively low-density, sprawling city (that has only one major destination) but congestion in places, a bus-based system makes sense. You basically eliminate the problem areas (with grade separation) but retain the one-seat advantages of buses. Brisbane is a good example of this (https://humantransit.org/2009/11/brisbane-bus-rapid-transit-soars.html).
On the other hand, if you have a crowded urban core (with multiple destinations) then it makes sense to build a subway line. These are expensive, but you have the ridership within that core to justify it.
The two aren’t mutually exclusive. You can have a robust bus network (with plenty of grade separation) while also having a good subway system. This is quite common, although cities tend to shortchange the buses. From an abstract level, this is probably what Seattle should have built. A strong urban subway for the urban core, along with a fast express and BRT system for much of the city. You would have to have a good interface (so they work together) but that is the basic idea.
Unfortunately, like so many transit plans in America, folks just ignored standard (international) practice. You don’t build a subway line into areas like Fife, or Ash Way. You build it to places like First Hill or Fremont. We’ve shortchanged the urban core when it comes to subway lines, and shortchanged the suburbs when it comes to buses. Oops.
Yeah I agree with Ross here.
I do think that just saying “rail” is too vague. Lazarus said “light rail”. The current obsession with the current specified ST light rail design is more of the problem. A battery EMU with transfer platforms in Lynnwood and Federal Way would let the service operate at 79 mph the rest of the way to Everett and Tacoma. This is still rail. (Even automated systems are still light rail and can run on existing tracks.) Yes transfers are a hassle and I don’t think ST can design a level cross platform transfer. Still, those affected Link extensions could still be an order of magnitude cheaper and the resulting trip for a future rider could be much faster.
It’s kind of crazy that projects not opening until the 2040’s are being planned with the cumbersome and expensive light rail technology that was specified in designs 20 years ago. It’s like planning a computer system today that runs primarily on MS-DOS or before Windows 95, or designing for a 1990’s Saturn car with none of the automation or safety features that new cars today offer.
If light rail is optimum, it needs to be examined with the lens of today and not decades ago.
“It’s kind of crazy that projects not opening until the 2040’s are being planned with the cumbersome and expensive light rail technology that was specified in designs 20 years ago.”
The designs are being written now. What was specified 20 years ago was a policy. The board could change the policy. Or do studies to reevaluate the policy in light of the evolution of technology and transit best practices, which would lead to changing the policy. It could have done this in 2015 or 2017 so it would be finished now.
Each agency has to make its modal decisions on its constraints: fiscal, right of way, extent, street grid. All modes are better with greater exclusivity through traffic; there is a continuum of exclusivity. All modes are better with shorter headway and waits. For most, there will be tradeoffs between service frequency and capital.
As RossB points out, ST has made awkward choices; they are relying on one mode (lite-Metro LRT) for a very extensive system. The long intercity markets might have been better suited to bus on tolled limited access highways. Link would have been better if serving more mixed use land use areas with pedestrians rather than freeway envelopes. ST2 will still be much better than what we have. The ST decisions seem to follow the governance set up by the Legislature.
The Latin American bus based metros are very successful. Attracting too many riders over decades is a great sign. They faced their fiscal and right of way constraint well. They should not be faulted for not opting for rail when poor.
Any mention of Bogota’s transportation system should start with the population growth. Fifty years ago, there were less than 3 million people in the city. Now there are close to 8 million. In fifty years, they added roughly 5 million people!
Of course this strains a transportation system. It is highly likely there would have been crowding, regardless of what they built. Prior to the pandemic, about 2.4 million people rode TransMilenio every day. Not many subway systems have that kind of ridership.
To say “they should have built rail” ignores the various problems they’ve had building a metro. They have been at it since 2000. There are bound to be political issues (Bogota isn’t Stockholm). It is like people who are critical of Link saying “we should have built a monorail”. Sure, at an abstract level, but the monorail plans were bound to fail (and a monorail is a poor mode for that route). The point is, the TransMileneo has been a huge success, and is widely lauded across the world. It has allowed the city to function quite well, despite their problems building a metro. If they had to rely on the old bus system, it would have been a gigantic mess. Other cities — that also have metros — are building systems based on it. They are upgrading the fleet (with cleaner buses) and making other improvements. It isn’t going away and will likely continue to improve.
I can’t read the article, but yeah seems like the issue is more “Bogota failed to upgrade BRT lines to rail lines in a timely manner” not “Bogota shouldn’t have built BRT. ”
In NA, there are probably only two BRT lines that are in need for an upgrade to rail due to peak demand – Vancouver’s 99 and LA’s Orange (pre-COVID, at least). SFMTA’s Geary project probably should have been rail and may run into capacity issues as well. There are plenty of very busy bus corridors in NA, but any others I can think of are due to converging routes, not a single line.
I stayed at UBC last week, and the frequency of the 99-B was remarkable. I watched them go by about every 2 minutes. I don’t think it had dedicated lanes, however. So not really BRT.
Talking with former students, I started getting the idea that its high numbers to some extent stemmed from the huge student body, and the fact that most non-freshmen lived off campus. The housing was significantly more expensive on campus, compared to off.
The 99-B has been stuck in disagreements on whether to extend Skytrain, build light rail (which I assume means surface), or convert it to real BRT. Skytrain won out, but it’ll only go west to Artibus Street in 2026. An extension to UBC is approved but apparently still unfunded.
@Cam
> So not really BRT
I agree I wouldn’t classify it as a BRT, but at the same time part of the reason why it doesn’t need bus lanes is that their traffic isn’t really as bad as ours. The 99b does have limited form of curb lanes with restricted parking (similar to how 15th ave in interbay works) though I don’t when that was implemented/if it’s been expanded.
Versus if it existed in America i’m sure that same boulevard would have thousands of cars clogging up the road to where they would be forced to have a bus lane.
Actually on a larger note this is why some of stuff in America ends up being a lot more strict compared to European or Japan. Like how we used to have bus pullout stops but American drivers won’t let the busses back in so that’s been changed to have the busses stop in lane. Or residential streets actually having slow speeds versus our 30 mph (well not seattle but other cities).
The reason they’re extending Skytrain is the 99-B is it’s overcrowded even with its ultra-frequent running.
A couple things I should point out is that Medellín went the rail/gondolla routes from the get-go and is thankful for doing such, ie, it was able to avoid the many headaches Bogota has gone through. Also, these Latin cities dynamics are not comparable to the US cities regardless of population sizes. Latin cities are predisposed to public transportation because, in general, they can’t afford a two car garage and what it implies. Even roadways can
be very limited in dimensions, especially in the higher elevations.
A couple things I should point out is that Medellin went the rail/gondolla routes from the get-go and is thankful for doing such, ie, it was able to avoid the many headaches Bogota has gone through.
Nonsense. First of all, the Medellín Metro is relatively tiny (less than 20 miles, total). The gondola network (as great as it is) is also relatively small. Most of the city depends on buses. Second, Medellín built a BRT system based loosely on the TransMilenio — it is called Metroplús, and carries over 250,000 riders a day, or roughly half the number as the metro. It doesn’t sound like they were trying to avoid the “headaches” of Bogota, but copy them!
Also, these Latin cities dynamics are not comparable to the US cities regardless of population sizes. Latin cities are predisposed to public transportation because, in general, they can’t afford a two car garage and what it implies. Even roadways can
be very limited in dimensions, especially in the higher elevations.
True to a point. What is typical in a big city in the developing world is to have a huge number of vehicles (a lot of motorcycles, but plenty of cars and trucks) traveling along congested roads in a somewhat chaotic fashion. People take buses, but if the buses are stuck in traffic, many find alternatives (motorcycles and cars). This is why having BRT was so important in Bogota. Without it, the buses would be stuck in traffic. Even if they beat all of the odds and built some sort of metro, it would not cover that much of the city. The vast majority of people would still need to catch buses, but those buses would be stuck in traffic.
The big takeaway from Medellín is that they built something that is appropriate for their geography. Running buses or trains up the hill would be very problematic. So they have gondolas, and it works really well. The metro and gondolas work well together. But even with that, much of the city depends on buses, many of which are stuck in traffic. They recognize this weakness, which is why they have more recently improved the buses (this is an ongoing process).
There is a common misconception when it comes to transit mode — that there is a “best”. That is simply wrong. There is a “best” depending on a particular situation. Gondolas work great in Medellín — they wouldn’t work well in Phoenix. A relatively small metro works great in Medellín, it wouldn’t help much in Phoenix either. If things go well, Medellín and Bogota will move towards each other. Bogota will build a metro, and Medellín will improve their bus system.
“Versus if it existed in America i’m sure that same boulevard would have thousands of cars clogging up the road to where they would be forced to have a bus lane.”
Maybe. UBC is on a peninsula, and is really the only destination on Broadway, so there is really a limit to how much traffic there could possibly be. But limited, very expensive parking on campus is perhaps a regulator (a regulator that UW should emulate).
A few students have cars (mostly international students, that are wealthier than Canadians) but not too many.
I stayed at UBC last week, and the frequency of the 99-B was remarkable. I watched them go by about every 2 minutes
The 99-B is a great example of how a busy bus line can be great for those riders, but not great for the agency (or the system as a whole). Imagine they replace it with a streetcar that runs every 6 minutes. This is a degradation for riders. However, the agency saves a ton of money, which they can use to make other routes faster. So along Broadway, headways go from 2 minutes to 6 minutes. But along several other corridors, headways go from 15 minutes to 10 (or even 6). Overall, the agency is better off. As AJ pointed out, the 99-B is one of the few routes which definitely has capacity problems (that can be solved by rail).
A streetcar would make sense, if not for the fact that there are longstanding plans to extend SkyTrain along Broadway. The voters rejected the previous proposal, but they found money elsewhere. In 2026, the Millennium Line will go as far as Artubus. There are no official plans to extend it to UBC, but I figure that is just a matter of time. Until then, the 99-B will connect riders from the school to Artubus (https://www.broadwaysubway.ca/app/uploads/sites/626/2020/11/Future-Network-Map-1930×2048.jpg). Thus the 99-B won’t go away, it will just be a lot shorter.
As far as bus lanes go, it looks like part of Broadway has them, but only during rush hour (and they are “BAT” style, in that cars use them to take a right). Ironically, they look like they are east of Artubus, which means the new 99-B may not have any right-of-way advantages once it gets truncated.
UBC is on a peninsula, and is really the only destination on Broadway, so there is really a limit to how much traffic there could possibly be.
Yeah, I can see how traffic to the west is relatively light. Density drops as you head west, quite significantly (https://ibis.geog.ubc.ca/courses/geob479/classof08/vandensify/maps/0a-poprha.pdf). It is basically a dead-end, as you mention, with the only destination at the end being the university. Universities typically have high transit ridership, and good transit (and the UBC is no exception). There are also three parallel corridors (4th/Chancellor, Broadway/10th/University, 16th). Traffic manages to get spread out fairly well, instead of focusing on one or two streets.
All that being said, it seems like the plans shortchange the corridor. SkyTrain really should be extended to UBC, and going to Langley (!) before then is just silly. If you aren’t going to do that, then at least have additional right-of-way for the buses. There is bound to be some traffic west of Artubus. Density drops off as you go west, but not that fast.
Viva: I don’t buy “Latin countries can’t afford cars therefore they build more transit.” Very condescending. What if they simply decided to have cities that are more for people than for cars, more like Europe did, and the rest followed? Houses with garages are simply considered more of a luxury than a baseline expectation.
In fact, many Americans today cannot afford the “two car garage” hence sprawl apartments with large surface parking lots out in the suburbs, and houses with five cars parked on the lawn. May have been easily affordable in the 50s but not today, not for decades.
When Lindblom’s flat-fare article came out I was my usual angry. But now I’m feeling less bothered about a $3 fare than I was. That’s only 25 cents above Metro, which is the minimum difference given that the agencies have converged on keeping fares evenly divisible by 25 cents. And Metro will eventually raise its fare by 25 cents, even if we don’t know when. What most bothered me was the possibility of a $3.25 fare, which would be 50 cents above Metro. I have to pay that to take the 550 to Bellevue, which seems unfair, and I’d do it less if I weren’t visiting an elderly relative.
I’m less concerned about undercharging far-flung Everett and Tacoma trips. Those were always going to be highly subsidized and underperforming in any case. How much extra to subsidize them is something for the politicians and budget accountants to decide. What I’m concerned about is keeping short-distance inner-city service competitive, because that’s the way to maximize ridership and minimize vehicle miles traveled.
I think the operations committee may have silently acknowledged this. It says it’s disrecommending $3.25 due to equity (lower-income riders and the suburbanization of poverty), but it also addresses the short-distance complaints at least somewhat.
Paying $3 for riding from CapHill to downtown is expensive and unfairly punishes people who live downtown, but I guess if you live downtown you might as well pay for a monthly pass anyways.
Cap Hill to downtown is the section of maximum capacity constraint, and the only way for ST to increase capacity on it is to run additional trains all the way from Lynnwood (or eventually Everett). Since 100 people riding Cap Hill to downtown has the same capacity impact as 100 people riding from Lynnwood to downtown, there actually is some justification in making the fares for those two trips the same.
The person who is really overpaying with a flat fare system is someone who is riding only a short distance in an area where the train will never be anywhere near full, for example, Lynnwood to 185th. But very few people are expected to take such trips, so it’s ok to let them all fall through the cracks for the sake of fare simplicity. After all those trips can still be taken, it’s just a matter of paying a little bit more.
I live in that area but even I don’t ride “one stop from Capitol Hill to downtown”. If you live right near Capitol Hill Station that might be a possibilty, but I live halfway between Capitol Hill and Westlake, so it’s not a matter of taking one to the other, but the last half-mile of getting to one of them to go further. I would never take Link from Westlake to University Street because that’s ridiculous. But I do take it from Westlake to Intl Dist. And going north, going from Capitol Hill to UW or U-District is more substantial than just going from Capitol Hill to Westlake or University Street, even though it’s the same number of stations. I’d also hesitate to take Link from Columbia City to Mt Baker or Othello. But those aren’t typical Link trips that many people are making anyway. A typical Link trip is Capitol Hill to U-District or Mt Baker to Othello, where Link’s advantage becomes more substantial, but at the same time it’s still relatively short and urban so it shouldn’t have a punitive fare.
“Cap Hill to downtown is the section of maximum capacity constraint”
But that would happen only for an hour or two a day. I can’t see Link turning away people all day long. So maybe people would take a bus those two hours when they know Link is packed, but not at noon or on weekends.
The Venn Diagram of “I don’t have a monthly pass nor qualify of any subsided rate” and “I ride the Link very short distances often ” is a very small slice.
A better mental framework is $3 gives you access to the system, not matter where you need to go.
“The Venn Diagram of “I don’t have a monthly pass nor qualify of any subsided rate” and “I ride the Link very short distances often ” is a very small slice.”
When you try to simplify what everybody does, you end up leaving out thousands of people who don’t follow your assumptions.
This month I put $50 on ORCA because I wonder if my ridership has fallen enough to not justify my $99 pass. The next day I thought about a 3-point trip my friend in north Lynnwood wants me to take her on, first to my relative in east Bellevue, then to downtown Bellevue to see where the rich people shop and Snowflake Lane. At three transfer periods that’s over $10 in just one day, especially with two of them including ST Express. And five of those would burn through $50 right there. Still, I didn’t get a December pass, so I’ll see how much I spend this month. This is an example of a trip that even the person doing it who has ridden Metro for decades didn’t realize what all the ramifications would be. And other people who do know where they’re going and how much it will cost don’t fit common generalizations.
Mike, your three-leg trip is exactly why Hop is far better than ORCA. When a rider has paid an accumulated fare on one day equal to a day pass, the day pass is issued and further payment ends.
Now I understand that the fare-allocation issues complicate the computation of “a day pass”, but folks who choose to use transit all-day should not be penalized for their loyalty.
Mike, what’s the delta on that $10 with and without the fare change? Sorry, but I’m still not very sympathetic – I don’t see much difference here and someone arguing that we can’t possibly charge a few bucks for street parking because then no one will ever park there.
Tom, I agree the “accumulated fare on one day equal to a day pass” is a great practice, but I don’t think “fare-allocation issues” is a problem. ORCA fare revenue is allocated between agencies based on ridership volume (i.e. based on taps). If one bus is full of monthly pass holder and another bus is full of one-time fare payers, the ORCA formula looks at them all the same. ORCA’s inability to cap at a day pass is an IT issue, not a fare policy issue.
To be clear, I’m sympathetic to the fact that life is expensive*, which is why our fare policy includes youth, senior, and low income discounts. And there is always a discussion of “how much subsidy should there be” and the inherent trade-off of lower fares (both single use and monthly pass price points) and lower revenue for operations. But those are truths regardless of the specific fare policy, and I completely fail to see how flat fares are a great injustice whereas a distance or zone based fare policy is not.
*If you spent a day driving around to Seattle, Lynwood, and Bellevue, you’ll spend a few bucks on gas, probably $5 on a 520 toll, and maybe a few bucks on parking in Seattle. That’s a bummer, but not a reason to object to a gas tax, a toll, nor a parking meter.
I have to join Fesler in predicting that Executive Constantine is getting ready to propose raising Metro fares to $3, effective with the opening of Lynnwood Link, pending the ST Board vote.
I’ll go one step further to predict Community Transit will then make its fares on all services $3, and $1 for reduced fares, effective with Lynnwood Link opening. And join the Subsidized Annual Pass program.
Also, Seattle Streetcars would join the $3 party, since its policy is to match Link fares.
I can just hear Fesler saying, “That’s not a party.”
Cap Hill to downtown is the section of maximum capacity constraint, and the only way for ST to increase capacity on it is to run additional trains all the way from Lynnwood (or eventually Everett).
Couldn’t they turn back half the trains at Northgate? This seems quite possible, which is one of the many reasons why this is a bad idea. Just imagine:
1) Sound Transit has less revenue than expected. This is pretty much a given, as peak riders aren’t coming back.
2) They raise less money with the new fares. Again, this is a given.
3) Trains north of Northgate are way less cost effective than south of Northgate. This is quite likely, especially outside of peak.
Given all that, it is quite reasonable for an agency to simply reduce the number of trains that go north of Northgate. This is actually quite simple, given there are actually two lines coming from the south. A future Federal Way-Northgate and Redmond-Lynnwood combination (or vice versa) seems quite likely.
It is worth noting that Lynnwood Mayor Christine Frizzell voted against the proposal. She cited the fact that this would raise less revenue. She may also be aware of all of these issues, along with other interesting facts, such as what the agencies charge now:
ST Express $3.25
CT Express (400/800): $4.25
CT Regular and Swift: $2.50
Everett Transit: $2.00
This suggests that people are more than willing to pay extra for a longer trip. The commuter buses are quite popular. ST Express is quite popular. On the other hand, smaller trips tend to be price-sensitive. This seems quite reasonable, given the quality of service. There are exceptions (like Swift) but in general, you get what you pay for. It is also quite likely that those that take long trips are relatively well off (e. g. office workers commuting downtown) whereas the folks riding Everett or CT Transit around town are doing so basically out of desperation. This means that charging less will result in fewer Link trips within Snohomish County, while the same number of long-distance trips. This might not make a huge dent in ridership, but it will still hurt. But it would also mean that the case for retaining higher service to Lynnwood will be weaker on social equity grounds.
Another problem is that other riders get dragged into the mess. Lynnwood is probably just fine with ten minute headways. In contrast, a lot of the other stations are much closer to the city, and are heavily dependent on transfers. These are areas that should have higher ridership (just because they are closer to the major destinations). But since almost every trip requires a transfer, they will be especially sensitive to bad frequency. They still might not have enough riders to justify the added frequency, so they get pulled down with the rest of the system. As a result, ridership goes down (and with it, ST revenue).
These issues just get bigger as you go farther away from the city. It is easy to see trains running every ten minutes in the middle of the day to Lynnwood. But as you get to Everett or Tacoma, twenty minute headways seem quite possible. For that matter, I could easily see turnbacks at SeaTac (which I imagine they still have) given the ridership drop-off south of there. That means twenty minute headways (midday) to Federal Way (and eventually Tacoma). There is no free lunch. You can’t expect an agency to heavily subsidize very expensive trips forever. Either you charge more, or cut frequency. Those that take long trips should be careful what they wish for.
Thanks Brent for saying “I predict” rather than saying that anybody who doesn’t believe the most cynical rumors or speculations about the ST board (or any group) is naive.
I don’t recall seeing projections for each segment, but I’m inclined to believe the trains will be much more than still half full, relative to their maximum passenger load for the trip, when they depart northbound from Northgate during PM peak. So Northgate would end up being an awkward turn back point. Indeed I am reasonably confident Lynnwood Station will be the highest-boardings station north of U-District, at least during, and especially during, PM peak. Northate’s boardings will almost certainly plummet (from its current position of #1) the first Monday after Lynnwood Link opens.
Turning back some trains going south at SODO, Stadium, or IDC/S seems a clearly meritorious strategy at least at the start of Lynnwood Link. Using the base to turn around would probably be the safest approach.
I have no problem incentivizing using some bus routes for shorter trips in the zone of maximum constraint in the short term. But the $3 alignment plan removes the incentive.
That bug does not stop me from cheering for fare alignment, especially with the resulting drop in change fumbling.
“I have no problem incentivizing using some bus routes for shorter trips in the zone of maximum constraint in the short term. But the $3 alignment plan removes the incentive.”
Overcrowding itself is an incentive.
Mike: There really needs to be a monthly fare cap to eliminate this kind of ambiguity. Transit isn’t like a business that has to use prepaid subscriptions to gauge how much demand they’re going to need in the next month. Transit schedules are pre-determined and run regardless (apart from driver shortages). With all the tech skill we have in this region, it should be a flip of a switch to stop charging additional fares once an orca account has reached a monthly usage equivalent to a monthly pass.
Given the fare payment methods becoming increasingly electronic, I find it curious that flat fares is the direction that ST is going. It bothers me although I think that it’s not something to be angry about compared to other ST decisions because it can change in the future without too much effort.
Today’s “Trains Are Awesome” video talks about Caltrain from San Francisco to San Jose. That trip was $10.50 to the narrator. It is about 43 miles, while Federal Way to Lynnwood will be similar at about 39 to 40 miles on Link.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BtqZKz6nvmg
That’s 3.5 times better (350%) farebox recovery per trip. That could be the difference between a 10% farebox recovery and a 35% farebox recovery, or between a 15% farebox recovery and a 52.5% farebox recovery, or between a 20% farebox recovery and a 70% farebox recovery. That difference is huge on projected budgets if the trip pairs were high volumes. Of course, I doubt that few will take ST up on using Link to make that trip between Federal Way and Lynnwood so in practice it won’t affect farebox recovery much.
There is however a catch. The amount of subsidy needed to run far flung mostly empty trains — combined with potential complaints due to potential crush loads in northern Seattle — may lead to service patterns being reduced for the outer stations (ST turning around some trains closer in). This isn’t that noticeable until Everett and Tacoma Link extensions open and those are likely still at least a decade away. So while the suburbs get better cake here, that can easily change in 5-10 years. Contrast that with light rail construction that locks in rider inconvenience for many decades.
The way the board is setup with more suburban members it’ll be hard to switch back to distance based fares.
I’m a bit more wary of the opposite scenario where with low fare income and high operational costs, sound transit just runs long lines with low frequency. Aka frequency dropping down to 12/15 minute headways
WL most “long subways” today end up either branching or short turning trains. I think that there is a real possibility that ST will need to do that once Seattle residents complain about overcrowding while the segments on the outer edges run for miles mostly empty. So I could see 10 minute train frequencies to SeaTac from Seattle but 20 minute train frequencies to Tacoma. Overcrowding complaints are much more frequent and observable than low frequency complaints are.
Of course, the real game changer is automation. Just today, Reece Martin reviewed Lyon, which is retrofitting their existing system for more automation. I firmly believe that automation is a matter of when rather than if — and the will resolve many limitations that ST3 is built on, like:
1. Trains could run from Tacoma to Everett with upgrading to full automation.
2. Trains could run more frequent in the DSTT with upgrading to full automation.
Reece’s video is here:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p56_x5YbqS4
PS. Lyon’s street trams are build very inexpensively and faster than what ST designs and builds.
“I firmly believe that automation is a matter of when rather than if”
It’s just a matter of when ST gets over its inertia. If one line in Pugetopolis becomes automated — or maybe even another American city and it gets good press — then that would open the floodgates for other lines.
Yeah, but who’s taxes are paying for the tracks?
I’m 100% on board for distance based fares…. IF (and that’s a big if) all of the tunnels and track in one subarea are completely paid for by that subarea. That means the tax payers of Seattle pony up for the complete cost of that 2nd tunnel.
OR….
We agree that Sound Transit light rail is a regional system with a flat fare and limited trains and Metro runs buses to carry much of the intercity load.
PICK ONLY ONE!
And yes, I’m completely aware that every Sound Transit vote is built on a foundation of lies that promised all things to all people to shove the damn thing though. But if Seattle believes the Sound Transit Board is going to rubber stamp bullshit like a $6.50 fare for Tacoma to Seattle….. well they don’t understand politics very well.
“IF all of the tunnels and track in one subarea are completely paid for by that subarea.”
The center of a transit network is the center, and benefits all subareas. Especially when it’s the geographical and travel-pattern center is the largest dowtown and where the most multimodal transfers are.
Single-subarea track funding and flat vs distance-based fares have nothing to do with each other that I can see.
The most sensible financing policy would be for the entire region to pay for transit where it’s needed most; i.e., mostly Seattle lines. That’s how Vancouver and German cities work. Build rail where the biggest crowds are and where it would get the most use, regardless of subarea or municipal boundaries.
“We agree that Sound Transit light rail is a regional system with a flat fare and limited trains and Metro runs buses to carry much of the intercity load.”
Do you mean intracity load?
“Regional system” is an argument against a flat fare, not for it.
“But if Seattle believes the Sound Transit Board is going to rubber stamp bullshit like a $6.50 fare for Tacoma to Seattle….. well they don’t understand politics very well.”
That was ST’s plan until this month. The 2016 vote had an assumption of distance-based fares, since ST never talked about restructuring them. And it passed because of Seattle and Eastside votes — oh dear, those are the short-distance riders most against flat fares.
“if Seattle believes the Sound Transit Board is going to rubber stamp bullshit like a $6.50 fare for Tacoma to Seattle….. well they don’t understand politics very well.”
A flat fare would also apply to someone traveling from Tacoma to Federal Way, who sees no benefit to the downtown Seattle tunnels.
@tacomee
> I’m 100% on board for distance based fares…. IF (and that’s a big if) all of the tunnels and track in one subarea are completely paid for by that subarea. That means the tax payers of Seattle pony up for the complete cost of that 2nd tunnel.
I’ll admit that is a fair line of reasoning. Never really understood why the outer sub areas accepted paying for the second tunnel in the first place. But yeah the extra billions they are paying is much more than any distance fares
“Never really understood why the outer sub areas accepted paying for the second tunnel in the first place.”
Because it’s the center of the network. If they don’t support the center where all their lines converge and the largest number of their passengers come from, then they don’t get their extensions to Everett or Tacoma or Redmond. They wanted their extensions, so they pay a proportional share for the center. The proportion is based on the number of their trains in either of the tunnels.
Separately, they could have killed the second tunnel by arguing it’s not in Link’s overall best interest. They would then have had to pay to upgrade DSTT1 for one or two additional lines, but that would have been cheaper than a second tunnel.
>> “Never really understood why the outer sub areas accepted paying for the second tunnel in the first place.”
> Because it’s the center of the network. If they don’t support the center where all their lines converge and the largest number of their passengers come from, then they don’t get their extensions to Everett or Tacoma or Redmond. They wanted their extensions, so they pay a proportional share for the center. The proportion is based on the number of their trains in either of the tunnels.
> Separately, they could have killed the second tunnel by arguing it’s not in Link’s overall best interest. They would then have had to pay to upgrade DSTT1 for one or two additional lines, but that would have been cheaper than a second tunnel.
I mean I (and rest of Seattle) do benefit greatly from the other sub areas funding it, but as you noted it’s not as if the original transit tunnel couldn’t have been upgraded to handle the extra trains per hour. After all that was the original plan to have Everett and Tacoma lines/sections go through the original tunnel.
I’m happy to pay $5 from Tacoma if Seattle pays for the 2nd tunnel. Deal? And also you don’t make me go to Ballard. That place used to be cool.
“I mean I (and rest of Seattle) do benefit greatly from the other sub areas funding it,”
How does Seattle benefit from the second tunnel? UW to Rainier Valley trips become significantly more time consuming due to the depth of the stations. Every time I’ve taken Link, there are a fair number of riders going all the way through
> How does Seattle benefit from the second tunnel? UW to Rainier Valley trips become significantly more time consuming due to the depth of the stations. Every time I’ve taken Link, there are a fair number of riders going all the way through
The second tunnel was to reach ballard without going at grade. We can debate other alternatives or how much benefit, but the main point is I will give credit to the other sub ares for funding the second tunnel. I mean after all it was Seattle that suggested it.
We as transit riders can debate that it was a bad idea for Seattle to propose this to Sound Transit but I’m not going to blame the other subareas for the second tunnel when it was Seattle that asked for it in the first place.
“We as transit riders can debate that it was a bad idea for Seattle to propose this to Sound Transit but I’m not going to blame the other subareas for the second tunnel when it was Seattle that asked for it in the first place.”
And how we LOVE to debate.
What can’t get lost in the debate, assuming a second tunnel, is that the Sound Transit Board must not screw up the transfer between the lines.
That will certainly affect ridership negatively.
“How does Seattle benefit from the second tunnel?”
The second tunnel is an aggregate benefit to all subareas to avoid going over capacity in DSTT1. Or it isn’t, if you believe DSTT1 won’t reach capacity, or if you recognize that the biggest bottleneck is Westlake-UW where DSTT2 won’t help.
If anyone wants some technical info on ridership loads, STB went and got these figures from Sound Transit in 2020:
https://seattletransitblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/PM_Peak_ST3_Plan_2040_Midpoint.pdf
Although they are now outdated and more recent forecasts are lower, the potential crowding in the DSTT without the second tunnel shows up (as well as the abysmally low long stretches between stations on the ends).
The black data are in peak three hours (that’s 30 trains at 6 minute frequencies or 60 trains at a double line 3 minute frequency per direction.) while the red data are daily. All data are by direction.
The peak period volumes in and out of University Street are what looks very suspect to me. It’s about 30 percent higher in both directions north and south after stopping there. Note that this is a net increase so if 10 percent of the train riders get off, then 40 percent must get on to attain the 30 percent. Even now, University Street does not generate those kinds of ridership swings in real life and I’m hard pressed to see that changing — particularly if the riders from SLU can use DSTT2 in this scenario.
No doubt that many of those riders are coming from Metro buses on Third Avenue. The unknown is whether or not those riders should actually be on a Third Ave bus and not in the DSTT. Note that Sounder ridership is shown but not the streetcar nor Metro buses.
It’s why I think that the overcrowding argument of needing DSTT2 is very suspect.
The fact that there is little interest in looking at these data just goes to show that our elected officials and senior staff a building the system based on lobbying and hunches. They only look to the data to prove their opinions and ignore it when it doesn’t.
A data driven person would quickly see what a waste most of ST3 Link actually is. A data driven person would see what a waste 6 minute frequencies are to the distant ends of these lines. A data driven person would want to see what the nearby use of Metro buses is forecasted to be.
I’m quite curious to see these forecast rolled out with the new lower numbers.
Mike, I think you are equivocating between the point of maximum crowding/train (Westlake to Cap Hill) and the operational bottleneck, which is wherever there are 3 parallel operational lines (currently, ID to Westlake). My understanding is while the overall peak ridership requires 3 lines running through downtown (i.e. cannot truncate one a lines at ID or Westlake), the need for the 2nd tunnel is to spread out 3 lines running at max frequency (i.e. 10 TPH), not to spread out the riders per se.
AJ, so you “buy” ST’s whimpering that “We don’t care that subways around the world run at two-minute headways. We’re certain that we can’t run them more often than every five minutes!” then?
I guess the good side of humility is that you never fail, right?
And I’m wondering about the use of “equivocating” [i.e. “lying”] when you appear to have meant “equivalencing”. Auto-correct? Brain fart? I really doubt you think Mike was lying.
And please don’t buy ST’s romantic crush ridership estimates from 2016 as anything other than “puppy love”. Peaks are largely gone from the CBD, probably for good. They have broadened but diminished in height, resulting in all-day ridership which is reasonably healthy, but without “rush hour” volumes.
No, I do not think Mike is lying, and I did not mean “equivocating” pejoratively; thank you for the clarification. I thought Mike was mixing up two different meanings of “bottleneck,” but not maliciously. Google tells me equivocating implies *intent* to obscure, which I did not realize – is there a word for “unintentional equivocation”? I don’t’ think ‘equivalence’ works either.
Yes, plenty of systems run > 30 TPH, but those are generally on a single operating line, perhaps with tails far away from the trunk. I like the “Standalone WSBLE” option because if that short line is automated, ST will be able to easily run small trains at a peak frequency well above 30 TPHs.
Point me to a system that runs a trunk at > 30 TPH with 3 distinct operating lines. It’s the interlining at high frequency that is problematic.
> is there a word for “unintentional equivocation”? I don’t’ think ‘equivalence’ works either
Although it’s not technically correct, I use “conflate” when folks use two different words (with similar but different real meanings) to refer to the same concept.
“What can’t get lost in the debate, assuming a second tunnel, is that the Sound Transit Board must not screw up the transfer between the lines.
That will certainly affect ridership negatively.”
Exactly
The ≈10-15 minutes it will take to traverse the proposed 11 floors of escalators at Westlake will make things quite a bit worse for a number of trips inside Seattle.
The estimated passenger numbers between Westlake and Capitol Hill indicate this is the wrong tunnel for the actual need.
“AJ, so you “buy” ST’s whimpering that “We don’t care that subways around the world run at two-minute headways. We’re certain that we can’t run them more often than every five minutes!” then?”
ST didn’t say that!!! It didn’t say its network can never handle 1.5 minute trains reliably. It only said the current configuration of DSTT1 can’t, but that with capital improvements it could. There was an ST3 candidate project to do just that. ST selected the DSTT2 project and deselected the DSTT1 improvement project. Westlake-Northgate can already handle 1.5 minute trains so nothing needs to be done there.
As to what the limitation is and what the upgrades would be, ST has been vague and inconsistent. In 2016 it said it was the signaling. In 2023 it said it was platform capacity and access. So is it one or the other or both?
Link does have 1.5 minute trains after ballgames, so it’s been proven that trains can run and stop at that frequency in the tunnel. But the keyword is reliably. ST is worried about train bunching throwing the service off-schedule. That doesn’t matter after ballgames because the imperative is clearing the stadium crowd which is mostly going north. So northbound trains run every 1.5 minutes and do odd things like terminate at Roosevelt and turn around to Stadium, and southbound trains from Northgate or to beyond Stadium run whenever they can in between.
“And I’m wondering about the use of “equivocating” [i.e. “lying”] when you appear to have meant “equivalencing”.”
I just took it as not fully understanding an uncommon technical term. I would have said “conflating”; i.e., mixing them up. And they’re right; I did do that (passenger crowding and train congestion). To me equivocating is being unsure. I’ve never heard of “equivalencing”. To me all of these except “conflating” are inkhorn words; i.e., unnecessarily academically and complex, so I wouldn’t use them.
Boston. Five branches of the Green Line — four of which are street rail — at one and a half to two minutes for decades. Grant that they run at slow speeds, and the main terminal has a layout like a heavy rail station hosting passenger trains.
People on this blog don’t all know that “to equivocate” means “to lie”??? WTF happened to English instruction in the years after 1964?
It has nothing to do with “equal” or “equivalent” anything. Maybe it got its meaning from the attempt to make an untruth the same as a truth? Yeah, I get that’s weird.
If I have to harbor a guess and this is just pure speculation on my part in inferring information based on the article. They’re probably either working with KCM to harmonize fares better between both agencies or ST got privy to information from KCM that they are looking at possibly increasing fares next year to $3 as the last fare increase was in 2015 when it was raised from $2.50 to $2.75 and in 2018 when they got rid of peak fares. Which tbh wouldn’t be a bad thing, but that seems to be a possible reason as to why ST management quietly moved away from the $3.25 proposal and went with this instead. They also probably got some blowback after the initial proposal and there was probably a bit of second thoughts after getting feedback from the public and likely some key local politicians who either had strong opinions on the proposal or had constituents who sent in complaints to their office about it. But again this is all speculation and inferring from reading between the lines of the article itself.
It’s likely Metro will have to raise fares soon because it hasn’t for several years while the cost of living and materials have gone up. But ST shouldn’t make a decision like this based on secret insider information, or blindly speculating that Metro will. Maybe Metro will, maybe it won’t — the public can’t tell. King County should disclose when/if it intends to raise Metro’s fare, because that has become a material fact in ST’s fare decision and how we evaluate said decision. ST should tell Metro it wants a coordinated joint announcement about each agency’s fare intentions, and negotiate with each other on when/how much each will be raised when there’s no such Metro increase.
Five ST boardmembers are on the King County Council or Executive, so they’d be the ones making Metro’s decision. They should know if they intend to raise Metro’s fare. If they do, they should tell the public. If not, they shouldn’t let the ST boardmembers make irresponsible statements that ST’s increase is based on an imminent Metro increase.
Jeeze Mike, you can’t be that naive! Metro AND Sound Transit plan to have the same rates. One ride, one rate, no hassle, no debate. Think Lord of Rings here… one rate to rule them all!
The logic is very simple. Everybody is stuck paying the same transit taxes. Everybody rides for the same price. The price paid (very high) for underground tunnels means than short one or two stop rides in downtown Seattle cost as much (or more) as longer bus rides (or above ground rail) in the ‘burbs.
Do you actually believe the Sound Transit board or the King County Council would cut Seattle a break here? You really believe Seattle deserves a free ride here? That’s not going to happen because of local politics. Get used to it, because the Sound Transit board make up…. is cast in the same concrete as those tunnels under Capitol Hill. Seattle doesn’t not control the Sound Transit Board… not even close.
If you really were really pro Seattle mass transit…. you wouldn’t be a Sound Transit cheerleader. Because Sound Transit takes power and money from the city for a “regional” transit system. Seattle needs its own subways, its own buses. Now the number of southbound trains into the city….is controlled by Lynnwood… Later it’s Everett calling the shots. You want extra trains from Roosevelt? Good idea! But Sound Transit is a regional transit agency. Roosevelt to the U-Distict sounds like a local transit problem. Adding more trains in Seattle? Decades away my friend. Stick with buses.
And that 2016 ST vote…. locked in the make-up of the ST board and the tax rates. Nothing else. Stop acting like you “know” what was is that 2016 vote besides a sales pitch of things that “might” happen. That vote was 7 years ago. Who’s even still on the original ST board? The Sound Transit Board is going to do whatever it sees fit for right now, so the vote in 2016… doesn’t matter any more.
I feel you…. it’s the Sound Transit sucker punch. Pierce County took one in shorts 7 years ago. Seattle is up next.
Your comment doesn’t make much sense.
“The price paid (very high) for underground tunnels means than short one or two stop rides in downtown Seattle cost as much (or more) as longer bus rides (or above ground rail) in the ‘burbs.”
Fares are for operating costs, not capital costs.
“Do you actually believe the Sound Transit board or the King County Council would cut Seattle a break here?”
Who’s giving Seattle a break? ST can’t control Metro’s fares. Metro’s fare is countywide, not one fare in Seattle and another in the rest of the county. A short-distance fare would benefit Bellevue-Redmond, Lynnwood-Everett, and Federal Way-SeaTac trips as well as Seattle trips.
There’s no need to be hostile towards others, Mike is just putting out his opinion here based on what I said and I think his point is just as valid. Like I said this was just speculation based on what I could parse from the Seattle Times article. As to whether it is happening or not is up in the air in my opinion as KCM hasn’t said anything as of yet if fares will increase. Talking between local agencies sometimes happen sometimes doesn’t, I’m inclined to say it’s a possibility they have been talking based on why they went with the lower fare compared to the original proposed $3.25 or $3.50 but I’m not 100% certain.
I guess we can look at the T Line as a possible clue as to how they wanted fares to go with the local agency as the line is $2 for an adult like the base fare Pierce Transit has for it’s system. But again it’s just speculation as to whether KCM will go that route or not.
I agree, I think we’ve gotten the best we can expect out of ST on fare policy. On top of a fare that’s not appreciably higher than a bus, we get the added bonus of not having to tap off. That improves rider experience considerably, especially given the danger now of forgetting to tap off, re-entering, and then tapping but actually canceling the previous trip rather than starting a new one. With fare enforcement back, that would make for some unpleasant surprises.
Tapping again should continue the original trip. You can’t cancel a trip with the new readers. If you tap again it says already tapped rather than cancelled.
Once tap-off goes away, ST will likely get a short-term windfall from riders thinking they are tapping off.
If all they are riding is the train, it won’t matter. But if they are continuing on another ORCA service (except for Washington State Ferries), tapping an extra time increases STs share of the revenue split.
Indeed, if you want more of your monthly pass to go to ST, tap at each station where you board or alight. If you want more of it to go to Metro, tap the off-board reader when you see one at your bus stop.
When Lindblom’s flat-fare article came out I was my usual angry. But now I’m feeling less bothered…
I’m still my usual angry. It is just part of the usual incompetence of Sound Transit. They are screwing over Seattle, and with it, the region. Just to back up here, look at what they are building:
It is not a standard metro. It is not like Forward Thrust, or DC Metro, which are hybrid commuter/metros but with good coverage in the urban core. It is very much a BART model, but without (improvements to, or even an existing) Muni. They completely short changed the urban core. Other than the existing downtown transit tunnel (thank God for that) we have abysmal stop spacing. How bad is it? Well, the bus tunnel used to have one station between Westlake and the UW. Now there is one station between Westlake and the UW. A three mile long tunnel, through the most densely populated contiguous area in the state, and they basically just moved the station a half mile east. Don’t get me wrong — it is a great station. But a long line like that should have more stations.
It isn’t alone. There are only two stations in the U-District, despite again being the second biggest urban neighborhood in the state. No, it isn’t as physically large as the Greater Central Area (which includes First Hill, Capitol Hill and the C. D.) but a mile between stations in such an urban area is terrible.
They did this in their zest to build a “spine”. A long distance rail system with stations close to the freeway — a model we know has failed. It fails because it is too long, too full of stations next to the freeway and because Seattle is not Los Angeles. Almost all of the density, as well as the destinations are in the city itself. It isn’t even close. Thousands of people from the rest of the city flock to places like Capitol Hill, the UW, Fremont or Ballard. They aren’t going to Ash Way or Fife. The destinations and density outside the city are minor, and can be reached quite quickly by bus (or car) in great contrast to those inside the city.
On top of all of that they want short-distance riders to subsidize long-distance trips. It is just backwards. They are discounting the long-distance trips — the same ones that we favored while building this thing. It is like they are trying to ripoff the city repeatedly. The short trips with the city — the entire reason you build a freakin’ subway system in the first place! — are going to subsidize the rest of this mess. It is just nuts.
Lest you think that the suburbs come out ahead, think again. Oh, office commuters will be OK. I’m sure there will be plenty of well-to-do folks who wake up in a nice house in the suburbs, drive their nice car to the park and ride, then take the train to their nice office downtown. But the average schmo working at some department store in Lynnwood or a restaurant in Roosevelt? They are hosed. The train will run a lot less often in the middle of the day and if they live relatively close (which seems likely, given those type of jobs) they pay more.
So yeah, I get it. In the long list of mistakes made by ST, it is way down the list. Mostly it is just emblematic of the problems within the agency. I completely agree with Doug Trumm’s excellent editorial, except for one thing: this is nothing new. Sound Transit has embraced a self-defeating suburban identity for quite some time.
Why is this blog’s commentariat convinced ST is going to cut midday frequency? Do we think the driver shortage will continue in perpetuity?
> Why is this blog’s commentariat convinced ST is going to cut midday frequency? Do we think the driver shortage will continue in perpetuity?
I’m more confused about the opposite about why many on here seem ignorant about the possibility of it. Suburban extensions can always stretch operational funds (or trains/drivers) and cause loss in frequency. The drop in frequency in evening times from 10 to 15 minutes is good example once the starter line begins. True, it’s not too bad right now, but with Everett and Tacoma extension’s its really going to stretch Sound Transit.
Or we can look at other agencies. It is true sound transit is not identical to other transit agencies through america, but their actions will tend to rhyme.
BART has already decided to run shorter train cars, WMATA is currently debating on cutting frequency. I’m not sure why one wouldn’t be concerned about maintaining high/higher off peak frequency for Link.
Why is this blog’s commentariat convinced ST is going to cut midday frequency?
Because just about every other agency that has built something similar has done that. It is just not common to run trains with very few riders a long distance. It is expensive. Having a flat fare makes it worse. Not only do you raise less money for those sorts of trips, but you lessen the moral case for it as well. Instead of “We pay extra AND they cut service”, it is “We cut service BUT you get a discount”.
Just to be clear, I’m not suggesting existing service will be cut. I expect the trains to run by Rainier Valley every ten minutes (midday). Places like Everett, Tacoma or even Lynnwood and Federal Way (none of which have service) are a different matter. It would not surprise me at all if they start out with decent frequency, and then as time goes on, frequency decreases. Or they just start out with less than ideal frequency (as I’ve described).
I’m visiting Houston right now, and, somehow, they have managed to keep their fares at $1.25. That’s only 25 cents more than the $1 fares I grew up with back in the 1990’s.
Sound transit is moving forward with adding the shifted west denny way westlake station + moved Harrison street slu station to EIS study
https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/ActiveDocuments/Motion%20M2023-109.pdf
Nothing too unique in the motion that we don’t already know besides sound transit saying they’ll work on wrapping up technically work by March/April release it to public comments and vote on it by May 2024.
(This part is my opinion) seems to infer that they are really opting for this alternative
WL: thanks for that link. It seems to be on Thursday’s agenda. Is the study of the shift expected to delay the Ballard line?
STB hive: What is the ST3 rationale for opening the West Seattle line early and NOT hooking it into the DSTT that it will use eventually? Why have that period as a shuttle? Is there significant shuffling to be done in SODO?
Some posters have suggested other options that ST is not considering: not building West Seattle Link at all; not building the DSTT2 at all and running the east, south, and west lines in the DSTT1 and having Ballard line end next to Westlake station in an interim. Why not delay West Seattle and use the funds and staff time first on the Ballard line and later on the West Seattle line?
The piece answered my question: “If approved, staff would expedite a feasibility study to allow the Board to consider the results in May 2024. After reviewing the feasibility study, a Board decision to include the alternative in the Draft EIS as an additional alternative or preferred alternative would delay the final completion date for the Ballard Link Extension.”
ST staff asserts that the study to shift the stations west would delay the extension. It may still be worthwhile.
I think it’s interesting and important to look at the evolution of WSBLE but the saga already could fill a book!
As to this latest maneuver, I see Board decision delays happen for one of two reasons — lack of money or lack of acceptance by nearby building owners or residents.
In this case it is likely both. While not huge, FTA may be requiring that ST must demonstrate funding for the entire project before it will chip in. The only way to do that without another referendum is to extend the tax collection period and the bond schedule (aka the misnamed “realignment” strategy) and open projects later.
Further, the stations through the subway section are all messy and were notably not fully discussed in 2017 through 2021. ST spent four years getting the public to obsess about station locations in West Seattle, Interbay and Ballard and not really talking about the stations in SLU or Downtown. The irony is that subway stations take years more to build, cost much more and affect more costly buildings than these other stations will. Until ST can resolve the unhappiness of many of these nearby owners, any actions now will end up moving the decision away from Board action and instead be put into cumbersome lawsuit territory.
I think it’s important to note that one case ST made in 2016 was that they would build WSBLE as fast as possible. At the time, I pointed out here that it was truly BS at the time. As the project moved forward between 2017 and 2021, I pointed out here that the info on stations in SLU and Downtown were not clear and that this would make the 2016 schedule delayed by even more years. What I said would happen is happening.
Even now, I do not see West Seattle opening by 2032. The original schedule promised only aerial stations for West Seattle, and building any underground station adds years to the project, especially when a large station vault must be dug. (That very reason was the initial reason why ST proposed that West Seattle Link open five years before the rest of the project.)
There is one other shoe to drop: the lower ridership projections. West Seattle Link stations in particular have seen their total ridership estimates fall by about 20-25 percent — and that was before the impact of Covid, work from home and the decline of shopping Downtown. The more time that lapses, the lower the forecasts will go as the forecast models get recalibrated to a post-Covid world. It’s only going to look worse and worse.
> Why not delay West Seattle and use the funds and staff time first on the Ballard line and later on the West Seattle line?
The west Seattle line costs a lot less at 3 billion, they don’t have the funds to build ballard line at 9 billion and are waiting. Also one cannot partially build an underground line and must exit at some tunnel portal. If you start digging the sodo section one has to exit at interbay before you can start using the tunnel.
> There is one other shoe to drop: the lower ridership projections. West Seattle Link stations in particular have seen their total ridership estimates fall by about 20-25 percent
Yeah, I think the last projections had it fall from 37k down to 27k for the West Seattle segment. Honestly, not even sure if the FRA will approve the grant. It’s quite low ridership considering they’ve split the two EIS’s apart.
For 3 billion dollars will the FRA give it a high rating with only 27k riders?
If West Seattle Link is dependent on an FTA grant and it becomes ineligible for that grant, then that may solve our unnecessary Link line problem right there. Then ST could start thinking about BRT for West Seattle, and hopefully come to a multi-line option (corridors C, H, 21, 55, 125). And it could reassign the rest of the money to Ballard or the infill stations.
Next board meeting will probably approve the flat fare policy and for the study west shifted stations nothing to new.
However additionally it seems motion 2023-113 talks about ST express service reductions to take into effect 2024 March. No detailed pdf of the motion is ready yet.
https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/ActiveDocuments/231215%20Board%20Agenda.pdf
“temporary service reductions on ST Express to respond to staffing shortages”
So ST Express is still having problems with that. It didn’t have a general reduction like Metro did, so it may be at that point now.
I’ll be disappointed if 15-minute periods are reduced to 30 minutes. That just makes the network less usable.
This will happen in the same timeframe as the East Link Starter Line starting. Coincidence? Or is ST reassigning drivers from ST Express to East Link? If so, will they come from Eastside routes, and would subarea equity require that? At first glance I’d assume the 550, but on the other hand it’s needed to fill in the gap between the Links, it’s the highest-ridership route, and it only overlaps the Starter Line for two miles and most of its stops are in a different corridor. So I suspect it won’ t be the 550. (And I hope it won’t because that would affect me.) Would it be the 542, 545, or 554 then?
It seems like a coincidence. Other than the very minor change (the 566 won’t go northeast of Downtown Bellevue) I don’t see any changes to any routes with the East Link Starter Line.
They could start by truncating STX 510 at Northgate.
For the starter 2 Line, they could truncate STX 566 at Downtown Bellevue Station on the north.
On the south end, they could truncate it at Tukwila Sounder Station, which might make for a faster trip than sitting in traffic all the way from Auburn.
The 510 lobby would probably be more interested in having some peak 510 trips continue after 2024, without the time-consuming Ash Way loop-de-loop-de-loop, than in fighting to keep their one-seat ride downtown for 6-8 more months. The four peak-of-peak concentrated N Line trips should already have them happy.
On that note, I expect 512 boardings at Ash Way P&R to become miserably small by 2025. The Orange Swift Line will become a better option for those non-car riders getting on in front of their apartments rather than in the middle of the Ash Way car sewer. Those driving will become more likely to switch to parking at the spacious Lynnwood Car Majal.
I predict the 512 gets replaced by the 510 within a couple years.
Yeah, that makes sense.
I think there are two phases. First, you have Lynnwood Link, but no East Link. At this point, ST is worried about crowding north of downtown. Keeping expresses (from ST and CT) going downtown for this brief period seems likely. They may cancel them early if it turns out the trains aren’t that crowded.
Once East Link gets here, there is no reason to run expresses downtown. Everything gets truncated. The problem is, the 201/202 is basically the same as a truncated 512. The 201/202 takes a little bit longer from Everett, but is the same from Ash Way. Prior to the pandemic, there were only 30 people a day that took the bus from Ash Way northbound, so the main value is as an express from Everett. For that, the 510 is better. So yes, I agree — I see the 512 going away, while the 510 remains. It is possible they run an all-day 510, but I don’t see enough demand. You would have to run it often to compete with the (15 minute) 201/202, and I just don’t see the ridership outside of rush hour (if that).
In contrast, a bidirectional 513 seems like it provides more value. It also adds extra service for Ash Way to Lynnwood. The 511 used to provide that, but it is better as a longer route (especially with the truncation).
I’ve tried to use the eastbound Metro Route 8 a few times in the past couple months, usually in late afternoon/early evening, and usually after getting off the 40 at Westlake and Denny, and the route has been useless for me.
I don’t know if I’ve had particularly bad luck, but in each instance, I checked OBA, saw the buses were running so far behind schedule that I gave up and walked the rest of the way. In the worst instance, it was pouring rain and there were about 30-40 people waiting at the Westlake & Denny Stop, about another 30-40 people waiting at the Fairview stop, and more people waiting at the Stewart stop. Even if I had decided to wait for the next bus, there was a good chance that there wouldn’t be space on it.
Each time, I’ve walked uphill to Capitol Hill, and the bus has never caught up with me by the time I parted ways from the route. I’ve had a similar experience on the section of the route going through Capitol Hill- OBA shows the bus running further and further behind, and it never catches up to me walking. I’m in fairly good shape, so it’s not unduly onerous for me to walk a mile uphill, but people with mobility impairments, people with young children in tow, people carrying a bunch of stuff, or really anyone, shouldn’t be stuck with such poor service along such an important corridor.
I’ve only been an occasional 8 rider, so I don’t have a good sense of what the solutions are. There are bus lanes on Denny now, but the street still feels like a jam-packed free-for-all during the early PM rush hour. I’ve seen some discussions here of splitting the 8, but I don’t know if that would solve the problem of eastbound busses running apparently running so far behind schedule. Metro’s Rider Dashboard shows a big jump in on time performance this month, but that hasn’t been my (limited) experience so far.
I think the better option today may be to just get to Westlake and transfer to Link or another bus for the situation that you describe.
Had the CCC been built and operating, you could have a one-seat streetcar ride. You’d probably show up at Broadway and John about 45-60 minutes later after getting a lovely leisurely tour of Pioneer Square and the International District.
Sadly, any travel time effort savings that a planned Denny Link station on the ST3 Ballard line would help is actually made worse by the new proposed platform depths and the transfer elevation changes
The challenge is not just a 2D problem. It’s a 3D problem. It’s a bear of a walk to go from Westlake and Denny to Broadway and John. Overcoming the elevation change is what I see as the bigger struggle here. (That’s the design flaw when some people propose a generic Metro 8 subway.)
Some have proposed gondolas. Other options include funicular tunnels or even light rail vertical alignments that run aerial through SLU with the transfers at Capitol Hill rather than Westlake. Still, there is no new capital investment planned anytime in the next 20 years that would significantly help.
I think the better option today may be to just get to Westlake and transfer to Link or another bus for the situation that you describe.
I’ve been thinking about doing this on days when I’m already on the southbound 40, and will maybe try it next time I’m in that situation. I have a bit of a mental block about it since 1) it feels like a detour and 2) in the worst case (the 40 is slow getting to Westlake Station plus I just miss a train and have to wait another 8 minutes), it would have been faster to get off the bus at Denny and walk the mile to Capitol Hill). Still, it’s worth a shot.
That option will be more attractive when both 1 and 2 Lines are operating on Link. The frequency of Link between those stations will be every 5 minutes all day and 4 minutes at peak.
Westlake Ave has several routes and there is the streetcar too so waiting at Westlake wont be long.
Let’s hope ST figures out how to get the 2 Line open ASAP. It should have already opened. They should be running test trains in a few months before the full line opens — and the testing of the line can include in-service vehicles between Lynnwood and ID/ C Stations. All prior Link extension testing periods included running in-service trains with staff simply kicking off the riders when operating on the segments being tested.
That Denny way section has a bus lane. It wouldn’t really take 6 years if just moving the bus route that’s more for all the other complete street changes that could be skipped.
Al, if you currently cross the I-90 bridge, you see that they are still far from done. It looks like they pulled up the steel tracks again even though it seemed they had already reattached them.
There’s plans to reroute route 8 to Harrison street to avoid the traffic on Denny way
https://www.theurbanist.org/2022/06/01/seattle-prepares-to-create-a-new-transit-street-in-south-lake-union/
However it does move it away from other destinations like belltown and Westlake/denny way
I’m not sure how I would feel about this overall. The proposed route changes would fit better into my current transit use, but three turns is a lot to add, and the sections of Denny that the bus would still use is already extremely congested during the PM peak. It’s also bonkers (though not surprising) that it would take six years to roll this out.
Sorry posted wrong area
That Denny way section (east of Fairview) has a bus lane. It wouldn’t really take 6 years if just moving the bus route that’s more for all the other complete street changes that could be skipped.
Denny is a horrible stroad, so I don’t know if the destinations right on Denny Way are important enough to keep the bus there. There’s Whole Foods and the 5-Spot and that record store in the tiny cylinder building. Seattle Center can be just as well served by a Harrison stop, and it turns its back on Denny. The biggest thing I’d miss is access to Uptown.
Re Belltown, could another route serve it? What does Belltown need? One thing is that Western Avenue has highrises but no transit, and it’s a steep hill up to 3rd.
Amazon helped pay for the SLU street car, may be they would pay for a gondola…
https://twitter.com/mixio17/status/1675624052134903808/photo/1
Amazon and other SLU companies also pay for extra peak trips on the 8, or at least they did before covid.
If a gondola is built it should not “go straight across” on Denny. Ideally it would have four stations: Western and Vine with the ropeway diagonal up Vine to Denny, curve into Denny for Amazon Westlake then Minor Avenue and finally Capitol Hill Station South entrance.
A station could be addedto the Monorail at Vine, too, with another rope station there.
The western edge of Belltown is the densest housing in Washington State or the second now because of U-District’s transformation . It deserves better service that walking from Third Avenue.
We’ve been thinking the bootleneck is the I-5 entrances, but last month on a late Saturday morning I went westbound in a car and the backup started after the I-5 entrance. It started on the Denny viaduct and ended somewhere west of Fairview. (So it could have been for Aurora or Seattle Center).
This is where a city that’s serious about transit would commit to fix it now, or better yet years ago. A gondola would be an easy way to do it.
“I’ve seen some discussions here of splitting the 8, but I don’t know if that would solve the problem of eastbound busses running apparently running so far behind schedule.”
Splitting the 8 isn’t about that. It’s about rerouting the 8 to Madison Park to replace the 11. The north-south part on MLK would then become a shuttle, part of another route, or deleted. The high-ridership part of the 8 is the east-west part, and there’s apparently nothing that can be done about speeding it up because SDOT already tried, and there’s no other east-west road across the freeway to get it out of the traffic. Splitting the 8 would make the north-south part reliable, but that part is low ridership and parallel with the 48, so not a priority.
If the 8 were split, maybe the north/south part could run less often in order to run the east/west part more often. However, the people on the north/south part would have good reasons to be very pissed over such a hypothetical move.
The north-south part is so short and uncongested I doubt reducing it would yield much hours. It’s also in an equity-emphasis area, so I could see it not being reduced for that. I wonder if it would succeed as just a north-south route without a southern extension, because the northern end would dump people at MLK & Madison which doesn’t have much.
Splitting it and moving it to route 11 doesn’t really change anything about the reliability of it. I mean originally the 8 was split away from the rainier section (into route 7) to insulate Rainier Avenue from Denny Ways’ traffic.
I mean if you check the bus schedule for route 8 https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/metro/routes-and-service/schedules-and-maps/008#sunday-b
* From Madison Valley to Mt Baker always takes around 16 minutes.
* But from Lower Queen Anne to Madison Valley fluctuates from 18 minutes in the morning up to 25 minutes (and probably worse).
I guess you save like 6 minutes out of the travel time (by shifting from Mt baker to madison park), and can run more frequently but for the peak time when it’s slow this really isn’t fixing anything.
> I wonder if it would succeed as just a north-south route without a southern extension,
Could just run it as a split version of route 48, one can play around with the frequencies on 23rd/Mlk versus Denny Way/ E John but it’s not really fixing it.
Anyways to resolve the reliability one has to somehow resolve the Denny Way being used as a freeway waiting ramp onto southbound i5. And outside of a bus lane the entire length of denny way, I don’t really see how it can be done
“Splitting it and moving it to route 11 doesn’t really change anything about the reliability of it.”
No, it doesn’t. The motivation behind it is to delete the 11, because some people think it’s an unjustified one-seat ride to downtown, particularly when the G starts.
In contrast, I see the 11 as the most useful east-west route on Capitol Hill because it hits all the activity areas: Pike Place, Westlake, Summit, Broadway, 12th, 15th, 23rd, MLK, the Arboretum, and Madison Park. It would have made more sense to make the 11 the primary route rather than the 49.
The north-south part of Route 8 has the 23rd St jog planned to continue further southward to the Judkins Park Station entrance before jogging back to MLK. The part of MLK between Jackson and Massachusetts will lose its bus service. The new route may add a few riders but it will duplicate Route 48 south of Yesler so I’m not sure how much improvement it will offer.
The last Metro proposal that I saw is here:
https://kingcountymetro.blog/2023/08/02/we-heard-you-review-our-revised-proposal-on-bus-service-changes-in-capitol-hill-central-district-first-hill-and-madison-valley/amp/
The 8 and 11 are supposed to be combined between Bellevue Ave and MLK. To the east of that, Route 11 goes to Madison Park and Route 8 goes to Mt Baker TC. To the west of that, Route 8 goes to Queen Anne and Route 11 goes to Downtown..
I’m kind of surprised that Route 11 goes Downtown in the restructure. With Routes 10, 12 and 49 also going down Pine and up Pike Street, that’s lots of duplicative service — and trolley wires prevent buses from hop-scotch operations.
Metro should probably move a route off of this Downtown Pike-Pine service trunk. In particular, Route 11 riders can get to Westlake easier on Link than on Route 11.m anyway. I’m rather amazed that Metro doesn’t propose Route 11 to continue down Denny instead all the way to SLU, providing two routes and twice the service on Denny.
> The north-south part of Route 8 has the 23rd St jog planned to continue further southward to the Judkins Park Station entrance before jogging back to MLK. The part of MLK between Jackson and Massachusetts will lose its bus service. The new route may add a few riders but it will duplicate Route 48 south of Yesler so I’m not sure how much improvement it will offer.
It’s to bring the 8 to Judkins park station not really about speed. Otherwise after getting off Judkins park station you’d have to walk from 23rd to mlk. Originally the plan had it continue straight on mlk to mt baker after the jog and that did actually remove a left turn and right turn.
“Route 11 riders can get to Westlake easier on Link than on Route 11.”
They may not be going to Westlake but only partway in that direction. The distance between Capitol Hill and Westlake is in that in-between state where it’s not clear that truncating is the answer, there are a lot of destinations in between that people might be going to, and the distance is long enough that people think about taking a bus to the middle rather than walking.
“They may not be going to Westlake but only partway in that direction. ”
Metro proposes using Bellevue Ave to jog between Olive Way and Pike/Pine for Route 11, so the the areas that wouldn’t have direct service are those from about I-5 westward. Unless a Route 11 rider is going to the few places near the Roastery, Link works just about as well. With 5 routes, Pike and Pine are going to be slow slogs especially with the trolley buses on them from other routes. Link goes further south than Pike Street so anyone going near City Hall or Puoneer Square will have to transfer anyway. If going Downtown is still important for Route 11, the buses could turn in SLU rather than at Bellevue Ave.
“the the areas that wouldn’t have direct service are those from about I-5 westward”
It’s east of I-5. The areas that wouldn’t have direct service are between Bellevue and 23rd. The point is that there are more destinations and a wider variety of destinations on Pike-Pine than on John/Olive/Denny, both east of Bellevue and west of Bellevue. So you’re shunting more people to where they don’t want to go than serving people to where they do want to go.
The traffic headed to the southbound I-5 ramp off Yale Avenue jams the eastbound lanes. I expect SDOT is looking for solutions. The last Route 8 project included a short eastbound transit lane nearside Stewart Street. The extent of the traffic jam overwhelms it. Eastbound buses attempting to serve the stops nearside Fairview and farside Denny Way are impacted.
Candidate solutions? Close the Yale Avenue on ramp; toll the Yale Avenue on ramp; close Yale Avenue, but allow access from Howell Street; a BAT lane? Southbound traffic could use a different pathway: Harrison Street and 6th Avenue to reach the SR-99 deep bore; it has connections with I-5, SR-599, and SR-509.
If the goal is to reduce the number of cars clogging up downtown streets, closing the Yale on ramp altogether seems best, although the traffic impact would need to be studied. As a bonus, I-5 would move better if the merge point with Yale were removed.
This is an area without an easy solution.
Just rode past University of Washington Station this morning and on the south end of the platform I saw a roped-off area with a security guard and what looked like blood stains on the tiles and a folding chair.
Anyone know what happened there?
Looks like L9 was dispatched for an Aid Response at the station address at 5:49am. Likely that is it.
Route 36, king county metro released possible designs for improving the bus route. Might make for a good short article idea, there’s actually quite a lot of differing designs.
There’s 15 different package of options, won’t list all of them but the most main categories are:
* transit signal priority: changing the signals to give busses slightly priority. Probably least controversial change but also I don’t think really that useful given that most of the route is single lane.
* BAT lanes: suggested for 12th ave northbound and 14th ave southbound (near the beacon hill station). BAT lanes at the major intersections of beacon ave and spokane, columbian way, graham.
* bus stop modifications: bus stop balancing (removal) around the beacon hill station and changing some on beacon ave to be in lane bus stops
They are only going to implement a subset of them. Some ideas are kind of costly (adding new traffic light at orcas) and it seems they’ve leaning towards to add a stop sign with queue jump lane instead. As always there’s the typical trade off of BAT lanes taking away parking versus spending more cost for traffic light modifications.
The most traffic impacts are around the beacon hill station and north of it, so hope they choose the option for BAT lanes here. South of beacon hill station, I don’t think it matter as much, tsp, bat lanes, or queue jumps are fine.
Lastly, there’s also a bit of a complication with the 15th/ beacon ave bike lane project.
https://kingcountymetro.blog/2023/12/06/community-conversations-in-beacon-hill-metros-efforts-to-improve-route-36/
https://kingcountymetro.blog/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/2023_KCMetro_Rt36Improvements_PPT_English.pdf (This powerpoint outlines all the differing packages from A, B to N)
Pike/Pine/John/Madison east-west issues: Rapid Ride G restructure, routes 2/10/11/12/43/47/49: We covered Metro’s April proposal and RossB’s alternative. Thanks to Al S for a link to the latest status. All these concepts have tradeoffs, as I’ve observed for decades both living in and traveling in this area.
From the 1970s until 2016, the 10, 11, and 49(7) ran on Pine, and the 47(14) and 43 on John. That gave three routes on Pine to Broadway, two to 15th, and one east of there. In 2016 with U-Link, Metro reduced the 43 to an almost peak-only route, and moved the 10 to John to preserve all-day service there. The unintended consequence was that many 10 riders switched to the 11 to remain near 15th & Pine. And the 10’s direct transfer to Capitol Hill station was not so popular after all. I think those were because of the strong ridership/destinations along Pine Street, the shortness of the 10, and the in-between destinations on the 10.
Metro’s proposal reverses this, returning the 10 to Pine where in retrospect it shouldn’t have left. Then it moves the 11 to John and the 12 to Pine. This restores the pre-2016 pattern of two routes on Pine to 15th, although they’re now 10 and 12 instead of 10 and 11. It also preserves the 11’s basic concept, although shifted 5 blocks north. Since the 11 is the least frequent route, it goes to the least-used street (although it’s more used for the 8). Having the 11 there also makes it easier to delete the 47.
RossB’s proposal runs with the concept of an 8 Uptown-Madison Park route, which would replace the 11. He also changes the Pine routes to 2 and 10 (overlapping to 14th), replaces the 49 with an extended 60, and makes other changes. He claims that this will make more corridors frequent. He also preserves the spirit of the Pine-10/11 or Pine-10/12 to the top of the hill, if not the exact routes (his would be Pine-2/10).
Many of these issues revolve around a pro-11 or anti-11 viewpoint. RossB and Al S argue that an 8-Madison Park route is more grid correct. I argue from experience that the 11 has the best and most useful combination of stops. I didn’t use to think that, but after observing it firsthand for years it does. It’s not just a one-seat commute from Madison Park to downtown. It also serves a lot of trip pairs from 28th or 15th to Broadway or Summit. I’m also concerned that RossB’s frequency increases may not materialize: he may have overestimated them, or they may disappear in the next recession or driver shortage worsening. In that case I’m worried that having a route on Madison that goes only to John and not to Pine would result in both a less useful network in East Seattle and the same frequency-gap problems we have now.
Still, this will probably remain a perennial debate until the restructure happens and maybe ongoing after that.
I think it’s important to remember that Pine Street today has several new all way stop signs (5?) on it. It makes using Pine significantly slower than it used to be for Metro in 2018 and before.
“I’m kind of surprised that Route 11 goes Downtown in the restructure. With Routes 10, 12 and 49 also going down Pine and up Pike Street, that’s lots of duplicative service”
It’s about having high frequency in a high-ridership area, when Metro can’t bring itself to run a single route more than every 15 minutes. The 49 is the one that could most easily go away. And it’s notable that the 49 takes you to upper Broadway, while there’s nothing to take you to lower Broadway. That’s becoming an increasing imbalance as lower Broadway, First Hill, and Little Saigon get more density and destinations.
As to why Metro is doing this, I’m guessing it’s a combination of public pressure and political/bureaucratic inertia. Metro Connects 2016-2020 plans were more like RossB’s: an 8-Madison Park route, a 2-Pine-12th-Union route (instead of 14th), a 60-UDistrict-Broadway-John-12th-Beacon route (instead of lower Broadway or 9th). But it’s a complicated area with different people going a lot of directions, and the destination distribution and trip patterns don’t fully follow grid lines. So there must have been opposition or hesitation about making major changes to the 11, 47, or 49. That may be status quo bias, or it may be accurate that you don’t want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs (the usefulness of the transit network and thus high ridership). And perhaps a fear that the supposed frequency increases wouldn’t materialize. The reductions had already started by then, so people are also thinking in the back of their mind, “If frequency gets reduced even further than it has so far, what kind of network is tolerable?”
Everett Transit recently has a survey: https://survey.alchemer.com/s3/7581738/Everett-Transit-Long-Range-Plan-Community-Priorities
It discusses the transit agencies direction into the 2040s. Seems quite micro transit heavy. While of course Everett transit doesn’t garner all that high ridership it should be noted only one of their routes has 15 minute service. Every other route more normally has 40 minute frequencies. It is hard to ride transit if the transit isn’t available
While I do want to be realistic of demand and ability to serve riders I do find it somewhat concerning that the notable options that involve implementing micro transit assume that this will one way or another involve reduction in regular bus service.
Overall I am largely skeptical in microtransits ability to induce transit demand sustainably however might my concerns be misplaced when in the context of very suburban towns such as Everett? Can we expect the same “build it and they will come” attitude to work for something resembling a frequent bus network in Everett?
And more broadly would we see these kinds of plans making shape if Everett transit were not a separate entity from community transit, the larger service provider for Snohomish county excluding Everett?
One under-appreciated downside of microtransit is that it is only works when rider demand is at a consistent (very low) trickle. Any kind of demand spike, however brief, any microtransit quickly becomes overwhelmed. Fixed-route buses handle demand spikes very well; the buses simply run their regular route, with more seats filled than would be typical.
Even suburban bus routes usually have some form of demand spike at some point in the day, perhaps due to shift workers, schools letting out, or some other reason. Switching to microtransit effectively gives up on being able to handle any kind of demand spike whatsoever – 2 or 3 passengers per hour per vehicle, is the most you can ever get.
I believe buses routes, for example the 7, can have demand spikes throughout the day from college students getting out from EvCC. It is a commuter college and the seats can actually get pretty filled up traveling southward from north Everett down Evergreen Way (SR-99). Lots of kids get on from schools along the way too like sequoia high school
I feel like if the bus actually runs past the school inevitably some people will take the bus. If it doesn’t people will take the school bus instead but of course that again assumes the bus just doesn’t even exist. One benefit of the bus usually is that it has a more direct and less circuitous “circulator/feeder” path than the school buses make
I really want to see bus service improve in Everett. I do feel settling for microtransit is a poor decision. We want our towns to think optimistically about growing transit patronage, not thinking about austerity
Yes, it is quite sad that transit managements are adopting micro transit and applying it is inefficient ways. Everett has a nice street grid. There may be few if any parts of the service area where micro transit makes sense. For several years, SDOT and Metro have been implementing micro transit atop local fixed route service; this is duplication; they are eating their own. The data shows that micro transit costs much more per ride attracted. It has several built in problems; it has deviation, so those first be board are dragged through deviations, lengthening their trips; it has small vehicles, and low capacity. At Metro, it has no farebox, so those who are not banked or with ORCA cannot ride. Service subsidy is scarce; the fixed route network has many uses for it. All transit trips include a combination of walking, waiting, and in-vehicle time. The sound application for micro transit may be providing coverage in low ridership areas; the last application may be okay: in the hills around Issaquah. But of course, those using micro transit may like it; the question could be network optimization.
To illustrate just how poorly microtransit scales, there was one time I was with some people on a random Saturday afternoon and tried to use the Bainbridge Island microtransit service to get back to the ferry to return home. After 15 minutes of fiddling with the app, we got a message that it would be an hour-long wait to be picked up. We decided to spend the hour walking the three miles to the ferry instead.
If microtransit can’t even handle the transit demand on Bainbridge Island, I don’t see how it works pretty much anywhere. Even far-out suburbs like Everett or Marysville are still better for transit than outright-rural places like Bainbridge Island. Essentially, every time you ride microtransit, you are depending on everybody else to not ride because, if more than one or two other people want to ride it at the same time as you do, you can’t ride without an excruciatingly long wait.
Jarrett Walker has a summary of the microtransit issues.
There’s a strong lobby for microtransit. It appeals to people who drive cars and don’t want to share a bus with many unknown people or potential undesirables. (And they may believe the media’s hype that there are more undesirables than there are.) Metro has succumbed to it with Metro Flex in a few areas (Othello, Renton, SeaTac, Kenmore). Some small cities have replaced their entire bus service with subsidized Uber. And reports from there say it cuts off poor people from transit, and it can take half an hour or more to summon a car, and it can’t handle large volumes of travelers.
There is a reasonable compromise. The Snoqualmie Valley Shuttle has a fixed schedule and mostly fixed stops, but it has a flexible area at both ends (in North Bend and Duvall) and 10-minute schedule padding to deviate in those small towns.
Everett and Community Transit are in discussions about merging, after decades of Everett refusing. If Everett Transit is rolled into CT, expectations are that Everett would get more service and frequency. Part of the reason for that (and why Everett held out for so long) is that CT’s taxes would be higher than ET’s taxes. Everett resisted because it said its population was lower-income and couldn’t afford CT’s taxes. But now ET’s long-term financial projections are getting so limited that it may have to merge with CT to keep a service level resembling what it has.
I think microtransit with drivers generally has big issues with productivity. To me, it’s context sensitive and makes sense in only a few circumstances. It seems more reasonable to me if there is both an anchor point like a Link station or transit center, and a catchment area no further than a 10 minute drive. Without an anchor point or with a coverage area too big, the service concept seems ill advised.
I don’t know how autonomous microtransit might work but it may improve the viability of microtransit in more situations.
Ar the proposals available without going through the survey? I started it but the first questions were about whether you live in Everett and which ET routes you use and your use of Community Transit, and those are inapplicable to me so I didn’t see much point in continuing. But I’d like to know what kind of network ET is thinking about, and how much/where it would replace buses with microtransit.
Survey does not appear to feature specific proposals – it only asks general questions about what kinds of destinations the respondent would support microtransit going to, and whether the respondent would support “minor” or “moderate” cuts to bus service to support a “limited” or “full” microtransit service, respectively. It asks this for the respondent’s “immediate area”, “other central areas or corridors in Everett”, and “other residential or outlying areas in Everett”.
Does it say anything else about bus routes? Does it consider any scenario other than reducing bus service to add microtransit?
Julie timm gone? It can’t hurt…
Just hit the inbox: Julie Timm is leaving ST. New release claims it is “in order to return to the East Coast to take care of family matters.”
Her performance review is on the Board Agenda for Friday. It will be interesting to see how the Board reviews their exiting CEO – if they are harsh, will it deter future candidates?
Ryan Packer sharing details from an email from Timm to ST staff: “While not impossible, it would be incredibly challenging for me to maintain a split focus while maintaining the intense level of support and stability Sound Transit deserves from its CEO”
https://x.com/typewriteralley/status/1734704873201934454?s=20
“The Board has expressed their full commitment that they will provide stability during the transition period as a new CEO is selected to lead the vision and mission of the ST Program, and they will be providing more information in the coming weeks.”
https://twitter.com/typewriteralley/status/1734705334306935218
Without delving into her performance and/or accomplishments at ST, getting homesick seems pretty par for the course when it comes to transplants here
Be it Seattle mariners players, politicians, business leaders, etc. We really are a “moon colony” of sorts and it can be very sobering being so far away from family and friends when your somebody who moved all the way up here. In lots of cases it’s faster or about comparable to fly to hawaii than to many parts of the eastern US. One of the reason why the Seahawks rack up so many flyer miles!
Seems pretty reductive to conflate being “homesick” with needing to be available to care for aging parents.
I did not see the details of her leave but your are right that it was a bad way to characterize the situation, whatever the situation is. I should have thought of my wording more carefully
Either way wish no ill will to her and wish her and her family the best. She seemed to want to prioritize rider experience while she was CEO here which I think is a sentiment we need a lot more of in this region
I will miss her. She was very approachable and engaged and seemed genuinely to have the rider’s interests at heart. While she may not have had all the skills needed on the operations and mega-project planning side, she was attempting to hire folks. As long as she had riders as the top priority, I trusted her.
Taking care of family, personal matters… it’s always a cover for the departing executive to avoid embarrassing or tarnishing them. It also means that there won’t be an official explanation. But clearly the Board is not satisfied with her performance or she is at odds with the Board. Maybe there will be some whispers. But she has not been seen or heard from in a while. And this is a meddling Board.
It is possible they wanted to pin the various messes on her, and she said “Fu** that sh**, I’m outta here”. If that is the case, good for her. I feel sorry for her. She probably assumed this was a fairly well run agency, flush with cash, with solid plans for the future. Only one of those was true, and as it turns it, that wasn’t enough. She didn’t think she had to straighten out the organization and try and fix the mess that is ST3. It really is a no-win situation. You go to New York or D. C. and improve things, and everyone is impressed. They think you are a bureaucratic wizard. You do the same in Seattle, and folks think all you did is pose for the ribbon cuttings. If things fall apart, they will of course blame it on you, especially since you don’t have loads of experience, and are a woman. If that is the case — if she got while the getting is good — good for her.
Although it is quite possible that what she said was entirely true. She has family matters, and those come first. It happens.
I’m pretty disappointed at folks assuming the stated explanation is a cover. Timm’s first year was not like Rogoff’s; if anything, Timm seemed to be doing pretty well in the face of so many challenges. Other than the outside report indicating dismay at ST’s lack of progress managing costs and schedule, I’m not sure what Timm could be seen as failing at.
4 days ago from her on X, a screenshot of the weather app showing a cold and rainy upcoming weekend: “Uff – heading back into the cold and dark. Still not used to it. Looking like a good weekend to read a book. What else do folks do here on cold and rainy Saturdays?”
Erica C. Barnett tweeting that the performance review was “apparently brutal”.
https://x.com/ericacbarnett/status/1734707778353021332
I am curious if the Board will release their formal review in accordance with their agenda for Friday.
It does seem like the Board was prepping to take no responsibility for the delays and cost overruns. Interestingly, Barnett notes that Deputy CEO Brooke Belman, who acted as interim CEO between Rogoff and Timm, submitted notice of resignation earlier this year.
@Nathan
Yeah that was my interpretation by the TAG results being right before the CEO evaluation.
But on the other hand I never knew the board took the TAG that seriously. I mean half of the proposals by TAG is to make the board less powerul and not wait on them for approvals
Nathan, I think Timm was a mere game piece in a larger Board game. That game to me was to hire an unlikely CEO for the job so that certain Board members could maintain greater control. The Board seems to want a pleasant toadie for the job.
Timm probably never really had a chance. She was pretty subdued about the big CID-N/ King County New Building stunt, for example. She seemed to have no fierce supporters or public enthusiasm in Seattle.
My hunch is that she’s too rational with a sense of rational ethics to last very long. Illustratively, she is an AICP which has a strong ethics orientation about rationally serving the public. When one’s profession is based on rational public service, ST behind close doors must seem surreal at how their planning is so irrational while not serving the interests of riders as well as the tax paying public.
I’m suspect that she’s actually too ethical for ST.
Having just been part of a care team for very elderly parents living 2000 miles away, I think her reasons are easily valid and not being there does pull at one’s heartstrings. However, a toxic job situation is just as powerful of an incentive to quit (if not more) than to quit to go help one’s family deal with care issues.
What are TAG and AICP?
A main criterion they were looking for was somebody good in staff relations after Rogoff’s abraisiveness.
“That game to me was to hire an unlikely CEO for the job so that certain Board members could maintain greater control. The Board seems to want a pleasant toadie for the job.”
What control? What didn’t they have control over? How do they have more control now? What control did they try to impose but couldn’t?
TAG = Technical Advisory Group, which released recommendations in February to improve project delivery, and expressed frustrations at the Board last week that no progress has been made on that front.
AICP = American Institute of Certified Planners, which is an organization which offers certification (commonly referred to as AICP) in planning and ethics.
I don’t think the Board, as a whole, is capable of playing that game. Maybe one or two power players – but I think it’s less malicious than that.
It’s funny – lots of folks complain that ST is “build, build, build”, with a lack of emphasis on rider experience. So, in 2022, the ST board hires a new CEO whose genuine focus is on rider experience, and the new CEO is (somewhat) effective at improving rider experience with a focus on responsiveness to on social media, and visible improvements like elevator/escalator repair, and navigating a return to fare enforcement. Then folks start complaining that there isn’t enough focus on the immediate term planning for ST3’s megaprojects.
Folks will say Julie Timm wasn’t it, but neither was Rogoff. I guess folks think there’s some unicorn CEO out there who can stand up to the political interests of the Board, can juggle the delivery of multiple megaprojects while kick-starting new ones, and navigate all the equity and security issues of a social service provider. If the candidate pool for Megaproject Czar is (apparently) empty, then who would want to be CEO?
Folks are forgetting Hanlon’s Razor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
I’m kind of surprised, while Sound Transit wasn’t moving quickly, none of the recent delays were really attributable to her. The east link debacle with the plinths was before her and nor was the federal way delays from the landslide her fault. About the Seattle station locations does the board want a ceo that will capitulate more to the board?
> Her performance review is on the Board Agenda for Friday. It will be interesting to see how the Board reviews their exiting CEO – if they are harsh, will it deter future candidates?
I assume they’ll give a good rating. The bonus amounts aren’t really that large, this isn’t some golden parachute package from leaving some large private company
> Timm’s annual performance evaluation was underway this month, to consider a merit raise of $3,750 to $18,750
But regardless of the reason why she’s leaving, it really doesn’t bode well for the next couple openings of link lynnwood, east link and federal way and even worse for the west seattle/ballard extensions. It’s really not good to change ceo’s yet again so soon
Yeah these are problems years in the making made by people who made errors, retired or left, and then passed on these problems to the new hires. I highly doubt any of it could be contributed to a CEO who was only able to be here for around a year.
That’s no enough time to properly change the workings of any projects or structure of an agency in either a positive or negative way. Contributing it to her would very likely be misguided
I agree John. At worst you could say she was not suited for the type of major overhaul that the agency needs (and then recognized this, and got the hell out). Hard to fault her for anything really.
“About the Seattle station locations does the board want a ceo that will capitulate more to the board?”
Who wasn’t capitulating about what station?
I can only observe that her planning background is probably what ST doesn’t need right now. I think that ST needs a no-nonsense “builder and operator” who understands how to get projects completed well and on time, as well as operate a system and its finances. And the Board seems to want to build what they want without regard to basic planning principles like cost, rider transfer experience and technology choices — and the politics would likely drive a rational planner nuts!
I harbor a worry that more bad news is ahead. When Rogoff left it was about the time that the East Link inspection failures and resulting delay became public. Is there more surprises waiting for ST and Link?
I guess from another article I noticed there were the recommendations from the technical advisory group (TAG) from last week?
> The TAG’s recommendations included restoring lost trust between the Sound Transit board and top agency staff, including CEO Julie Timm; empowering staff to take action, such as signing off on contract changes, without running every decision up the management chain; and hiring an “experienced megaproject capital program executive team” to oversee the expansion of light rail to Tacoma, Lynnwood, Ballard, and West Seattle. The agency’s deputy CEO in charge of system expansion, longtime Sound Transit staffer Brooke Belman, quietly announced she was leaving earlier this year.
> “I think we talked about it being a wave, and the wave was coming. The wave is not coming. It is on us right now. And that means the sense of urgency of moving forward with our recommendations is very, very real.”—Sound Transit Technical Advisory Group member Ken Johnsen
Since the recommendations came out, TAG members said, the agency has shown little urgency about putting them into practice. “It’s important to me that the top leadership embrace these changes and work on them diligently, and we’re a long way off from ‘diligently’ at this point,” Sound Transit board member Claudia Balducci told PubliCola.
Most importantly:
>… After the discussion last week, the board went into executive session to discuss a performance review for Sound Transit CEO Julie Timm, who has been at the agency since last September. When they returned to the dais, after extending the session multiple times, the committee no longer had a quorum and had to end the meeting.
https://publicola.com/2023/12/12/expert-panel-disappointed-in-sound-transits-lack-of-progress-on-recommendations-to-avoid-overruns-delay/amp/
This is more personal speculation but maybe the TAG suggested replacing the ceo? Though honestly I didn’t and don’t think the TAG had that much sway with the board. Or it could just be a coincidence that the TAG made recommendations right before the meeting evaluating the ceo.
Details by Mike Lindblom and David Kroman of the Seattle Times:
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/sound-transit-ceo-julie-timm-is-leaving-her-post/
Ya. Timm out! So the rumors were right. Hopefully we get a replacement that actually understands rail and infrastructure development!
Im kind of afraid the board will vote in a yes man/woman that will just blindly implement anything they ask
Most of the board being absolutely shameless about their power tripping? Say it ain’t so!
I’m similarly worried about this being the case. When you think they couldn’t stoop any lower they find a new inconceivable way to get even worse
Sound transit I think has always had the makings of a inexperienced agency too overwhelmed for their own good. Seemed that way during the many years and controversy it took to just build the airport line in Sound Move
But ever since, maybe Peter Rogoff(?), I can’t quite figure it out but it seems like there has been a genuine cultural rot of some sort that hasn’t properly shaken away. Like transcending inexperience and reaching into malice territory. Where boardmembers rather than wanting to get the project done but are simply too inexperienced to actually make the correct decisions, are instead now completely combative toward the decisions they are told make the most sense by staff or otherwise and instead focus on political concessions for their district. Maybe it’s a matter of when I notice it but I am still curious
I can’t imagine we’re somehow unique in having rather transit disinterested boardmembers however. Other cities seem to fare better at this. What structurally is unique to sound transit that is enabling these people who obviously don’t care enough to be mismanaging voter approved projects this badly? How do we differ from LA? Or Vancouver? Or Toronto?
Who is being malicious about what? What political concessions for what district? What did staff sensibly suggest that the board rejected?
Also not a good omen for future ST design decisions. Given that Timm seemed focused on good rider experience and probably also good rider policies. Instead we have a Board that is too political and is making design decisions and policy decisions behind closed doors.
Another reason why Sound Transit really needs two separate boards, a “Mayors council” esque board to handle all the typical Seattle Process political concensus building and an ST “executive board” appointed by leaders to handle day to day, project building/planning, operations, etc etc. And it being a mix of department and operations managers, engineers, urban planners, bus and rail operators, etc.
This would be something similar to what Translink currently has but would probably lead to some less weird politically motivated decisions made and probably make it better for ST leadership and employees to work with more cohesion and harmony. Instead of it being like the hands and legs aren’t speaking to each other like it is now.
Ah, no. Two separate boards would be a complete disaster. Adding more people in charge to the equation just makes getting anything done harder.
The problem is…. just what is Sound Transit? Urban planning outfit? Giant construction conglomerate? Regional transit company? Local transit company? Sound Transit does all of these things… rather poorly.
Remind me… just what did we vote for back in 2016? What Sound Transit exactly is wasn’t clear from the beginning.
I was kind of curious how other agencies do it and did a cursory glance.
LA Metro mainly uses appointees instead (Appointee of Mayor of the City of Los Angeles) and then other LA County council members
https://boardagendas.metro.net/board-members/
Same with WMATA with each region getting 2 appointees
https://www.wmata.com/about/board/
BART actually has elections for the board of directors with a BART district https://www.bart.gov/about/bod (https://www.bart.gov/about/bod/districts map)
TriMet (Portland) has the 7 board members appointed by the governor https://trimet.org/about/board.htm
New york’s is kinda the most complicated. The MTA is governed by a 23-member Board. Voting members are nominated by the Governor, with four recommended by New York City’s mayor and one each by the county executives of Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Dutchess, Orange, Rockland, and Putnam counties (the members representing the latter four cast one collective vote). And some other non-voting members.
Anyways for comparison the current sound transit board of directors are: Sound Transit is governed by an 18-member Board made up of local elected officials proportional to the population included in the Sound Transit district. Three members are from Snohomish County; 10 from King County; and four from Pierce County. The last seat is held by the Washington State Secretary of Transportation.
Of course this is a cursory glance and every organization works differently so I’m not sure their Board of directors have the same power/works quite similarly to Sound Transit’s.
But in general not many transit board of directors have them directly be the mayors of cities. Perhaps this causes more issues than it seems with the local elected officials pretty busy dealing with other issues and not having the time to manage Sound Transit.
I don’t quite like the complete appointed by governor idea that Portland uses. The appointee by each cities’ mayor or perhaps subarea doesn’t sound too bad. Since the appointee could actually focus on these board meetings/this job rather than showing up and not knowing what’s happening.
Another alternative is to have each subarea vote (maybe have sub districts?) and have elections. I’m not really sure this is the best idea, but it is an option.
Organizationally, our region gives each transit operator a revenue stream to spend as they want. That’s great when their mission is to build OMFs and modest bus stops and transit centers, and buy and run buses.
The problem arises in building the expensive projects like light rail tunnels. LA Metro Board has a capital projects (with sales tax distribution to many operators) side and a transit operations side. There are better mechanisms that work in Portland and Vancouver too, providing better oversight. Honestly, if the State of Washington put a direct financial stake in regional transit, the added perspective would provide an additional check.
On top of that, ST isn’t the only major provider and they use staff from other operators. They rarely look at impacts of what their light rail extensions do to the ridership on other operators. That’s fine when it’s replacing ST Express but it’s not fine when they mess with established arterial bus routes.
So we just vote to give ST a blank check to spend at will. ST3 is being extended for decades. This is pretty heady! (Let’s spend billions without oversight!)
There isn’t a review committee or process consisting of riders and drivers to weigh in on ST’s choices. ST keeps giving all the legitimacy to “stakeholders” which are mostly property owners and developers. So structurally, ST is foremost a developer driven agency posing as a transit builder.
TriMet structure isn’t exactly ideal, but it was created as a state owned corporation by the legislature in 1969. At the time, corporations were popular and thus it was set up with the same barely-democratic processes that should be expected from corporations of that era.
Also in the mix: our planning agency Metropolitan Service District is the one that determines where light rail lines get built. It’s elected.
TriMet’s appointed board is typically made up of business leaders from the area. Considering TriMet’s revenue stream is a payroll tax on such businesses, it was probably set up as it was as a concession to those being taxed, or some such.
Glenn, yeah at least from what I’ve heard about Tri-Met’s board seems decent. Tho seems to have had its fair share of squabbles with the public, like the boars meeting in May where the local transit riders union (OPAL) and board got into a heated squabble over the proposed fare increase.
https://www.youtube.com/live/N0QBBZ6lfIk?si=5FfulKzy0qSNdR6H
I’m generally ambivalent on the fare increase, I think there were decent reasons for increasing fares. Tho TriMet did botch it by really not explaining well the way and how Hop Fastpass works (because I saw a decent few people during the meeting not understand how fare capping works). But what did annoy me when watching it was how deeply unprofessional (in paticular Board President Dr. Linda Simmons & Ozzie Gonzalez) were during the interaction. Like I get it, being a public servant isn’t always the best job to have and civic meetings tends to bring out “interesting” people. At the same time you never egg on people during board meetings, which Linda Simmons did before they moved to another room to complete the meeting. Or claiming that people were being paid to speak at the meeting in the case of Ozzie Gonzalez.
tbf, I don’t completely understand the insider baseball politics of Trimet, Portland, OPAL, etc. But the whole incident seemed a bit utterly bizarre and baffling as an outsider looking in.
I’m not sure OPAL is equivalent to the Transit Riders Union. We have an Oregon Association of Rail and Transit Advocates which is much older and is actually informed about transit issues for that role. OPAL is a social justice group that, among various other things, wants transit to be “decriminalized”, which basically means make it free to use.
The fact this would result in reduced service due to there being no replacement revenue stream, and thus it being counterproductive to all the other OPAL stated goals, seems to have been lost on OPAL.
* I’m not opposed to the concept of free transit, especially in cases where fare collection is a significant percentage of the operating expense, but the accounting magic OPAL wants doesn’t exist in real life.
Thanks for the clarification Glenn. That makes a lot more sense as to what went on and why the board members were visibly annoyed by the shouting from the audience.
I think the whole “go fareless” is a great idea on paper but in execution it doesn’t really solve the problem of fixing declining or pleateauing ridership.
As board members pointed out, having better service frequency and coverage matters a lot more in general. People are willing to pay if it means they can get where they’re going in a reasonable time frame and doesn’t mean sitting at bus stop or transit center for long time. On top of being safe to ride.
“I’m not sure OPAL is equivalent to the Transit Riders Union.”
The Transit Riders Union started out more focused on transit issues. Its members are more working-class and lower-income than STB’s authors are, so it has overlapping but sometimes different or opposite positions on specific bus service or Link, etc. In contrast, the Los Angeles Bus Riders Union focuses on general working-class issues, so “bus rider” means who they are rather than which issues they focus on. The Transit Riders Union has partnered with STB and others on specific campaigns on Metro recession restrucutures and funding, promoting Link, etc. I’ve attended only one of the TRU’s meetings so I can’t say what they’re talking about now. But their public activities recently seem to be focusing on non-transit issues. I assume they’ll come back to transit advocacy when a specific issue they care about comes up.
The TRU started in the 2010s when there was less government/agency focus on equity, so they had to do it. In 2020 the governments and agencies started basing more of their transit plans on equity (sometimes to the detriment of other things, like feeders to Northgate Link). So the governments/agencies are now doing by default more of what the TRU wanted, so the TRU may not have to be directly involved with it as much. But when a transit issue they care about comes up, I’m sure they’ll make noise about it.
“the whole “go fareless” is a great idea on paper but in execution it doesn’t really solve the problem of fixing declining or pleateauing ridership.”
It’s a misplaced understanding of what makes transit work. I believe transit should ideally not be paid by user fees, but by general taxes like schools, libraries, parks, fire response, etc. Cities have an intrinsic need for their residents to get around: that’s what makes it possible to work and sustain oneself and maintain community cohesion. So cities should offer the most efficient way to do that: mass transit. They shouldn’t privatize it by forcing most people to have cars or take taxis to participate in society. And they shouldn’t disincentivize using transit by charging a user fee.
But we’re a long way from that ideal. The biggest thing we need now is more bus/train frequency, faster transit that’s more competitive with driving, and more coverage. We need to get it up to a level like the average of European/Canadian cities (and Latin America and Asia are also ahead of us). That’s what makes it possible to use transit for most of your trips. This is more urgent than free fares or not having to tap. We have expanding concessions for low-income riders so that the cost of transit isn’t a burden while we’re still charging fares — which will probably be for decades longer.
The problem with these “Free fares now!” advocates is they don’t look at the bigger picture: how many transit trips aren’t taken because service in that corridor is nonexistent, infrequent, or it takes unreasonably long to get to your destination. They’re assuming the current level of service is enough, when it’s not. Because free fares would suck up the money that would otherwise go to more service and capital improvements. They just ignore that, or probably they don’t realize what its consequences are.
[spam]
I’m struggling to understand ST’s diagrams for SODO station preferred option.
https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/wsle-station-planning-meeting-materials-20231025.pdf
Considering how lousy the cross-tunnel transfers will be at Westlake and Pioneer Square, I’m assuming SODO would actually become a key transfer station.
What will transfers look like between the 1 and 3 lines? Will there be transfer(s) where all a person has to do is walk across the platform (between the NB 3 and the SB 1 lines?) For other transfers, will people have to walk up and down a flight of stairs, or will there be level crossings?
https://wsblink.participate.online/stations/sodo
https://oohwsblink.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/images/SODO%201b.jpg
Has the profile in more detail. Part of it is contingent on elevating Lander street.
It’ll be most similar to CID station and just imagine two of them side by side. One then transfers at the mezzanine (same as street level) above
Your understanding is correct. Any transfer other than between NB1 and SB3 will require two escalators in the preferred alternative. With three platforms, that means three sets of costly escalators and elevators there. It also means that pedestrians in the area must climb a future new viaduct to get to the station entrance. (Side note: Trenching an underground crossing between platforms would cut the vertical stair steps required probably in half and possible even enable a ramp rather than stairs.)
The original plan was to have 1 Line at the surface and the 3 Line as an aerial. That would require only on escalator/ stair change. That is still a fallback alternative. Same direction transfers is what I also believe should be built here.
I also think that all northbound trains should be on the east side and southbound trains on the west side. The current plan to have no two adjacent tracks going in the same direction creates a much bigger problem if a train needs to use a different platform in case of an inevitable disruption. It would make track switching an order of magnitude easier and less costly. I would suggest putting 1 Line on the outside and 3 Line on the inside because that would only require a single rail over crossing that could be added with the new track connections that will be needed to get into the OMF anyway.
I’ve been pleading with ST to make same direction level transfers here as far back as 2018. The excuses the staff give have been pretty lame — like they can’t take a warehouse building (with the extreme costs of DSTT2 it’s of course laughable) or that they can’t disrupt the 1 Line during construction (which they are doing anyway). I don’t have the stature of a major corporation or developer so the idea goes unstudied to this day.
Others have proposed just having just two tracks and either a single center platform or two side platforms as another workable solution. It does work. The risk with this option is that when train service gets paused there isn’t an easy way to get riders off on train and onto another. It takes a few minutes to fully unload a crowded train.
ST doesn’t understand that good transfers are critical.