Three new members are joining the Sound Transit board: Dan Strauss, Seattle councilmember representing Ballard; Girmay Zahily, county councilmember representing south Seattle; and Angela Birney, mayor of Redmond. The West Seattle Blog and The Urbanist have coverage. In the latter, Doug Trumm highlights the Link issues in their neighborhoods. Another board position in Pierce County has not been announced yet.
44 Replies to “ST Board 2024 Begins to Take Shape”
Comments are closed.
Ballard, South Seattle, and Redmond — that’s great. Those three areas are all very much a part of ST3, but try getting from Ballard or South Seattle to Redmond post-ST3 on Link. Either trip will require some kind of lengthy, labyrinthine underground transfer downtown, or, in the case of South Seattle to Redmond, a time-consuming backtrack through the International District since the transit hub at International District Station will get broken.
That is, unless these new board members can somehow get ST3 back on track towards some kind of broadly reasonable, desirable and affordable outcome. I wish them all the best.
in the case of South Seattle to Redmond, a time-consuming backtrack through the International District since the transit hub at International District Station will get broken.
Yes, things will get worse for South Seattle. I don’t think this particular trip pair is that big of a deal though. Riders will have alternatives. For example:
1) Rainier Valley to the East Side: Take the 7 or 106, then East Link (at Judkins Park). This avoids all the backtracking.
2) Tukwila to Downtown Bellevue: Take the new Stride BRT.
3) Tukwila to Redmond: Take the new Stride BRT and transfer to East Link.
4) SeaTac to Downtown Bellevue: Take the main Link Line and transfer to the new Stride BRT.
5) SeaTac to Redmond: Take the main Link Line, transfer to the new the Stride BRT and then take East Link.
The fifth one is the only one that sound pretty bad, but it is possible that they run express buses from SeaTac to Downtown Bellevue by then (making 4 even easier). To me, this sort of trip is not the problem.
Consider more common trips: South Seattle to downtown. The downtown stations in the new tunnel will be worse, so this is a degradation. South Seattle to the UW. Riders will be forced to transfer, and the transfer will probably be bad. This would all be excusable if we were getting something really good out of the new tunnel, but we aren’t.
Yeah, for all the critiques of a 2nd tunnel, connections to East King is not an issue. As Ross notes, many connections involve Stride or Judkins, and for Ballard-Redmond, even a mediocre Link-Link transfer will be an improvement over the current bus routes with normal street congestion.
I would mention that the planned Stride stop at TIBS is pretty awful — complete with waiting at a Stride platform getting all the SR 518 freeway noise from less than 50 feet away. Then there is the vertical level change issues with luggage.
Of course, luggage is also a hassle at ID/C too since there are no down escalators there either.
Those single elevators need to be working! How many of those combos require elevators?
Of course, taking the 7 to the 2 line would be a lot less onerous if the 7 could have some priority at intersections such as 23rd Ave. and I-90. It shouldn’t take a bus 20 minutes to go a mile and a half.
What’s wrong with the TIBS-Stride stop? The freeway alignment is a virtue, not a problem, as it ensures the bus has minimal delay. For all those who wish the region was investing in a bus network rather than Link into the suburbs, Stride on 405 (aside from the Renton station) is exactly what should be built.
The comment section has consistently said it is against buses making detours, and wants them to stay out on the road to save time. The comment section has argued against detours to: Eastgate, Kingsgate, the VA, the Four Freedoms, NW hospital, Bellevue College, and dozens of other locations. Now the comment section is complaining Stride will stay out on the road and won’t detour into TIBS??
Sam, I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that the “comment section” is uniformly complaining about Stride.
If you’re going to troll, at least do it accurately.
Of course, taking the 7 to the 2 line would be a lot less onerous if the 7 could have some priority at intersections such as 23rd Ave. and I-90. It shouldn’t take a bus 20 minutes to go a mile and a half.
Agreed, but SDOT is making progress (in general and in this specific area). My bet is that by the time they start work on Ballard Link it will be much, much faster.
@Sam
It’s a more generalized problem of freeway brt (and some trains). It’s pretty nice for speed however it kinda has some difficulty of stations at and near major intersections.
1) Where since if you have two freeway busses going north/south and east/west they don’t have any shared station stop. At the freeway interchanges of i5/405, 405/90 and 405/520 of course it’d be nice if we had something like 105/110 los angeles freeway stations https://maps.app.goo.gl/wnQnpqfS85oXnu8z8 (though I understand why those cost like a billion minimum to make)
If two median freeway stations existed at 405/90 one could get off stride and change to an issaquah bound bus there. Or similar at 405/520 the busses coming from Seattle need to choose whether to go northbound or eastbound.
2) nearby destinations are very hard to build a freeway station and so it misses out at southcenter, factoria etc..
Though honestly for Stride 1, I do think it was a missed opportunity to build some direct access ramps to south center/factoria
I mean in general Stride 1 (bellevue to renton) is kinda weaker compared to Stride 2 (bellevue to lynnwood) https://www.soundtransit.org/system-expansion/stride-bus-rapid-transit Part of it is that the northern section Stride 2 already has direct access (hov) ramps at all (most?) the major destinations of canyon park, brickyard, totem lake, an the major missing one NE 85th they’re building one.
In contrast for Stride 1, there’s NE 44th which is just a park and ride and the other one being constructed is 112th newport park and ride. It misses southcenter, the landing*, factoria, and then heads to burien instead of seatac. It’s definitely a fast way for Burien residents to reach TIBS and bellevue, but there’s a lot of missed areas. Though sadly there’s no real easy fixes here, trying to build freeway stations all these destinations are really close to the major interchanges.
*The landing is actually farther away from the interchanges so there’s talks about building an interchange at NE 8th street. “In north Renton, an HOV-only interchange is proposed at I-405 and N. 8th St” idk if it is funded though, but if it’s built I’d imagine the stride 1 could use it.
AJ: “What’s wrong with the TIBS-Stride stop? ”
1. There was a 2021 STB post about how ST was eliminating the direct access.
https://seattletransitblog.com/2021/08/13/sound-transit-is-considering-sacrificing-station-access-to-reduce-stride-costs/
It’s not clear what was resolved. The proposed path in the post says that a transferring rider will need to walk about 1000 feet or four blocks.
2. It will be very loud. The Stride stops do not appear designed for rider quietness. Not only will there be high speed traffic but the stops are in a small “canyon” which magnifies the sound.
3. ST wants to go cheap on vertical conveyances. That means just an elevator exposed to the elements and a set of stairs that only go as far as the ground level . Note too that there will be about 40-50 steps just from ground level to the Stride stops. So each transfer will require two vertical level changes and the elevators better be working!
So it’s not only that the design that creates a loud stop, but also the ever cheapening design to complete a transfer to Link that makes it awful.
or Ballard-Redmond, even a mediocre Link-Link transfer will be an improvement over the current bus routes with normal street congestion.
True. It is some of the other combinations that struggle if Ballard Link isn’t done well. Redmond to Denny or SLU may very well be better with a train-to-bus transfer, depending on the Ballard Link stations and the frequency of the trains versus the buses. A trip to Uptown competes with the monorail (at least a little bit). Depending on station location, the stations north of there may not get that many walk-up riders. In that case, an extra transfer may make up for the speed advantage of Link.
There isn’t much at Smith Cove, while Interbay is mostly about the feeder buses from Magnolia. It takes about 20 minutes to get from a Magnolia bus (24 or 33) to downtown. The train will be faster, but it is unlikely it will be fast enough to make up for the transfer. You’ve not only got the walk from the bus stop to the train platform, but the additional waiting as well (despite being a very urban line, it isn’t expected to be especially frequent).
Even in Ballard it isn’t a clear winner. For example, let’s say I’m going from Swedish in Ballard to downtown (or Redmond). Assume they put the station at 14th. That is an eight minute walk (https://maps.app.goo.gl/BuVcd2hu1vZSd3Uz5). Depending on how high (or deep) the station is, that could be another couple minutes or more. So that is 10 minutes until I’m on the platform. If the 40 is modified to pass by the new station, the walking time is less than a minute, which means I basically have a 10 minute head start (give or take) with the bus. Of course I could take the bus to the station (that one or the 44) but then I’m hoping that the train will be leaving soon. Throw on a bad transfer downtown, and things aren’t really that good, even for trips to Ballard.
Ballard Link really has to get the details right for it to work well. Unfortunately, ST doesn’t have a great record with the details.
“heads to burien instead of seatac”
That’s a feature, or at least arguably a feature. It gives Burien serious regional transit. Airport workers commute every day, but travelers go to the airport once or twice a year. Burien residents and visitors going to the rest of the region are probably more numerous than airport workers. Especially airport workers from the Eastside, which is a long way away, a different economic level from South King County, and currently has an infrequent express bus that gets stuck in traffic.
ST asked the public when it was designing S1 whether it should go to the airport or Burien. The majority of feedback was for Burien.
“ “heads to burien instead of seatac”
“That’s a feature, or at least arguably a feature. It gives Burien serious regional transit. ”
If I was riding to or from TIBS and Burien, I probably would take RapidRide F. The TIBS stops for RapidRide F are much closer to Link platforms so any time savings using Stride goes away with the transfer situation.
I guess if you are going to Downtown Bellevue it would be nice but let’s not forget how the South Renton stop away from the freeway lanes adds time.
I still personally feel that Strive should instead go to Seatac with a new “turnaround stop” near the Link station platforms instead of TIBS. Not only would the transfer experience be better, but Burien riders could choose whether to go to either TIBS or SeaTac directly. It also would give RapidRide H users a single transfer to get to the airport. I realize that isn’t what is planned but I think that had planning been better integrated between Stride and Metro things would be different.
“That’s a feature, or at least arguably a feature. It gives Burien serious regional transit. “
Note too that TIBS has less than half of the Link boardings that Seatac does.
“If I was riding to or from TIBS and Burien, I probably would take RapidRide F.”
The point of Stride is for longer trips like Burien-Bellevue or Burien-Renton. If you’re just going from Burien to TIB, the F is fine. The F is benighted with too many turns between Southcenter and Renton, but that’s what makes it a bad route and shouldn’t exist.
> The point of Stride is for longer trips like Burien-Bellevue or Burien-Renton. If you’re just going from Burien to TIB, the F is fine. The F is benighted with too many turns between Southcenter and Renton, but that’s what makes it a bad route and shouldn’t exist.
I think there’s two problems with this. Well specifically with Stride 1 (Burien to Bellevue)
1) it’s just missing too many important areas. Missing out on SeaTac, and Southcenter, and downtown renton, and north renton (landing) and factoria. I understand it’s impossible to connect all of them but when you’re skipping this many destinations, the fast speed seems a lot less useful if you have to transfer to the F line anyways.
2) Sound transit has the capital dollars not king county. it could have improved the f line alignment if stride did go there. (for example if I remember correctly in some document they wanted to remove some of the f line jog with some elevated bridge over the rail tracks)
A big hassle with the DSTT2 design is getting from UW, Northeast Seattle and Snohomish to Seatac or SE Seattle. The transfer stations are so bad at Westlake and especially at Pioneer Square that SODO is probably the easiest — and even that one will require two escalators that may not be working.
Another transfer hassle is Issaquah to Seatac. A rider cannot transfer directly from an I-90 bus to Stride. A rider can only wave at Factoria from stride for that matter. The generic ST diagram implies that the lines cross — but they don’t.
I agree with that first paragraph. I wrote as much up above.
But I disagree with the second paragraph. There will be express buses from Issaquah to downtown Bellevue. The 554 if things go as planned: https://oohsteastlinkconnect.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/maps/central/554.pdf. It is still a three-seat trip, but the most awkward transfer is bound to be the one from Stride to SeaTac (again, assuming that Metro or ST doesn’t add an express from downtown Bellevue to SeaTac). Hard to say if they will, since we probably aren’t talking about very many riders, which is why Issaquah to SeaTac is the least of our worries.
In contrast, we know for a fact that thousands of riders take Link from the south and exit downtown, Capitol Hill and the UW (and have for a while now). These are the bulk of the people who will be worse off if they build a new tunnel.
Ross: “But I disagree with the second paragraph. There will be express buses from Issaquah to downtown Bellevue. ”
You do realize that not only is there no direct HOV ramp between I-90 and I-405 (meaning that buses will not be able to stop at Eastgate and will be bogged down in interchange ramp traffic congestion that is notoriously bad there — on top of numerous lane changes in that congestion), but Downtown Bellevue is also about two miles north of I-90 (further than Southcenter is from TIBS)?
Given how much controversy about Issaquah buses stopping at Mercer Island or maybe South Bellevue, I’m kind of surprised that you think the easy solution is to go to the Bellevue Transit Center. It’s going to add over 20 minutes to a trip in congested periods which are several hours a day at that interchange.
OK, but keep in mind, there are very few people who will ever ride from Issaquah to SeaTac, no matter what we build. Even fewer will ride during peak. Just to back up here, according to the census, there are 133 people who live in Issaquah, and work in the city of SeaTac. So we are basically talking about people who travel for business or pleasure. Very few of those travelers take transit, and the number who travel during rush-hour is even smaller.
Or look at the 560. Before the pandemic, 135 riders took the bus from SeaTac heading to Bellevue. Many obviously got off the bus before it reached Bellevue. This is downtown Bellevue, which has way more riders (in general) than Issaquah. On just that bus, Downtown Bellevue accounts for about 600 riders (or 2/3 of the ridership). SeaTac is simply not a big destination for those who live in the Eastern suburbs.
In contrast, we know for a fact that thousands of riders take Link, and stop downtown or places north. Those riders will be much worse off. I get that some Issaquah riders will have a tough time getting to the airport, but only a tiny handful will ever consider taking transit anyway.
Just to slightly clarify while Dan Strauss city district is mainly just Ballard, Girmay Zahily’s county district 2 represents more than south Seattle. Though to be fair he does mainly focus on south Seattle issues.
> University District, Laurelhurst, Ravenna, Eastlake, Capitol Hill, the Central District, South Seattle, Allentown, and Skyway
Map below:
https://cdn.kingcounty.gov/-/media/king-county/depts/council/maps/2021_districting_plan_20211208-pdf.pdf?rev=4e60b87c17cb4231bdea766e23637963&hash=6B895499CD11D69D73A941A15AA10F5F
More interestingly to note after looking at the map is this king county district has the most light rail stations. Of course not sure how active Zahily will be on the board but many items like escalators/elevators/fare gating at grade stations/frequency/Judkins park station etc… he might care about a bit more if it comes up to a vote?
Also related its intriguing to see the outsized power the king county executive has here with
> As county executive, Constantine has the power to elevate elected representatives from across King County to the board, and three of King County’s 10 seats on the 18-member board were vacant due to their former representatives leaving their elected office and thus losing their eligibility to serve on the board.
It’s possible my perception may be off based on limited information, but I generally perceive Zahily as very interested in general left wing politics, but rather lukewarm towards transit. That is, more concerned about the skin color of people who live along a bus route that how many people actually ride that bus.
By contrast, I think of council member Balducci (also an ST board member) as someone who actually cares about transit (but is limited in what she can do, as she is only one vote).
It takes awhile for a new Board member to feel like they have legitimacy to participate. In particular, Strauss and hopefully Zahilay won’t need much time. I’m hoping that they speak up!
I feel that ST cannot continue to function as they have since 2017. Operational problems like escalator/ elevator failures and massively disruptive maintenance fixes along with extremely long (2 year) extension delays as well as increasingly problematic urgent issues like ridership declines and shifts and “worsening” (usability and cost) extension designs will require a lot of work to change its course. It no longer can be looked at as the great hope it was presenting in 2016. The hiring of the right CEO will be critical — but only one of many other decisions that the Board must face in the next two years.
I’m hoping that all Board members begin to take more interest in how the system operates rather than how the concept looks in a pamphlet. Pretty station drawings lose their luster quickly if the actual stations are not opening or are difficult to use.
I’m also hoping that the Board pivot from trying to wheel and deal with developers behind the scenes that see ST as a way to get mitigation money or protect their specific property value (adding to construction costs) and more to honor the tens of thousands of riders who depend on the system.
I would love to see more Board members do things like ride-alongs with riders and operations-focused discussions with the public. If they did, I hope that STB will popularize giving rider feedback at possible events.
Is the low frequency of comments on this post an indication that people aren’t interested in the Board positions? Or that they have given up hoping that the Board can be made better?
Or they had plans this past weekend?
I think people are just focused on the Huskies right now.
It’s probably the narrowness of the topic, lack of knowledge about the new reps (what will they do?), uncertainty how to relate the issues in their districts to the reps, and the fact that two small articles were published at the same time. What’s more surprising to me is that the First Hill reroute article has gotten no comments at all.
Usually I’d both of these in an open thread. But these two seemed urgent enough that they couldn’t wait. And an article about the ST board makeup could get a lot of comments, and if so it’s better to have them all together from the start.
I think the First Hill post gets no comments because it appears as a temporary rerouting. Temporary reroutings happen often around Seattle — even for planned situations like building construction. And buses have had many reroutes associated with Madison St in particular these past two years. So, I just think there is little to say except “thanks” for making us aware.
I found the ST Board process to be very much not transparent. With the Seattle council vacancy, there’s a formal application process. And while it’s not clear how the current council will choose a new member, it’s at least clear who is eligible to put their name forward. But in contrast, it’s not clear to me who is even eligible to serve on the ST Board. Beyond King County getting 10 seats, and the KC Executive being 1 of the 10, how are the other 9 seats apportioned?
Here are some of my many questions. Did Debora Juarez have to be replaced by another Seattle city councilmember? Did David Baker have to be replaced by another East King councilmember/mayor? Are there always 4 King County councilmembers on the board along with the Seattle mayor and 1 Seattle councilmember? If the North King subarea is Seattle/Shoreline/Lake Forest Park, and the 3 North King boardmembers are always the Seattle mayor, Seattle councilmember, and a KC councilmember, does that mean that Shoreline/Lake Forest Park are effectively prohibited from being on the ST Board?
https://www.soundtransit.org/get-to-know-us/board-directors
https://www.soundtransit.org/get-to-know-us/board-directors/board-members
The process is set up in State statute, prescribed by the legislature. They were very intentional about populating the ST board with public officials with a blend of municipal, county-level and transit/transportation responsibilities.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=81.104
To be fair if you read only that from https://www.soundtransit.org/get-to-know-us/board-directors
> 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.
those pages don’t actually outline the rules and you’d think it could just be any elected official in the county.
> Sound Transit is governed by an 18-member Board made up of 17 elected officials and the Washington State Department of T ransportation secretary. Board membership includes mayors, city council members, county executives, and county council members from within the Sound Transit district.
> Boardmembers from each county are appointed by their respective county executive and confirmed by their county council. By state law, appointments must include an elected official representing the largest city in the county and proportional representation from other cities and unincorporated areas. To help assure coordination between local and regional transit plans, half the appointments in each county must be elected officials who serve on a local transit agency governing authority
https://wsdot.wa.gov/partners/erp/background/3-1_About%20the%20Agency-Sound%20Transit%20Background.pdf
The regional transit authority is mainly by county, except it must also include the most populated one. Which is why there’s always Seattle, Everett, Tacoma officials. Also half of them must also serve on the transit committee/agency. For example Deputy Mayor Kristina Walker “She also currently serves as the Chair of Pierce Transit Commission and is a member of the Sound Transit Board of Directors”
https://www.cityoftacoma.org/government/city_council/deputy_mayor_kristina_walker
@another engineer,
And it seems to be working. For the most at least.
Much better than some other board structures that become hyper politicized.
Lazarus, at least it’s better than a directly elected board. Which is what Denver has for RTD.
https://www.rtd-denver.com/about-rtd/board-of-directors
I’m not against a directly elected board in thoery but can lead to still having a car centric echo chamber if the board is too suburban heavy, which is a problem RTD has.
My other qualm is the lack of rider and operator representation on these boards. If you look at transit organization structures in other countries like Germany, bus or rail operators have a voice at the table on their board of directors. Usually union representatives acting as their liason and voice for operator specific needs.
I have been disappointed in the Trio of Keel, Dammeier and especially Walker, who had the transit background, but hasn’t been the advocate I had hoped.
Hopefully some new blood with a rider’s voice for Pierce.
Yeah, sorry about that. The Pierce County group isn’t very good right now.
Dammeier is the pick of litter of these 3. He’s the guy most likely to even respond to you. Some of it he’s just better at his job (with a bigger and better staff) and some of it is he’s like #2 or #3 on the GOP State “up and coming” list, so he has to be responsive.
Crazy that Dammeier is the most responsive pol in Tacoma if you live South of the Freeways, if you’re poor or not White… but that’s how it is. The political class never thought Dammeier could beat Rick Talbert for County Executive but Dammeier went right after poor Rick on his home turf (Tacoma Eastside) and crushed him.
Look for for Dave Reichert to campaign hard with Dammeier in Tacoma this Summer.. they’ll be making the rounds to small Asian businesses and Black churches…. where they’ll be warmly received. If you want to ask for something, transit wise, this is the time.
If you didn’t get the memo… “Walker is the Old White Money in the North End” water girl. She says a lot of progressive things…. but in the end she’s one of the most conservative people in Pierce County politics. Her main job is stop any big public projects from ever going in South of the freeways, except for homeless camps or public housing.
Also time the Rider Experience Committee had a liberal and someone who makes clear they want to hear from RIDERS about the Sound Transit Rider Experience and nothing else at public comment.
There is currently a petition out calling for Sound Transit Boardmember Birney to be removed you can signed below due to the anti-Semetic issues and also the process.
https://forms.gle/iLurYVZNqHK6fVZZ8
There is a Redmond Councilmember who can handle this.
I’m not sure what that incident has a direct bearing on her as the mayor.
https://mynorthwest.com/3938818/rantz-mayors-giggling-daughter-exposed-tearing-down-israeli-hostage-flyers/
https://www.kvi.com/2023/11/14/washington-mayors-damage-control-after-adult-daughters-on-campus-behavior/
It was her daughter not her.
> The absence of a sincere apology
Sigh… perhaps it is better that the board members are appointed and aren’t elected. Otherwise one’s opinion on middle east politics/war would end up being the deciding factor on how to run Sound Transit.
Agreed, WL.
The petition has one transit-relevant point that should get more coverage: “The lack of a public process and input as to who serves on the Sound Transit Board”. And I’m glad that somebody is pointing out Hamas needs to be forced to stop the terror attacks, and hoping for a mutual cease-fire before that is a pipe dream. But I can’t sign the petition because it’s not a reason to remove her mother Birney from a position, and they’ve given no evidence connecting Birney to her daughter’s views.
It reminds me of the attempt to recall Kshama Sawant. I always voted against her and wanted practically anybody else representing my district. But I voted against removal because she’d done nothing justifying such a drastic step (corruption, abuse of staff, trying to harm some constituents).
[ah]