The Urbanist has a 2024 advocacy agenda.

SDOT is selecting construction contractors for seven projects including street upgrades for bus routes 40 and 48, 4th Avenue protected bike lanes, pedestrian bridge reinforcement, and other sidewalk and bike projects.

Route 8 has a fan club who wants to speed it up. The have a petition to the city that’s looking for signatures.

Pine Street will close March 9-10 between Melrose and 8th Avenues to convert that segment to one-way westbound. [Update 3/6/2024: The closure is Saturday March 9 between 7am and 5pm. Wet weather could extend it into Sunday.] Pike Street was converted last November. This extends the one-way system east to Melrose Avenue in southwest Capitol Hill. It’s part of a complete-street makeover for Pike-Pine.

Where New York subway cars ($) go for repair.

Eastside Transit: a YouTube channel with videos on the Line 2 Starter Line testing.

This is an open thread.

120 Replies to “Open Thread 40”

    1. Yes, I’m pretty sure we reported on this before. There was a last second push to stop the project. I’m pretty sure it failed. It never hurts to sign that email (several of us have) but I seriously doubt there is any way that the project gets halted at this point. It has officially gone to a contractor: https://content.govdelivery.com/bulletins/gd/WASEATTLE-3865a1e?wgt_ref=WASEATTLE_WIDGET_420. Now instead of discussing what could happen, they are basically discussing what will happen. Specifically they are talking about construction impacts: https://content.govdelivery.com/bulletins/gd/WASEATTLE-38e0b9e?wgt_ref=WASEATTLE_WIDGET_420.

  3. What happened to Thomas? A few years ago Metro was rooting either moving the 8 to Thomas or adding a new route along it, and even considering using the Rhomas alley through Seattle Crnter. Is that dead?

    1. Thomas street is being pedestrianized
      https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/programs/urban-design-program/street-design-concept-plans/thomas-street-redefined

      Harrison Street is the one they are deciding the make a transitway
      Picture:
      https://www.seattle.gov/images/Departments/SDOT/TransitProgram/HarrisonMercer/HarrisonConnections.png
      https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/current-projects/harrison-mercer-transit-access

      1. Thanks. I get them confused (and didn’t bother to look them up). I’ll update my comment below (to avoid confusion).

      2. Thanks. That’s too bad, though, because Harrison is too far from Denny to reroute or replace the 8.

        So far as BAT lanes of Denny, they will never happen. There is no other usable east-west arterial between the plateau on Capitol Hill and SLU. None. The City isn’t going to take away 50% of its capacity.

    2. I think it is still theoretically possible. I think there are two problems:

      1) Moving the 8 would not be good. The 8 is a good route — it just needs BAT lanes. If the bus went on Harrison it would then either go around the Seattle Center the other way or get back on Denny. The latter wouldn’t do much, and the former is inferior routing.

      2) We don’t have the money for a new route. The same is true for a bus route on Boren. They would be solid routes, but frequency is really bad right now as it is. Eventually a Boren to Harrison (to Mercer) bus should happen. It should complement the 8. It just can’t happen now, not when we can’t afford decent bus service and Metro is afraid to make even simple changes (like moving the 2).

      1. Yes, Route 8 has the correct alignment between Uptown and 16th Avenue East; it serves great density, transfer points, the Capitol Hill Link station, and Kaiser Permanente. It should not have been extended east and south in 1997. It could use 10-minute headway.

        SDOT could improve transit flow. There is too much traffic oriented to the Yale Avenue southbound I-5 on ramp. Perhaps WSDOT could close the ramp or toll the ramp. Could SDOT close Yale between Denny and I-5? Denny also carries much traffic to/from Aurora Avenue North and the Seattle Center. SDOT is seeking concepts.

    3. A bus lane would help but there are several major cross streets which will still cause delays. A gondola was suggested long ago and would add capacity, frequency, and reliability. It could even connect the Bell St Conference Center, Bell town, Amazon, CapHill and KP Hospital and effectively increase the walk shed of of CHS along Bell St and John St.
      https://twitter.com/mixio17/status/1675624052134903808/photo/1

      1. The passive voice to report on oneself is a missed opportunity for clarity.

  4. Stephen Fesler had an intriguing article the other day about RapidRide: https://www.theurbanist.org/2024/02/29/the-case-against-rapidride-and-for-funding-massive-transit-service-expansion-now/. Here are my thoughts:

    I think he raises many good points. In general I very much agree with him. Rapid Ride involves picking a particular route and then spending way too much time, money and energy on that route. That is the wrong approach. We should prioritize corridors over routes. We should prioritize the network over corridors.

    Allow me to cite a few examples. The 45 runs on 85th. Pretty soon it will be joined by a second bus (the 61) which will connect the corridor with Northgate. In the future we might send the 40 there (replacing that part of the 61). It it is an important corridor that experiences congestion. We should improve it. Corridors over routes.

    The area around the Fremont Bridge is often congested. When a bridge goes up, it takes a while for traffic to clear. Seven different bus routes go over the bridge. Several other buses could be sent there as well. It is a very important area when it comes to the network, as it effects multiple corridors. Network over corridors.

    Or consider off-board payment. This is one of the big selling points of RapidRide. Being able to pay at the bus stop is nice. But it doesn’t have to be tied to one bus. All buses in San Fransisco are completely off-board and it has been a huge success. Various bus stops downtown are now off-board and this has worked out well. I could see this expanding, even if it didn’t cover the whole city. For example, the buses at Northgate Transit Center require payment at the front even though probably 99% have already paid for some sort of transit when they get there. Off-board payment should be more widespread.

    Same goes for fancy bus stops, or “station”. These have nice seats and kiosks showing when the bus is expected. These definitely add value. But they should be tied to the area, not a particular route. In many cases they are.

    The one unique thing that RapidRide offers is branding. I see little value in this. If anything, the special colored buses are actually worse. They limit flexibility. For example I’ve proposed swapping the tails of the 40 and D. Send the 40 across 85th to Northgate and extend the D to Northgate via Holman Road and Northgate Way. This would great improve the network. Doing this becomes more difficult because the D is RapidRide. So yes, I think abandoning RapidRide and simply trying to improve the network as much as possible is a better approach.

    I have other thoughts but I’ll make them different comments.

  5. Other thoughts about the Fesler article (https://www.theurbanist.org/2024/02/29/the-case-against-rapidride-and-for-funding-massive-transit-service-expansion-now/):

    1) What Fesler wrote about RapidRide goes double for the streetcar. The cost to build it is higher, and the corridor can be served with very little expense by simply shifting a few buses there. Even from a service standpoint it is a poor choice.

    2) He blames the RapidRide G for bad frequency in the area. That isn’t the problem. The G is actually fairly short and fast — and thus doesn’t cost much to operate. The problem is that the rest of the network ignores it. We will run buses right next to it (buses stuck in traffic) just because we are afraid of changing the routes. With a little bit of work the area could have much better frequency ( https://seattletransitblog.com/2023/08/30/high-frequency-network-surrounding-rapidride-g/). A high frequency route (like the 3/4, the 7 or the G) should lead to better frequency in the area as buses should complement it, not compete with it. The fact that Metro took the wrong approach shows a lack of imagination by the planners.

    3) Unfortunately, a lot of the work that SDOT does includes other things. The J Line includes a lot of bicycle work. It is common for them to do utility work and then attach it to the transit project. Then there is the federal matching, which he mentioned. Thus even though I support a lot of these ideas, it may still take a while to implement a project that is “mostly paint”. For example, the changes to the 40 (which will not be RapidRide) will involve work on the water main (https://content.govdelivery.com/bulletins/gd/WASEATTLE-38e0b9e?wgt_ref=WASEATTLE_WIDGET_420).

  7. Speaking of the 2 Line testing, does anyone know the layout in the Bellevue Downtown station in terms of stairs, escalators, and elevators? How many of each, and where are they located? Looking at the station, is the east entrance on 112th Ave elevators only? Elevators and stairs? Some other combination?

    Also, apartment buildings are being built right next to the BelRed station. How will someone with an apartment facing the station be able to live with all that rail crossing bell clanging for what … 20 hours a day?

    1. > How will someone with an apartment facing the station be able to live with all that rail crossing bell clanging for what … 20 hours a day?

      At first, by simply never opening their windows. Then, they’ll just get used to it. Lots of folks who live near above-ground train and lines and heavy roads simply deal with it.

    2. “How will someone with an apartment facing the station be able to live with all that rail crossing bell clanging”

      The same way they do in Rainier Valley.

      I believe ST quiets the bells and announcements in the valley, at least during certain hours, so BelRed could ask for that too. If it’s true that the cross streets have less traffic and pedestrians than MLK and the cars are slower, there would be less of a chance of high-speed collisions.

      1. You are right, it is the closest. Can they do a quiet zone like regular railroads? FTA seems a lot more forgiving than the draconian FRA.

    4. Lol we build apartments next to freeways. And there’s plenty of complaints about people racing down mlk rainier and 15th. They’ve somehow survived

  8. Mike, on OT 39 you said “I’ve been thinking we should get into videos too. But again, the editors don’t have the skills or time for it, so it would have to be somebody else. Since videos would have to go on a video site like YouTube, it could be an independent project from STB, and we could link to the videos and offer topic ideas.”

    Even if you don’t want the blog to get into videos at this point, I recommend at the very least creating a YouTube channel called Seattle Transit Blog, or some STB-related name. You don’t have to do anything with it, but at least you’ll have it in case one day you do want to post a video.

  9. Final(ish) Seattle Transportation Plan was transmitted from Mayor’s office to City Council last week, and is being presented to the Transportation Committee this morning. I am working on an article regarding the plan.

    The Draft “One Seattle Plan” (Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan update for 2025-2045) was released today. It’s bad. I am also hoping to contribute to an article on the plan in the coming days.

    Comments on aspects of each which have or haven’t been covered by other outlets already that might be of interest to the STB commentariat would be appreciated.

    2. Thanks for notifying. I’m still reading through it so will comment a bit later. Excited to read your article

      > Allow development of six units on a lot if at least two units are affordable to low-income households and additional height for affordable housing projects within .25 mile of frequent transit.

      The single family zone / neighborhood residential 6 unit does seem to have a pretty hefty poison pill to require 2 units. Though I guess it depends on what exactly are the requirements of “affordable”

      https://harrell.seattle.gov/2024/03/05/mayor-harrell-releases-draft-one-seattle-comprehensive-plan-expanding-housing-opportunities-across-all-neighborhoods/

    3. Some thoughts on the plan:

      The default for every neighborhood is to be an “urban neighborhood”. I know that is symbolic, but it still a pretty good symbol. It also makes it easier to argue for upzoning. For example: We should allow smaller lots in our urban neighborhoods.

      There are only a handful of “urban centers”: Downtown, Ballard, UW and Northgate. The map for Northgate is a bit weird. It has a strange section to the northwest that looks like it was drawn by an Alabama Gerrymanderer.

      There are a handful of expanded or new “urban centers” (what used to be called urban villages). The “neighborhood centers” look similar, except they won’t allow big office complexes. So basically Fremont (which has office buildings) versus Madison Park (which doesn’t).

      It looks like parking minimums are still going to be around. This is outdated. They should get rid of all minimum parking regulations on all urban neighborhoods, urban centers and neighborhood centers.

      For a 200 page document, it is quite vague. I guess that is why it is a draft. There is no mention of what really matters when it comes to zoning. It is instead “we want to encourage that sort of thing here, and this sort of thing there”. For example, there is no mention of FAR. There is no mention of lot sizes or setbacks. Then there is the regulation around multi-plexes. Right now Seattle allows triplexes pretty much everywhere. The problem is, the regulations around them require one main house, one attached unit and a third smaller detached unit. That hasn’t stopped people from building such things (it is quite common to see these being built from scratch). But this definitely increases the cost. The point being the details matter. It is one thing to allow quadraplexes everywhere, it is another to allow them to be built without jumping through a ridiculous number of hurdles.

      Same goes for larger buildings. Here we are, in the middle of a housing crisis, and it is obvious that a lot of large development is not occurring. Quite likely this is because of the onerous regulations. At some point it only becomes worth building a big building if everything lines up. Again, this pushes up the cost. Seattle should be experience a major development boom right now (in both buildings big and small). Why isn’t it?

    4. OK, so it turns out the important stuff is not in that 198 page document. Here is the important plan: https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/OPCD/SeattlePlan/OneSeattlePlanNeighborhoodResidentialConceptsDRAFT2024.pdf. This is what needs to change if we are going add adequate housing in Seattle. There are other issues (like design review) that delay the big buildings, but these are the rules that will determine development in most of the city. This in turn is likely to determine the cost of housing.

      There are various problems. Lot sizes (1,250 maximum) are fine (in my opinion). Same with height limit.

      Everything else is bad or really bad. The setbacks aren’t good, but even Spokane has similar setbacks. But I don’t think Spokane requires separation of houses *within the same property* of six feet. This basically bans row houses. The lot coverage, FAR and minimum lot coverage make a lot of development simply impossible. This needs to be fixed.

  10. So, the 1-Line killer (shooter) turned himself in, just like the kid who executed a sleeping man on the H Line.

    I’ve been expecting some discussion on whether the quick arrests, and media coverage thereof, will deter future deadly assaults on transit.

    Score two for the transit surveillance state.

  11. Good, there should be special enhancements for crime committed on transit property, similar to how it is onboard a plane (Federal charges)

  12. Unless the 20 year comp plan changes in ambition, if you’re a new resident or young person recently moving out into the working world who wants to access the job market in king county, bellevue will likely be where it’s at

    There is a lot of complacency in this comp plan. Our city will likely become even less affordable under these housing growth targets. The comp plan assumes 80,000 more housing units by 2044, largely predicated on development of existing urban villages, and 160,000 new jobs. So half as much housing growth as there will be job growth. Bellevue’s housing plans if they (hopefully and likely) see fruition will develop nearly enough housing capacity to meet those job targets (around 152,000 planned units) in a city 1/3 the land area of Seattle

    If you want to make suggestions on the comp plan you can access it here: https://engage.oneseattleplan.com/en/projects/draftplan

    1. Lol a 2 to 1 jobs to housing units ratio is pretty awful for a target, it should be 1 to 1.

      > In 2010, Seattle had 462,000 jobs and 308,000 homes. This was a ratio of 1.50 jobs to homes, a ratio that should have been maintained during this last decade of job growth. People move to cities for jobs and Seattle has had a lot of them. By 2020, jobs reached 620,000 but homes only grew to 368,000. While 60,000 new homes sounds great, Seattle remains 45,000 homes short of matching its 2010 jobs to homes ratio

      If Seattle wants to plan for 160k jobs, it should also plan for 160k housing units.

      For reference here’s job to housing ratios by metro area, basically all the highest ones are in california
      https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/files/R-0621-EC-1.png

    2. “if you’re a new resident or young person recently moving out into the working world who wants to access the job market in king county, bellevue will likely be where it’s at”

      Bellevue has higher rents and is not building as much. Your young person may live in Seattle and commute to Bellevue. When the full Line 2 opens this will be easier. And Bellevue probably doesn’t have as wide a range or as many jobs as Seattle has.

    3. The Seattle Times article ($) says something different.

      “Mayor Bruce Harrell is proposing a new plan to accommodate Seattle’s growth in the coming decades, one that would add density to every neighborhood in the city, pave the way for more corner stores and represent the most significant overhaul to the land use code in the last 30 years.”

      “It also proposes 24 new “neighborhood centers” within 800 feet of transit and commercial areas where apartments as high as six stories could be allowed, a potentially dramatic change for places like Maple Leaf.”

      “The mayor’s growth roadmap, part of a required 10-year update to Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan, would clear the way for at least 100,000 new homes over the next 20 years and add capacity for even more than that. That’s fewer than the projected need of 112,000 set by King County, but Seattle officials believe their strategy sets a floor, not a ceiling and outpaces the need forecast by the city in 2019.”

      If it’s a floor, it needs to say that in the plan, so that future officials don’t interpret it as a ceiling.

      1. > If it’s a floor, it needs to say that in the plan, so that future officials don’t interpret it as a ceiling.

        It’s not a floor, they’ve always been a ceiling, the land use plan becomes the zoning map and definitely sets a ceiling for whatever one is trying to build.

      2. Page 16:

        “Estimated growth targets for the 2024-2044 period are 80,000 housing units and 159,000 jobs.”

        I guess they expect only dual-income households to be able to move to the city.

      3. I think he meant they’ll raise it if necessary. That’s the opposite of Mercer Island, which said, “We’ve reached our PSRC target; we aren’t building any more”, even though the region is still growing and somebody else will have to absorb them (or not).

      5. The plan also removes Phinney Ridge entirely from the Greenwood Urban Village.

        The plan doesn’t include a dozen or so of the “urban villages” and “neighborhood centers” identified in the alternatives scoping.

        It’s truly astonishing how much this plan follows the contours of the bare minimum. Every single one of these “upzones” is literally mandated by state law, or was about to be until the bills died in the Senate. This is not “One Seattle” or “Space Needle” thinking, it’s more of the same exact baseless logic that got us into this housing crisis in the first place.

        Per the Urbanist’s review of Bellevue’s preferred plan in February (https://www.theurbanist.org/2024/02/09/bellevue-unveils-bold-growth-strategy-for-152000-additional-homes/), they’re planning for “an extra 152,000 homes and 185,000 jobs, for a grand total of 216,000 homes and 323,000 jobs when accounting for existing capacity”

        Puts Seattle to damn shame.

      6. “The City plans to reclassify today’s “Urban Villages” to “Urban Centers” and today’s “Urban Centers” would become “Regional Centers.” Neighborhood Residential areas (formerly single-family zoned neighborhoods) would become “Urban Neighborhoods.”” –Urbanist article.

        Well, that’s nice word inflation. Urban village to urban center; urban center to regional center. That’s like how some people are redefining medium-speed rail (90-110 mph) and high-speed rail (125+ mph) to high-speed rail and ultra-high-speed rail.

        This new definition of urban center will be hard to get used to. I’m used to “urban center” meaning highrises or PSRC growth center. I wonder if it’s intentionally misleading, to make it sound like highrises when it isn’t.

      7. > Well, that’s nice word inflation. Urban village to urban center; urban center to regional center. That’s like how some people are redefining medium-speed rail (90-110 mph) and high-speed rail (125+ mph) to high-speed rail and ultra-high-speed rail.

        It’s a bit more complicated of recategorizing them actually and I guess for technical reasons*.

        For the old urban village there were three categories of “residential” urban village RUV (othello, wallingford, morgan junction…), “hub” urban village HUV (north rainier, west seattle junction, lake city…) and urban center. They’ve shifted some them around. Though I can’t tell if it does a meaningful difference or not until some zoning map comes out with more details.

        ## Urban Center => Regional Center
        The renaming is probably to match with PSRC definitions. Northgate, UW, and downtown same three are here, but curiously Ballard is proposed to be added as a fourth. One requirement to be accepted as a PSRC regional center means upzoning enough capacity.
        > Ballard proposed Regional Center (2026-2027)
        > Designated as “Regional Growth Centers” by PSRC

        ## ‘Hub’ Urban Village => Urban Center
        The most ‘interesting’ change is here. They did more than renaming but actually combined the ‘Hub’ Urban Villages and ‘Residential’ Urban villages into one category of ‘Urban Center’. It’s hard to tell if it means a ‘downgrading’ of say west seattle junction, lake city etc…; if it’s an upzoning of the rest of the RUVs; or if there’s still a hidden tier ranking within the urban centers. Aka I’d imagine say lake city and north rainier are more permissive with zoning compared to say morgan junction or upper queen anne.
        > Designated as “Countywide Centers”

        * The reason why it matters is for regional/state funds.

        https://www.seattle.gov/documents/departments/opcd/ongoinginitiatives/seattlescomprehensiveplan/urbanvillageelement.pdf (2015)
        https://kingcounty.gov/~/media/depts/executive/performance-strategy-budget/regional-planning/GrowthManagement/GMPC-2021/GMPC-Meeting-120121/4c_GMPC_CountywideCenters_IJTrecommendation.ashx?la=en (Countywide Centers map)

        I’m still reading through to understand if it has any other implications though.

    4. Either a higher percentage of late Boomers or Millennials won’t be able to retire, or more Gen Z folks will be working two jobs! Lol

      Seriously, given how work from home has grown, the targets seem unbalanced, especially in light of how many of those new units will be tinier apartments suitable for only one adult. And the proposed densification of single family areas seems to be a big element.

      Finally, we gained 128,,000 residents between 2010 and 2020 or a 10 year span. The 80,000 units seem to yield a population growth a bit less than that over 20 years (like 1.5 residents per unit = 120,000 new residents).

      1. “we gained 128,,000 residents between 2010 and 2020 or a 10 year span.”

        That was an extraordinary period of growth that was biggest between 2013 and 2017. It was fueled by Amazon’s major expansion and the other tech companies setting up Seattle offices. It was already slowing down in 2019. It’s unlikely to grow that fast again, because who would be the companies that would have such gigantic growth in Seattle? Seattle had the opportunity to zone Northgate for another Amazon-sized headquarters, but didn’t. So where would it go, if another company wanted to do that? Future growth will probably be more incremental. It will still be more than the cities are planning, but not the tidal wave like in the 2010s.

      2. “because who would be the companies that would have such gigantic growth in Seattle” – presumably some company we haven’t yet heard of, otherwise it would already be having gigantic growth. Seattle has matured from being a company town (first Boeing, then Microsoft) to having an economy that is about entire sectors (tech, logistics, tourism), not specific firms.

        Simply getting the vacancy rate up a few percentage points while still keeping up with populate growth requires Seattle to continue to build at it’s current pace. Seattle’s rate of construction is rather unremarkable compared to large cities outside of the anglosphere. Seattle only looks remarkable compared to American cities that explicitly obstruct growth, like all of California.

  13. I have been out of town for a while, so I haven’t been keeping up. But why has there been no mention of the ST train that ran a red light and hit a car on 1/31? ST has already been found at fault, and their insurance has paid the victim. But you’d think an ST employee willingly and intentionally running a red light with an ST train would have been worth at least a mention somewhere, right?

    1. Do you have a link to this story? I’m having trouble finding mention of it online.

      1. I don’t. I know the victim. They came out with pictures and the proof of insurance payout. The train driver is quoted by witnesses on the scene as saying they saw the red light but assumed that the priority system would make it change. The train was going 20-25 mph according to the insurance report.

      3. I can provide a picture of the accident. Sadly the angle is too sharp for me to get a train number.

      4. @A Joy,

        Why don’t you provide a description of the damage done and/or any injuries? Because I’m guessing that if ST and the insurance companies were able to wrap this entire thing up in approx 1 month time, then it probably didn’t involve a lot of injuries.

        Also, your description of a “red light” is odd. Light Rail is not controlled by red and green lights. LR is controlled by vertical and horizontal bars displayed in amber.

        This is done for obvious safety reasons. You do not want LR operators or car drivers getting confused about whose signals are whose. Hence, when operating in a street running type environment, the control signals are of dissimilar types.

        I’m guessing that if a LR operator got confused by a “red light” it probably means he was looking at the car signal and not the LR signal. As such, the operator was probably a recent convert from Metro uses to LR. ST should just send the operator back to Metro.

        But of course this is all just speculation pending you providing actual details.

      5. I hadn’t heard about it either. Collisions are a regular occurrence and enabled by the level crossings, so we only tend to report on unusual situations. Link disobeying a signal, or the red light and the signal being inconsistent, would be unusual, but as I said I hadn’t heard of it or seen it in the Times.

      6. Honestly Lazarus? I don’t think people would believe my words. Which is why I was offering to show the picture of the T-Boned Black Prius. The damage was surprisingly light, and the injuries were indeed superficial.

        @Mike, I would like to think that a train conductor intentionally and willfully running a stop sign, with no arms down to prevent cars from turning, would be unusual enough to be big news. If not Seattle Times worthy at least STB and ST Twitter worthy. Did they even report a delay of the train on 1/31?

      7. A Joy keeps saying they will provide more information, but so far they haven’t. Can we at least get an intersection and time of day?

      8. ST sent the following alerts on January 31:

        Wed, Jan 31, 8:02 AM: “1 Line trains are sharing one track from Westlake to Int�l Dist/Chinatown from Jan. 29 to Feb. 2 due to scheduled maintenance. Please board all trains on the platform to Angle Lake”

        Wed, Jan 31, 8:19 AM: “Link Shuttle buses will be replacing the 1 Line between Rainier Beach and Othello until further notice due to police activity. Updates to follow when available.”

        Wed, Jan 31, 9:24 AM: [another single-tracking reminder]

        Wed, Jan 31, 1:15 PM: “1 Line trains from Angle Lake to Northgate are significantly delayed until further notice due to collision. Updates to follow when available.”

        Wed, Jan 31, 1:58 PM: 1 Line has resumed regular service. Please expect delays as service recovers.

        An incident like this seems to happen every month or so – but usually it’s the driver’s fault, not the Link operator’s. I’m not surprised no one followed up on it. It’s a shame that this Link operator made this error, and I’m glad everyone is OK.

        If STB had more writing capacity, maybe there someone could have taken the time to investigate this incident (public records requests, interviews, training documentation review, etc.), and it would have been a scoop for STB.

      10. Also, A Joy, I’m sorry if my original response came off as incredulous or otherwise disbelieving. I was looking to see if any other outlets picked it up and potentially to see why it was missed by STB. I’m glad you mentioned it; it’s important to try to keep track of how often transit operators make errors as opposed to being impacted by others.

      11. I would like to think that a train conductor intentionally and willfully running a stop sign, with no arms down to prevent cars from turning, would be unusual enough to be big news. If not Seattle Times worthy

        I think it would be Seattle Times worthy. It is rare. Man bites dog. But it also points to other issues (lack of gates, lots of accidents, etc.) that a real reporter can talk about without making this all about the driver who screwed up. You might want to contact him.

      13. “I would like to think that a train conductor intentionally and willfully running a stop sign, with no arms down to prevent cars from turning, would be unusual enough to be big news. If not Seattle Times worthy at least STB and ST Twitter worthy.”

        We can only report on things we know about. The Times has a staff of reporters who monitor these things. We have volunteers who get our information from the Times, ST announcements, other publications like The Urbanist, and what we happen to observe during our trips. The ST announcement said collision, which I would have taken to be a regular collision (driver blocking train, drunk person crossing tracks). I’ve advocated many times to eliminate these collisions by lowering/raising the tracks or installing over/underpasses. As long as ST doesn’t do that, collisions will continue to happen every month or so. There’s no evidence a Link driver ignored a signal or the signal was wrong; that’s just commentators’ speculations on what might have happened in reaction to your report.

        I’ve also said many times that ST should include the cost of collisions, including an estimate representing human cost, in the cost scenarios for surface alignment alternatives. Then the cost wouldn’t look artificially lower compared to tunneling or elevated, and we could prevent these tragedies from happening in the first place. Now that MLK is built, ST should at least estimate the cost of grade-separating it or installing over/underpasses,so that the public can evaluate whether to do it and when.

      14. @Mike

        Agreed, especially since “ST train that ran a red light” as Lazarus noted, the train signal is independent of the car traffic signals. It can be red for cars and “green” (it’s not actually the color green) for the train. We don’t know if it’s the 1) signals that are incorrect 2) train driver ignored signal or 3) car driver ran a red light on their end.

        @A Joy

        It’s not that we don’t ‘believe’ you but that you need to provide a bit more solid evidence. For instance you say “ST has already been found at fault, and their insurance has paid the victim.” like how did you find this out? I’m not saying it isn’t true but like did the victim or police tell you afterwards? You seem to have some additional knowledge from somewhere but without some extra explanation we can’t just assume it’s true.

      15. @Sam, there are no street signs in the picture or I would have given you the information.

        The link you provide mentions multiple cars ending up on the tracks. The picture shows only the Black Prius damaged, and no other cars on the tracks.

        @WL I have offered to provide STB with the picture of the accident. While it is difficult to still prove/disprove things due to camera angles, it would at least show the accident happened. A picture is worth 1,000 words, after all. As for my source? The victim posted their story yesterday on FB, along with the picture. I was surprised to see such little mention of it due to the severity of the incident. A conductor intentionally ignoring a stop light because they expected signal preemption to kick in? The liability alone is enough this should have gotten more coverage.

      16. “A conductor intentionally ignoring a stop light because they expected signal preemption to kick in?”

        Where are you getting your information from about railroad operations, and how the incident transpired from the operators point of view?

        Incidents like these take time to review, and then to determine the corrective course of action.

      17. @Jim Cusick,

        Nothing that A Joy is saying makes any sense. An accident that happened and was fully settled in one month? Ya, not going to happen. Not with lawyers involved.

        And an operator that “intentionally” ran a stop signal? I guarantee that did not happen. Operators occasionally make mistakes, as do drivers, but making a mistake is far different from “intentionally” violating the law and attempting to do harm to others. I don’t believe it at all.

        But why are we even discussing this? A Joy freely admits that the “damage was surprisingly light, and the injuries were indeed superficial”. That makes it sound like a total nothing burger. Something not worth discussing.

        Time to move on to more important things.

      18. “The link you provide mentions multiple cars ending up on the tracks.”

        It says they “came to rest in the path of LLR”. That doesn’t say who was at fault, or whether these were the first cars. Also, the website is an attorneys’ office specializing in personal-injury cases, so this is part of their marketing, looking for injured parties they can represent.

        “@WL I have offered to provide STB with the picture of the accident. While it is difficult to still prove/disprove things due to camera angles, it would at least show the accident happened. A picture is worth 1,000 words, after all. As for my source? The victim posted their story yesterday on FB, along with the picture. I was surprised to see such little mention of it due to the severity of the incident. A conductor intentionally ignoring a stop light because they expected signal preemption to kick in?”

        Send it to Mike Lindblom at the Seattle Times. They have the resources to investigate something like this, and they have the liability policies and lawyers in place to make such serious allegations if justified, and if there’s really a case they’d want to publish the story for marketing reasons.

        A picture of damaged cars does not prove the Link operator ignored a signal.

        If the Facebook image is public, you can link to it and we can see it.

      19. @Jim, witnesses on the street. There were several, including the person who took the offered picture. They were within earshot of the police getting the conductor’s oral report on their bodycams, and have given their contact information to the victim.

      20. These witnesses have had training in understanding the rail signaling?
        Along with actually reading the report.

        I look forward to reading the actual reports.

      21. Isn’t Metro the operator for Link? So wouldn’t it ultimately be Metro that had to pay?

        If so, that might be another direction to search for records.

        Somewhere there should be retained camera footage from the train itself.

  14. Aurora Avenue project ideas released. It’s surprisingly much more ambitious than I imagined it’d be.

    * Walkable Boulevard. Wider sidewalks and safer crossings
    * Bike Connection. Adds protected bike lane on both sides
    * Center Running bus lane. Adds center bus lanes.

    The first 2 segments are much easier to build these options (from roy street to winona avenue) as the road is much wider and it can still maintain 2 general lanes in each direction.

    Segments 3,4,5 north of winona ave will be much harder as it’ll involve decreasing down to only one general lane. As such there’s the fourth option of “maintain capacity”, which will skip adding bike/wide sidewalks here.

    https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/current-projects/aurora-ave-project/aurora-community-ideas

    1. Yeah, I think that will be part of a post soon. Lots of really good ideas there.

      1. > Yeah, I think that will be part of a post soon

        Excited to read it.

        > Lots of really good ideas there.

        Still browsing through the plans but the main thing I’d attempt is for segments 3,4,5 trying to maintain 2 general lanes, sacrificing the landscaping buffer that SDOT is really trying to build, and using that space to build bike lanes or center bus stations.

      2. Hopefully they don’t make the same error as Broadway in Cap Hill and try to fit all the modes on to one street. Seems to me that if Aurora is going to be a freight and bus corridor (i.e. the arterial for large vehicles), it should not be the primary road for cyclists?

      3. Lots of advocates want Aurora to be some sort of bike/transit/pedestrian mall, but I struggle to understand where all the freight movement should be punted to in that case.

        I’m of the mind that the better biking atmosphere would be on the immediately-adjacent side streets.

      4. Yeah Aurora is very much not a parkway. Want to pedestrianize Lake Washington Blvd, go for it, but not Aurora. Aurora south of 85th is literally a freeway (it’s a pre-interstate system design) and should be treated as such. Given than Link followed I5, Aurora should be a high frequency, high speed bus corridor.

      5. I’m of the mind that the better biking atmosphere would be on the immediately-adjacent side streets.

        I agree. To the west you have the interurban trail much of the way. Part of this become Linden, which runs through the heart of the neighborhood (unlike Aurora). To the south that blends into Fremont Avenue, which is a Greenway. It wouldn’t take much to make that even better (by adding bike lanes).

        To the east would require a bit more work. But a lot of the improvements would help in other ways. For example you can’t easily get from the Home Depot on Aurora to anywhere north (on a bike). But it wouldn’t take much to fix it. Stone Way has a bike path (https://maps.app.goo.gl/YYqG45s3KqrYPQdD6) for part of the way. I don’t know how good it is. I could see bike lanes up to 128th, where there would then be a crossing of Aurora (I would like to see bike lanes on 128th between the interurban and 1st). Same with Ashworth. A little bit of work and it could very nice. I think at least part of the Ashworth route is planned. This would really help if you were trying to get north from the hospital (or that general area). This would be far more useful than bike lanes on Aurora for those areas as accessing Aurora via 115th means going down a big hill.

        I think you could make Aurora OK for bikes, but not great. It certainly wouldn’t be as good as the Interurban trail. Bike lanes on both sides would just be a lot more useful.

        In contrast, center running buses would be great. It is probably as good as you could possibly get. The stop spacing is already ideal most of the way, and center running would enable you to add a stop on Roy (making it pretty much perfect). Buses would still have to deal with traffic signals, but at least those buses have transit signal priority, which helps. The RapidRide E has off-board payment, and it wouldn’t be too hard to add it to the 5. Center running buses on Aurora is one of those big projects that I would argue is definitely worth the money.

      6. “Aurora south of 85th is literally a freeway (it’s a pre-interstate system design)”

        That’s called an expressway. It has driveways and side streets opening onto it. Freeways don’t: the only way you can get on/off is at the exits.

      8. to be fair ‘expressway’ isn’t that well defined and kinda implies toll lanes sometimes*. I’d just use “state highway”, “limited-access” or “partial-access” highway.

        Like I know “expressway’ is defined like as what Mike said in the MUTCD, but colloquially and even officially for many projects it’s not widely used as such. I mean even recently wsdot says “The new segment of SR 509 will be called an expressway and will be tolled at one electronic toll point” These are basically “freeway” grade separation or center lane ones sometimes. So there’s a weird situation where for some people ‘expressway’ can mean both less grade separation in the form of like state highways and for others also even more limited access points in the form of tollways with few exits.

        https://wsdot.wa.gov/construction-planning/search-projects/sr-509-completion-project
        Or say Central Florida expressway https://www.cfxway.com/
        Texas has “The best-known section is the North Central Expressway, a name for a freeway section”
        Or even Seattle’s own “express lane” have fewer exit points than the normal freeway.

        A cursory look online shows everyone using contradictory definitions for expressway and highway in relation to freeway.

    2. Actually for the center median bus alternative for segment 1 and 2; are they planning on adding intersections throughout? Or how are bus riders supposed to reach/leave the center bus station

      1. It looks to me (based on the diagram) that there would be regular crossings. Basically you press a beg button, get the light and cross. This means that you can cross where there are bus stops, but not elsewhere. As it turns out, there aren’t that many stops, even if you include the 5 (and 28). North of the ship canal the 5 and 28 leave Aurora. The E makes only one stop (at 45th) between the ship canal and Green Lake (when Aurora becomes a more normal street). South of the ship canal there are a lot more stops, but there still aren’t that many. I count five. I would consolidate the Crockett and Lynn stops, while adding a stop at Roy.

        I would also get rid of the Linden detour (of the E). This would mean the road would narrow there (since one lane is used for bikes right now). It could end up being general purpose lane each direction at that point. I don’t see that as a big deal, as that is how it will be to the north anyway. I could also see how they could put stops on either side of the bike paths. This would mean a stop at 65th and 73rd, which is not really ideal stop spacing, but it would still work.

      3. There are underpasses at the existing E stops on Queen Anne. You have to go down narrow unlit 1930s stairs, so definitely not ADA compliant, and I was once uneasy about going down one after dark without slipping and falling, but I made it and they’re there.

        Of course, these underpasses couldn’t reach center bus stops without more stairs.

      4. If they are going to do proper center running buses, I think for at least Segment 1 the stations will need grade-separated pedestrian access – there is too much traffic volume for an at grade pedestrian crossing. This would be somewhat expensive but would be a worthwhile investment to improve ADA access for crossing Aurora, as most station would also function as pedestrian bridges (or undercrossings).

      5. I hadn’t noticed before, but the “Aurora Ave Project Map” (https://www.seattle.gov/images/Departments/SDOT/ProjectsAndPrograms/AuroraCorridor_Map-01.jpg) follows Linden instead of Aurora/99’s current path hugging the west shore of Green Lake.

        Good catch. I’m not sure what it means. I see three possibilities:

        1) They made a mistake.
        2) They plan on following the northbound path of the E.
        3) They will look at that as an option, along with Aurora.

        There is nothing in the text about Linden. The closest to it is this:

        For Segment 2 only: The Woodland Park/Zoo segment is not included in the ideas for Segment 2 because it has unique constraints and challenges that are beyond the scope of the initial evaluation. The City will separately evaluate solutions for this area during a future planning phase.

        This could include the Woodland Park section I suppose. Hard to say, but I would assume that either it was a mistake or they are simply keeping their options open. I can’t imagine they have ruled out serving that part of Aurora already.

      6. I think for at least Segment 1 the stations will need grade-separated pedestrian access – there is too much traffic volume for an at grade pedestrian crossing.

        That was my initial thought, but now I think the opposite. The diagrams and the text suggest grade level crossing, like Lake City/Bothell Way. The street would be quite similar. There are sections where there are no traffic lights and speeds used to be quite high. Then there are other sections where there are a bunch of cross streets. There are also sections where someone can push a button, and eventually the light turns and they walk (or bike) across several lanes of traffic. I see the same thing happening here.

        It would be a big change, but that happened on 15th/Elliot (and will likely continue to happen on various streets). It used to be that there were no traffic lights between Market and Armour on 15th. That is almost two miles of uninterrupted roadway. It was basically a low-speed freeway. There were overpasses, underpasses and cloverleafs (or cloverleafs that looked like they got swashed). It wasn’t like things got slow at Armour either. There was just a traffic light there for pedestrians and it was hardly every used. You really didn’t have to slow down until you hit Mercer. All of this meant that if you were heading north you were used to going fast. You knew where Market was and it was common to go fairly fast and let gravity slow you down.

        Then it all changed and they added cross walks (https://maps.app.goo.gl/EU6426UJbabd3VL29). Like Lake City Way, that is a lot of traffic that bears down on that intersection, and yet people cross it just like they cross Lake City Way and Aurora (to the north) — on the surface.

    3. Anyways looking at the plans a bit more carefully, I think the ‘default’ path is probably center bus lanes for segment 1 and 2; and then maintain capacity for 3,4,5 (right side bus lanes). The main thing is just looking at the width of the current roadway versus the plans. And also their budget of ~50 million.

      I originally thought the walkable boulevard or bike connection would cost the least, but actually they involve probably complete sidewalk reconstruction along the entire length. The center bus lane plan (segment 1 & 2) sticks to the roadway being 78/80 feet. And while the bus stations aren’t the cheapest to build — there are few to build.

  15. Updated the Pine Street closure time. The closure is expected on Saturday March 9 between 7am and 5pm. Wet weather may extend the opening into Sunday.

  16. Does anyone have a good example of a multimodal street that successfully and appropriately serves the five primary users SDOT identifies in the STP (transit, pedestrians, cyclists, drivers, and freight)? Can be anywhere in the world, but ideally North America.

    The closest I can think of is Dexter (~80′ ROW), which features wide sidewalks, parking-protected bike lanes, and in-lane bus stops. The “curb” space (between the bike lane and the traffic lane on each side) features commercial loading-only zones and passenger loading zones on every block. However, Dexter is not a “major truck street”.

    Trying to determine whether it is possible to actually built a multimodal street that serves all user types when use is high in all categories.

    1. The more functions assigned to a street, the harder it is to cross and the more possible conflicts between modes occur. Putting every function on one street generally becomes a zero sum strategy for that reason. A street would seem to require a grade separation of some functions to do everything.

      With that in mind, the only place where I see multiple functions coexisting are on longer bridges of at least a block long. That’s partly because no one tries get from one side of the street to the other on a longer bridge.

      The 15th Ave bridge and the Aurora bridge come to mind. Maybe the I-90 Lake Washington bridge too.

      The inability to look at several parallel streets as one corridor has been a basic problem in prior plans. Not only do streets only have so much width, but the more uses they have the worse it can become for everyone. A good example of a corridor is the Fremont/Aurora bridge combination or the pair of Spokane St bridges (high and low) to West Seattle.

    2. Dexter is a great street design, but it is neither a freight corridor nor does it have dedicated bus lanes.

      1. Exactly. Dexter is flanked by Westlake and Aurora, both Major Truck Streets, but itself does not appear to serve freight throughput very well. The in-lane bus stops make cars wait for buses, but I don’t ride the routes along Dexter so I don’t know how much it helps with bus movement. I’ve ridden the bike lanes on Dexter many times and often kept pace with general car traffic during busy periods.

      2. I’ve biked on Dexter, although it was before the revision. Dexter is a moderate hill. Westlake is flat but it was completely unsafe for bikes at the time, because the bike lanes weren’t there, the cars go very fast, and it had little shoulder. Now Westlake is probably good with the bike lanes, and Dexter provides another good way with a moderate hill.

        Freight must be on Aurora because there are few other truck routes (just I-5 and 15th Ave W). Buses must be on Aurora because it’s the fastest north-south corridor and has some villages. Peds must be on Aurora to access the adjacent businesses and housing. But bikes don’t need to be on Aurora.

        We’ve already identified two alternatives for bikes between Denny and the Ship Canal: Westlake and Dexter. Then they can use the Fremont Bridge. Then I don’t know what to 109th, where the Interurban Trail starts. Surely we can find a suitable bike route between Greenwood and Linden for the gap between 34th and 109th. I can’t remember where I rode. It may have been the Aurora sidewalk. I was trying to minimize hills, so that’s what I would want.

      3. Now Westlake is probably good with the bike lanes, and Dexter provides another good way with a moderate hill.

        Westlake is not just bike lanes, but a full fledged bike path, similar to the Burke Gilman. It skirts some parking lots, but there is little chance of a high speed collision, the way there would be along Westlake (https://maps.app.goo.gl/7rVGakQZ1MMCmmux8). It is part of the Cheshiahud Lake Union Loop.

        It is hard to imagine that crossing the ship canal on Aurora is a high priority for riders. It is just one of those things that sounds cool (and I’ll admit, it does). The view is spectacular (obviously). But it is much better as a “bicycle Sunday” type thing (like when folks got to ride on the viaduct and the express lanes before they tore down the viaduct) instead of something that adds great value. It is essentially a bypass of Fremont, when Fremont is a main biking hub. At best it would make it easier to get from upper Fremont and Phinney Ridge to the east side of Queen Anne (because you wouldn’t lose the elevation) but my guess is there are very few people who would actually do that on a regular basis. For the vast majority of bikers, going through Fremont is just fine. Once you are at the base in Fremont you can go most anywhere (including downtown).

        I would think improving the crossing of the Ballard Bridge is a much higher priority (along with dozens of other projects).

      4. Also, Dexter is not a “through” route for buses. The 62 is a long route, but it is a “local” route, where riders on the Westlake* segment generally either starting or ending their trip in Westlake (Fremont-Downtown is better served by the 5, etc.), so it is simply important that the bus is reliable rather than fast. Therefore, it is important that the 62 have some bus enhancements, notably bus bulbs, not dedicated ROW.

        *the neighborhood west of SLU, not the road

      5. “The view is spectacular (obviously)”

        It’s not spectacular. There’s a chain-link fence that extends above eye level to block suicide jumps. And the sidewalk is narrow. I didn’t remember which bridge that was but it must be Aurora. The sidewalk is so narrow I felt like I had to ride carefully to avoid falling off it into the car lane. I never rode that bridge again.

      6. When I biked I always looked to compress the elevation to one short section. So I’d walk my bike up one or two steep blocks, and before and after that was relatively flat. There are lots of places to do that in Seattle. The Ship Canal forms a valley so there’s no way to avoid going up north of it. But once you get past that one hill it gets better. I don’t know a non-steep way in the Fremont area, so I just endured it.

      7. For the Aurora bridge, that’s one the few segments where SDOT should look at create “more” ROW by moving the sidewalk. I recall an option that moved the sidewalk to hang off the side of the bridge (so a bit lower than the road). I think it was a >$100M project, but it is a huge safety improvement, not only for bike/ped but also for the cars because it will allow SDOT to widen the lanes and put in a proper median. I would love to see that improvement alongside creating a center running bus lane.

      8. @AJ,

        The last option I saw for moving the sidewalks on the Aurora bridge actually placed them under the main auto deck as a single sidewalk sort of thru all the truss work.

        Expensive though. So never got done.

      10. Yeah that’s what I had in mind. Thanks for the image.

        Certainly expensive, but affordable enough to fit into a big Move Seattle type levy. As long as the Aurora bridge itself is in good condition, I think it would be a good investment in safety for all modes while also creating space for center bus lanes.

      11. That would be nice, but fixing Ballard Bridge is way more important. There is an obvious alternative to going over the Aurora Bridge: The Fremont Bridge. It is used by thousands of bike riders every day. It connects to the main bike corridors in the city. Not only the Burke Gilman, but the loop around Lake Union and the Ship Canal Trail which goes along the south side of the ship canal, connecting to bike paths to Magnolia as well as Elliot Bay Train (which runs along the waterfront to downtown). From a biking perspective, Fremont really is the Center of the Universe. A bike path on Aurora is just a bypass that a relatively small number of people would use.

        In contrast, a lot of people use the terrible Ballard Bridge because there is no good alternative, other than detouring all the way to Fremont (https://maps.app.goo.gl/HjgMQ9TByPBVrhnh9) or walking your bike through the locks. From a transit perspective, Aurora is huge. From a biking perspective it is not.

      12. @WL,

        There have been multiple iterations of how to improve the bridge for peds.

        The single ped path option was an attempt to reduce costs by hanging one path instead of two, but it runs into trouble with some of the cross trusses. So not as cheap as it might seem.

        But it does weigh less, and it puts the load under the center of the span. Which is usually good practice.

    3. > Does anyone have a good example of a multimodal street that successfully and appropriately serves the five primary users SDOT identifies in the STP (pedestrians, cyclists, transit, drivers, and freight)? Can be anywhere in the world, but ideally North America.

      I guess for that many modes, one example would be Yonge Street. Specifically Ontario Hills. It’s got wide sidewalks, bike lanes, 2 general lanes in each direction, and center bus lanes. But it’s also quite a bit wider. Not including the sidewalks its like 85~95 feet and including them it goes up to 100~130 feet wide.

      https://www.google.com/maps/place/Yonge+St+%2F+Weldrick+Rd/@43.8605256,-79.4365375,544m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0x882b2ba519768fcd:0xc8c872828bcaff78!8m2!3d43.8605232!4d-79.4349365!16s%2Fg%2F11h54y5wfc?entry=ttu

      Other ones like Van Ness brt in sf just have the center bus transitway and even that one at (120 feet including sidewalks) is wider than what we have.

      The major issue is just the width, at 90~105 feet to divide it up strictly into 5 categories is impossible. We basically need to “combine” one or two of them together to fit

      For instance bike and pedestrians rather than separate ones (6 feet sidewalk, 6 feet bike, 6 feet buffer) could just do a wide sidewalk and smaller buffer.
      For the trucks need a wider lane (11 feet) we could combine them together with the bus on the right lane and then make the other general lanes slimmer (10 feet?)
      There’s less space at the intersections as well so it’s another decision between having left turn lanes or not versus slimming the sidewalks/ shared bus+bike lanes.
      Or say remove left turns to make space for center bus lanes etc…

      1. If you get much wider than 80 feet of roadway between sidewalks, you end up with long crossing times and increased likelihood of collisions with crossing pedestrians, so if you make the road wide enough to accommodate give separate lanes to bikes, buses, and freight/general traffic, then you stop being able to effectively serve pedestrians no matter how wide the sidewalks are made.

        I am increasingly convinced that impossible to appease all modes.

      2. It is fairly common in Europe. I remember crossing a street in Amsterdam required several phases: bikes, cars, trams (each in their one lane). These were the main corridors so I assume (local) freight went with the cars. Yes, the streets like that tend to be very wide. But the main thing is that you have only one lane for automobiles (cars and trucks).

      3. I am increasingly convinced that impossible to appease all modes.

        I agree. The pictures basically make that clear:

        Walkable Boulevard: Great for pedestrians. Not much benefit for bikes. Good for buses (BAT lanes).

        Bike Connection: Great for bikes. Not much benefit for pedestrians. Good for buses (BAT lanes).

        Center-Running Bus Lane: Not much benefit for bikes or pedestrians. Ideal for buses.

        I think the best way to appease those who want to bike the corridor is with first-class bike lanes on either side of Aurora. I would go so far as it being much better overall than bike lanes on Aurora.

        * I’m not sure if would say there is literally no difference for pedestrians. Some of the areas lack sidewalks, so they could fix those even if they go with center-running buses. Besides, I would much rather walk along Aurora next to bike lanes or the occasional bus rather than amateur motorists.

      4. > If you get much wider than 80 feet of roadway between sidewalks, you end up with long crossing times and increased likelihood of collisions with crossing pedestrians

        Well one benefit of the center bus lane one is you’d only need to cross halfway at a time with the median bus stations

        Anyways the first thing I’d sacrifice is the shrubbery/buffer. While it looks nice, 6/8 feet of it is too valuable compared with widening the sidewalk/fitting in a narrow bike lane. I’m not sure what is with SDOT’s infatuation with adding these dead grass elements to streets.

        > Walkable Boulevard: Great for pedestrians. Not much benefit for bikes. Good for buses (BAT lanes).
        The walkable Boulevard actually has an additional option to remove the buffer for a wider sidewalk “Potential to provide a wider shared-use path (12-15 feet) by reducing width of other street elements”.

        > I think the best way to appease those who want to bike the corridor is with first-class bike lanes on either side of Aurora. I would go so far as it being much better overall than bike lanes on Aurora.

        Another large problem is it seems we or SDOT cant’ easily modify the Aurora bridge nor woodland park segment so it’s really a lot more separated. Even if bike lanes were added to the segment one, one would have to take the narrow sidewalk or head down to dexter to continue north.

        Lastly, I am kind of surprised they didn’t add a center bus lane option and try to maintain 2 general lanes. Though I guess you’d have to forbid left turns for it to work in segment 3,4,5

      5. It’s likely the different segments have different priorities. The “tram-train” framework may be helpful here (https://humantransit.org/2009/10/karlsruhe-the-tramtrains.html)

        Certainly segment 1, probably segment 2, and perhaps segments 3 & 4, it is important to treat the bus like a “train,” where through speed is important because many/most riders are trying to travel through the segment. But by the time the E gets to Bitter Lake (seg. 5), it may be appropriate to treat the E as a “tram,” where through-riding is minimal and improving the pedestrian realm is more important.

      6. Anyways the first thing I’d sacrifice is the shrubbery/buffer. While it looks nice, 6/8 feet of it is too valuable compared with widening the sidewalk/fitting in a narrow bike lane.

        I’m not sure that is possible. If you have center running buses than you are basically using three lanes. One for a bus stop and two for the buses. But you don’t always need space for the bus stops. They come and go. But you can’t do much with that extra space when it isn’t needed. You can’t add bike lanes there, then take them away when there isn’t enough space for them. I suppose you could widen the sidewalk in those sections and then make them narrow again (in other places) which would force the cars and trucks to do a bit of a weave. I’m not sure what that gets you though. They basically just have extra space, and fill it with foliage.

        This is not unique to center-running bus lanes. You can see it on various streets. For example, Shoreline did a lot of work on Aurora to make it look nicer. But it is still a major auto-oriented road. You can see how the space for cars ebbs and flows depending on the intersection. At 145th (the beginning of Shoreline) it is 7 lanes (most of which is turn lanes). A little further north you only need three lanes, so the little divider gets wide, and they add trees. This goes back and forth (with gaps as well) all the way to the county border.

        Center-running buses on Aurora create a similar dynamic. North of Green Lake it would be similar. The bus stops are about five blocks apart (typically). You would have fewer opportunities to turn left, but they would still exist (80th, 85th, Northgate Way, etc.). So you would have sections where you are trying to squeeze in as much as possible, and then areas where you aren’t. It is a bit different to the south (since there is very big stop spacing). For example, there are no stops between 45th and 65th. You could keep the center running bus lanes and either widen the sidewalk or add bike lanes on each side for that particular section. But then you run into issues involving access (how do bikes get there?) and safety (there are ramps to Aurora around 65th.

        This again is why the best option is center-running buses. To make this work for bikes would require a lot of extra work that SDOT doesn’t even want to deal with now (like those exits). With center-running buses the tricky parts aren’t tricky at all. You don’t have to do anything special to cross the Aurora Bridge (buses just use the middle lanes). You don’t have to do anything special about those ramps. In contrast, to make this work for bikes (south of Green Lake) would require quite a bit of work, even if you just wanted to add little sections.

      7. I agree – seems trees/shrubs/greenspaces is is added to the street when there is not a need for turn lanes, bus stops, or parking*. So could still be there 50% of the time?

        *generally I’d oppose parking, but some loading zones or handicap parking could be appropriate? Not sure how much of that currently exists.

      8. Green space separates cars from pedestrians, mitigates the road’s impact on the ecosystem, slows down stormwater drainage so it doesn’t overwhelm the sewage system, and is aesthetically pleasing.

      9. > I’m not sure that is possible. If you have center running buses than you are basically using three lanes. One for a bus stop and two for the buses

        Understandably that’s the most difficult situation to squeeze them in but for the other alternatives it’s possible.

  17. ST has apparently announced their plans to “solve” the Lynnwood Link extension train storage conundrum:

    “Transit executives Thursday described a solution: Park 32 railcars overnight at elevated stations between SeaTac and Northgate, while cramming four others into the original 104-car maintenance base in Sodo. Those should provide enough capacity to serve four new light rail stops.”

    https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/sound-transit-pulls-out-the-stops-to-solve-a-lynnwood-train-shortage/

    1. Ya. This has been on the works for awhile now, but glad to see ST finally going public with the fact that they believe they have a solution.

      This solution is a bit brute force-ish for my taste, and of course the concept of the 515 is just CYA and bound to fail, but progress is progress.

      And it is odd that Lindblom doesn’t mention gap trains. Last I heard they were part of the plan, including potentially quick turning them at NGS.

      So if you are going to potentially quick turn gap trains, isn’t that sort of like an overlay?

      But maybe things changed.

    2. Mhmm might have to wait until 2026 it seems for full east link

      > Kiewit-Hoffman opted to rebuild all the plinths, and Sound Transit shows cross-lake trains beginning October 2025 in a recent progress report, two years past the scheduled 2023 startup.

      > Agency CEO Goran Sparrman said Thursday he considers the cross-lake segment code “orange” for potential further delays. “We don’t have complete confidence we will be able to keep on that schedule,” he said.

      1. Why don’t they have confidence they can keep to the fall 2025 opening? What things might further delay it? Did they mention them?

      2. @Sam

        It doesn’t say in this new article. From what I know from previous documents, I don’t think the pace of rebuilding the plinths from the beginning was ever fast enough to make 2025. When I did my napkin calculations last year based on the actual work progress, I got March 2026 as the opening date.

      3. @Sam,

        They have been carrying about 400 days of negative float for awhile now. But apparently they weren’t sure how much of that would come home. Ref the last agency progress report.

        I’d be curious how much overtime the contractor is working though. At some point paying time and a half to a union worker is still cheaper than all this distributed storage BS.

    3. I can’t help but wonder why ST ran around like Chicken Little about this. A seasoned rail operation would have handled the challenge without all the drama. At an earlier point in this saga, ST even pitched a delayed Lynnwood Link opening. And they are pitching gap trains, which appear to be trains that reverse at SODO — an obvious solution from the outset and common practice around the world. (Sorry ST staff but gap trains aren’t an original idea.)

Comments are closed.