State Legislature to allocate $200M from the Climate Commitment Act toward hybrid ferries, assuming the Act isn’t repealed by I-2117 in November.
Free carpool parking permits are returning to the Angle Lake Station parking garage.
King County Metro has broken ground on its interim electric bus base in Tukwila.
The movement to add density to suburban neighborhoods transcends political boundaries (New York Times gift article).
March 11 [today]: Seattle YIMBY is organizing a silent protest at City Hall to support more density than proposed in the draft Comprehensive Plan.
March 12 and March 14: Sound Transit is hosting drop-in sessions for Federal Way Link Extension project updates at Highline Community College on.
March 12, 14, and 21: SDOT is hosting a series of open houses for the Aurora Avenue Project.
March 14 in Loyal Heights: Seattle is hosting its first of eight Draft One Seattle Plan (comprehensive plan update) Open House events.
March 16: Seattle YIMBY also hosting a walking tour in Ballard showcasing of existing housing that would be illegal to build today.
May 5: Emerald City Ride returns with a crossing over the high West Seattle Bridge and a loop around West Seattle.
Articles on the recent West Seattle Link Extension station planning meetings, Seattle Transportation Plan, and draft comprehensive plan update are in the works.
This is an open thread.
I think I will attend the March 12th event at Highline College for Sound Transit. I want to hear, and challenge, the excuses for not coming through for the South End.
Would you share here some of the things you will bring up? How do you feel they aren’t coming through?
Like thr extra two year delay in opening Federal Way. Like how that they say Kent-Des Moines will be done in August but will not open. Like how it takes weeks to get a response about questions concerning projects. Why fare enforcement is almost nonexistent. Why the 1 Line isn’t safer when they said they are working on it. Why when security is called they do not respond.
All excellent questions Mr Renner, except the two-year delay one. It’s possible that it was suggested to ST that “extra diligence” would be in order when planning the bridge in the draw north of 272nd. But it’s also possible that nobody did, and the standard tests just didn’t identify the instabilility.
The plinths are 100.0000000000000000% ST’s fault because they allowed their contractors to put THEIR workers at risk installing them while refusing to deploy their inspectors for months at a time.
But tricky geology bites a lot of projects on the butt. The thing is, you don’t know it’s “tricky” until it moves in a direction you didn’t choose……
One year was probably due to the concrete delivery strike.
It’s because of the soil problems that created a section of the line unstable for operation in the initial build of it. I’d rather they get it done right than have an accident from it sinking into the ground 5-10 years down the line because they chose to ignore putting safety first
https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/federal-way/sound-transit-link-extension-delayed/281-467b3089-ec4f-430d-9a65-9498ecb4f478#:~:text=The%20Federal%20Way%20link%20extension,of%20the%20sections%20is%20unstable.
@ Mathew P Renner
“Like thr extra two year delay in opening Federal Way.”
The delay is due to the unstable soil issue. It was totally unforeseen, but they have a solution and are implementing that solution now.
“Like how that they say Kent-Des Moines will be done in August but will not open. “
The track to KDM is essentially complete now and should technically be ready around August, but they won’t be able to open it for passenger use until they get more storage space. That probably won’t occur until the full East Link line opens.
However, once the full East Link opens there should be an opportunity to open a Federal Way Link starter line as far as KDM Station. You should work with your elected officials, and ST, to get such a thing implemented.
The “starter line” monicker was inaccurate and diversionary, as if it would not connect to the 1 Line.
If KDM Station can open safely, with no construction impacts, as an EXTENSION to the 1 Line, I wish it would. Connecting the train to Highline College / CWU Des Moines is a big deal.
If they are buying time to open a carpark garage there, ugh.
The fall Lynnwood Link opening service plan is a failure of creativity, with the same capacity as the current schedule, which means it will likely fail to meet PM peak ridership demand northbound from downtown to north of UW. We’ve discussed a north peak short loop ad nauseam, to deaf ears from staff and board.
It would be supremely ironic if the short loop was eschewed for “social justice” reasons, and that insistence on running all trains on a full loop turns out to be the reason KDM Station does not get to open until 2026.
Zach B, which would have been avoided if Sound Transit followed the Rules of the Seven “P”s.
1. Proper
2. Previous
3. Planning
4. Prevents
5. Pathetically
6. Poor
7. Performance
Jesus Christ om rollerskates. Not every problem is found beforehand, sometimes they only arise after the fact when construction b. All you’re doing right now is just being a very whiny complainer because they found a legitimate problem and you are complaining that they’re delaying things. Just be happy they’re actually working to address the safety issue instead of complaining they aren’t moving fast enough to cut the ribbon and open for you.
Like this is the problem with trying to armchair complain about ST infrastructure projects construction delays, not everyone who works for or with ST is a stupid incompetent moron. There are smart people who work for ST and sometimes problems only arise later after you start putting shovels in the ground even with things like soil analysis.
And I’m saying this as someone who hadn’t always been a fan of how things are done at ST.
I am not saying they are not unintelligent. I am saying they don’t care about South King County and they should be more effective in planning and making promises.
@ Mathew Renner,
I’m sure ST will be very happy to have you “challenge” them, but I’m not sure it will change much.
ST is definitely coming through for the South End, there just is a 2 year delay due to the unstable soils they discovered between KDM Station and Star Lake Station. This is well documented in various places, including in the Sound Transit webpage.
I’d review the available info on the Federal Way Link timing before “challenging” ST at the open house. It will probably make for a more productive conversation.
I did talk to someone from the Federal Way extention office. It took three weeks for someone to get back to me when I was promised three days.
The thing is, I was convinced of two things. One, there is mismanagement of this project. Two, that more delays are coming.
@ Mathew P Renner
“It took three weeks for someone to get back to me when I was promised three days.”
I doubt very much that you were “promised” 3 days. That sounds totally unrealistic.
But did they answer all your questions when they got back to you?
“The thing is, I was convinced of…..”
Past tense? So you aren’t convinced anymore? So they must have satisfactorily answered all your questions. That is good.
I checked the project tracker meeting
Federal way scheduled opening at April 2026; currently 83% construction complete. however also marked high schedule risk (slipping past start date)
https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/FinalRecords/2024/Presentation%20-%20Project%20Performance%20Tracker%20Update%202-8-24.pdf
Went, had a good conversation. The problem was Sound Transit advertised the wrong place. I went to Building 29, and looked for it. No one there knew anything about it. Called Sound Transit and they insisted that it was where I was at. They sent me to an different faculty member. She knew nothing. Although she did find the right building and location. Building 8. The two guys working the table said Building 8 was always the planned location as far as they knew.
Here’s today’s confusing communication from ST:
Resolved: 1 Line trains are delayed. Please expect delays as service is fully restored.
So is Link delayed or not?
whatever’s causing the delays has been resolved, but it takes some time to transition from delayed service to full service.
Very confusing – what’s the point of a delay announcement that doesn’t say the location or estimated impact?
I debated switching to the bus, but figured I’d try the train and it was running normally at 6:30.
Sound Transit text message and emails on problems with Light Rail are always incomplete.
They will say that there are service delays but don’t tell you where and is it affecting the entire line.
Another example that customer service and Sound Transit do not belong in the same sentence. That agency has no customer service.
And don’t bother to write them because the response you will get back is also incomplete and another example that they don’t have customer service.
That’s how ST typically announces the end of disruptions, by slapping “Resolved:” in front of the original message. The first time I encountered it I was confused too. The delay in the last sentence is the recovery ramp-up: it takes time to reposition all the trains to resume the regular schedule. So service will gradually ramp up over an hour or so until all the trains are in their right place.
It would be nice if they would tell us what was going on. Saturday night around 10:20 pm we were stuck at Rainier Beach, southbound, no reason was given. This was for about 15 minutes. We were stuck just outside the airport for another 5 minutes for some reason. The operator did not say anything to us about what was going on. I got an update saying Angle Lake was closed but not a reason why it was closed.
Saturday March 9
10:21pm — “1 Line service to Angle Lake is suspended until further notice due to signal issue. Trains will end service at Sea Tac/Airport Station. Riders can use Metro A line to complete their trip to Sea Tac/Airport Station. ”
10:37pm — Resolved.
Sunday March 10
12:18am — “1 Line trains are experiencing delays due to mechanical issue.”
This is precisely what drives me nuts about ST (and other agencies) poor communication with its customers.
Based on my work experience with another transit agency, I’m assuming someone in dispatch is selecting a pre-filled message and sending it to riders. Such a system leaves no room for free-form messaging or more details. They can, however, select certain types of messages and categories. For example: Delay > reason > mechanical > length of delay time.
Regardless, not only does ST need to revamp its communication verbiage but completely transform the culture behind the customer experience. That includes communication in all forms.
https://www.theurbanist.org/2024/03/08/sound-transit-looks-ahead-to-problems-delivering-st3-service/
I hope the Board remembers these long term fleet capacity concerns when they consider the option to save money by shrinking the footprint of the OMF-S.
The proposal is to get weird with operating patterns (which is really just bureaucratese for “let’s reduce frequency at the edges”). Rather than degrade frequency to solve a core capacity issue, seems like it would be more productive to right-size the mode to meet the demand. It is of utmost important to provide high quality frequency across the Link/Stride network. A better solution from ST Staff would be to remind the Board that some of these HCT corridors might be better served by Stride than Link, and it will be much cheaper to provide incremental Stride fleet capacity than incremental Link fleet. I90 Bellevue/Issaquah as Stride rather than Link is an easy option, but there is also Kirkland Link (could be a 1 car frequent shuttle to Wilburton station rather than 4-cars at mediocre frequency) or the Paine Field alignment (offer to upgrade Swift to Stride and punt Link beyond the OMF-N to the future)
With Line 4 opening originally in 2041 (now later) there is time to address the shortage. Even Everett Link is postponed to 2037 at the earliest.
And all of this assumes no turnbacks. There will be long stretches with empty trains. Since every train requires a driver, the agency will have to create turnbacks at some point for operating cost reasons.
Finally, with it comes an acknowledgement that even at Lines 2 and 3 running at 8 minutes each (four minutes total) that there will only be 16 trains an hour in the DSTT rather than 20. That makes it easier to see if DSTT trains could get closer together , especially since the most crowded parts of Lines 2 and 3 are Downtown heading north. That makes it more viable to put Line 1 in the DSTT. Surely ST could run just 6 trains for Line 2 and 6 for Line 3, with 10 slots for Line 1. That’s just 22 compared to the original 20 and seemingly very doable. If the capacity is reliably enhanced to 24 trains an hour, that would give ST the ability to add 2 more trains an hour where needed.
So the unwritten alternative story here is that ST is saying that DSTT2 is less likely to be needed.
No, I don’t think this is about DSTT2. ST is concerned about peak capacity in the core. The need to consolidate the fleet more towards the core (by trimming frequency on the edge) indicates a greater need for downtown train throughput, not less
That’s just it! They’re not talking about DSTT2 here! In admitting that they don’t need any more than 16 Line 2+3 trains in the DSTT at peak hours (rather than 20 as originally presented in ST3), ST is admitting that it’s less of a concern to add trains into the DSTT for Line 1.
I know that it’s not a deliberate statement. However, the capacity discussion unintentionally contributes to the idea that a three-line DSTT could work just fine (with a high-frequency Ballard stub).
I read it as ST is reducing from 20 to 16 because of fleet constraints (given longer assumptions on end-to-end running times) and it then flagging crowding during peak. Presumably the crowding issue would be resolved by 20 TPH. If ST could magic up a larger fleet, they would model 20 TPH and state there is no crowding issue.
ST’s limit in DSTT1 is 20 trains per hour (3-minute frequency). A third line at 8 minutes would straddle that barrier (going from 16 to 24). A half-line would reach the exact limit. One way to resolve it would be to give West Seattle half frequency (16 minutes), but ST doesn’t want to do that.
With capital upgrades DSTT1 could reach its full maximum capacity reliably (40 trains per hour or 1.5 minutes). That’s the project ST didn’t select when it chose DSTT2.
> With capital upgrades DSTT1 could reach its full maximum capacity reliably (40 trains per hour or 1.5 minutes). That’s the project ST didn’t select when it chose DSTT2.
Mostly agree DSTT could easily increase capacity. But I think the top is probably around 30 trains per hour (2 minute). 40 trains per hour (90 seconds) is much harder to achieve.
I agree with WL. The long fairly narrow DSTT platforms are not conducive to rapid turnovers. Everyone enters from the ends and have to spread out in the midst of those already waiting and folks exiting. They aren’t optimized for the platform doors that 90 second headways need.
So two minutes is a good minimum headway to achieve. That’s 120 LRV’s per hour in the peak direction which should handle about 12,000 passengers per hour. ST is a LONG way from that.
The long fairly narrow DSTT platforms are not conducive to rapid turnovers.
Are they really that long and narrow? I think what makes them seem narrow is the side platforms. Just comparing them with BART and SkyTrain stations they seem pretty typical otherwise. That being said I’m just eyeballing it — it seems tough to find the actual details of stations (Wikipedia has some information, but it isn’t thorough).
Ross I generally agree with you about platform size. Side platforms can each be narrower than a center platform because there are two rather than one. Our side platforms even seem wider than some in older subway transfer stations like in Chicago and New York. However, Chicago and New York have same direction cross platform transfers designed at some stations. ST doesn’t believe in building those — clinging to a rush to make people use 50 stairs to make a transfer. Maybe they should be branded Sadistic Transit?
ST: “Hey old lady! Step down 50 steps at Westlake or use the only smelly pre-ADA elevator after waiting in line!”
@Al — Transfers are really a different issue. Yes, none of the plans for them look good, but that shouldn’t effect the push for greater frequency. If anything it makes it stronger. One of the big advantages of high frequency is that it allows you to combine more lines. A lot of trips wouldn’t require a transfer at all. Reverse direction transfers (e. g. Bellevue to Beacon Hill) are less than ideal, but still better than some of the proposed transfers from the second downtown tunnel.
With the light rail operating budget ballooning to over a half billion dollars in the next few years, I don’t think the portion of the budget for paying operators is one of the primary concerns.
@Brent
Uhh typically the largest line item for transit operating budgets is paying for the drivers
ST’s operating budget will be roughly half that of Metro’s. Will the number of operators required to run light rail be half as many as required to drive all Metro routes?
> The proposal is to get weird with operating patterns (which is really just bureaucratese for “let’s reduce frequency at the edges”). Rather than degrade frequency to solve a core capacity issue, seems like it would be more productive to right-size the mode to meet the demand.
I mean it makes sense to reduce frequency at the edges. I don’t know why we should prioritize running longer trains at high frequency far from the core and then decrease frequency in the core to fund that. For instance if you look at page 7 of the powerpoint, Line 1 (from ballard to tacoma) has significant crowding from westlake to S graham (200+) and even south of s graham till rainier beach it’s 150+. Or in general outside of peak times, this section will have the most ridership.
We have to buy more train cars just to run them all the way to everett/tacoma where the capacity isn’t even being used under the naive way of just buying more train cars rather than turnback operational patterns.
https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/ActiveDocuments/Presentation%20-%20ST3%20Light%20Rail%20Service%20and%20Ridership%20Demand%2003-07-24.pdf#page=7
> I90 Bellevue/Issaquah as Stride rather than Link is an easy option, but there is also Kirkland Link (could be a 1 car frequent shuttle to Wilburton station rather than 4-cars at mediocre frequency)
It’s worse than it seems. Sound Transit suggested on page 11 decreasing down to 16 minutes and 2 car trains for peak time for 4 line. “4 Line: 16-minutes with 2-car trains”
The 4 line in general just has awful ridership projections
Because one the primary reason to run Link (or Stride or Swift or RapidRide or whatever) is to provide high quality frequency. Link is not a commuter service (like Sounder or STX), where the frequency is less important because the travel times are longer. The fact that Link serves all stops and has all day frequency is a feature, not a bug, of the mode. To cut back Link frequency at the edge removes one of the main features of investing in Link and results in a service that is little better than the bus service it replaces.
Running Link out to Everett, Issaquah, etc. results in high fixed cost, but once the ROW is built and the stations are open, the marginal cost of better frequency is much cheaper than the marginal cost of comparable bus service.
If ST cannot provide good frequency, it should not build out the Link network that extensively. In other words, don’t let the rail network get ahead of the OMF capacity.
The only reason that light rail to Issaquah is even a thing is sub-area equity. The taxes that were needed for another Seattle tunnel, Ballard/West Seattle, Everett and Tacoma meant that the eastside is generating more revenue than there are good transit projects. Hence, light rail to Issaquah was conceived to soak up that revenue. Bus ridership to Issaquah has been pretty depressed since covid; there’s no way that investment into light rail is even close to justified. That’s a huge capital investment for 2 car trains that run every 16 minutes.
It’s too bad that some of that revenue couldn’t have been invested into improving the ST2 projects like the path through downtown Bellevue and grade separation in Overlake.
ST should redefine Line 4 to be fully automated, and create their a new OMF for the vehicles. It’s easy to do this if the line gives up on South Kirkland with its low station boardings in ST’s own forecasts. Besides, the needed wye south of East Main Station as currently proposed is a messy feature to add into the main system — and an automated stub line could have a single track crossing Mercer Slough to South Bellevue as the stub line end station.
The automation would allow ST to offer more trains than four an hour as presented here. The cost savings would also enable ST to open the line years earlier.
Unfortunately, ST is still stubbornly planning a system using the current expensive metro track design with less useful driven streetcars.
> Because one the primary reason to run Link (or Stride or Swift or RapidRide or whatever) is to provide high quality frequency. Link is not a commuter service (like Sounder or STX)
Link is a combined commuter/urban service though. That was the original idea. Rather than having a separate urban metro line (like paris metro/nyc subway) and an commuter line (paris RER/ or LIRR) it’s merged together. There’s a reason why it’s one going to be one of the ‘longest’ light rail lines.
Or also similar with SF’s BART, as one of the longest subway line because it combined commuter route patterns.
If we’re building to Tacoma and Everett — then Link is a commuter service.
> Running Link out to Everett, Issaquah, etc. results in high fixed cost, but once the ROW is built and the stations are open, the marginal cost of better frequency is much cheaper than the marginal cost of comparable bus service.
No, the cost of running high frequency out there is really expensive as well. It’s quite far to run trains that frequently. For reference say medium sized Japan cities, their lines have turnbacks as well. For 25 miles out, those trains only have 20 minute frequency and it is much denser than Tacoma/Everett.
> If ST cannot provide good frequency, it should not build out the Link network that extensively. In other words, don’t let the rail network get ahead of the OMF capacity.
If it really wants to build out there it’s fine — but it should then have commuter service patterns.
> ST should redefine Line 4 to be fully automated, and create their a new OMF for the vehicles.
Line 4 should just be buses. It’s alignment is honestly hilarious. A seattle bound person would have to backtrack to downtown bellevue. One travelign from Issaquah would be better off with the express busses that would reach mercer island/south bellevue.
“ Or also similar with SF’s BART, as one of the longest subway line because it combined commuter route patterns.”
At least BART runs at 79 mph! Not only is Link’s top design speed only at 55 mph, but the several at-grade sections will require that trains run slower in those places.
So it’s much worse than BART!
> The only reason that light rail to Issaquah is even a thing is sub-area equity. The taxes that were needed for another Seattle tunnel, Ballard/West Seattle, Everett and Tacoma meant that the eastside is generating more revenue than there are good transit projects. Hence, light rail to Issaquah was conceived to soak up that revenue. Bus ridership to Issaquah has been pretty depressed since covid; there’s no way that investment into light rail is even close to justified. That’s a huge capital investment for 2 car trains that run every 16 minutes.
> It’s too bad that some of that revenue couldn’t have been invested into improving the ST2 projects like the path through downtown Bellevue and grade separation in Overlake.
I agree the light rail to Issaquah/Kirkland isn’t useful, but one can’t just replace their projects with nothing either.
For kirkland i’d just expedite the rapidride K and ‘rapidride’ 255. For issaquah line segment they could implement the center lane hov ramps for issaquah highlands there weren’t built. Maybe some inline freeway station at factoria and just build that lakemount hov bus station.
> At least BART runs at 79 mph! Not only is Link’s top design speed only at 55 mph, but the several at-grade sections will require that trains run slower in those places.
The top speed really doesn’t matter AL that much. The 79 mph is mostly only used for that straight section under the bay. The new york subway’s average speed is like 17 mph, top speed 55 mph (for most lines) and it’s completely grade separated.
“The taxes that were needed for another Seattle tunnel, Ballard/West Seattle, Everett and Tacoma meant that the eastside is generating more revenue than there are good transit projects. Hence, light rail to Issaquah was conceived to soak up that revenue. ”
It started long before that. What you’re talking about happened in 2016. In the early 2010s East King had a boardmember who was Issaquah’s mayor, and he’s the one who pushed for the Issaquah line, so that Issaquah wouldn’t get left behind in the economic boom if people shunned Issaquah because it didn’t have Link when other cities did. He was the only one pushing that hard for any Eastside ST project beyond Line 2, so that project got to the top of the list.
“an automated stub line could have a single track crossing Mercer Slough to South Bellevue as the stub line end station.”
How can you do that without raising environmentalist opposition? One group said it would sue ST if it crossed the Slough any way except underground. That’s part of the reason why the 405 alternative between I-90 and Bellevue TC wasn’t pursued.
WL:
You are wrong about BART speeds. BART runs at 79 mph between many stations outside of San Francisco, and there are long stretches where there is no station for several miles like under the Oakland Hills, and east of both Castro Valley and Concord. Even the new segment from. Fremont to East San Jose has just two intermediate stops for about 13-15 miles of track.
“How can you do that without raising environmentalist opposition? One group said it would sue ST if it crossed the Slough any way except underground. ”
Those environmentalists may be dead when construction starts! lol
All joking aside, ST looked at two tracks crossing Mercer Slough rather than one. And given the many lanes of I-90 crossing Mercer Slough, putting a single track above a highway viaduct hardly feels like an impact.
Finally Mercer Slough extends north of SE 8th so even the current alignment must cross Mercer Slough — but with two tracks split for the wye and in an upstream area that’s more pristine than the I-90 right of way.
Even though some may oppose it, it could easily be that running to South Bellevue would be better for Mercer Slough.
> You are wrong about BART speeds. BART runs at 79 mph between many stations outside of San Francisco, and there are long stretches where there is no station for several miles like under the Oakland Hills, and east of both Castro Valley and Concord.
I checked online the current BART trains are/were 70 mph. The newer trains can go 80 mph. But even then it is still about how straight the route is and station spacing. Rarely does it have anything to do with the vehicle.
> Even the new segment from. Fremont to East San Jose has just two intermediate stops for about 13-15 miles of track.
We’ve already discussed this before and I’m unsure why you still think it predominantly is about the vehicle. And even then, lots of subway lines have the max speed of 55 mph. If you really want “faster” trains then say what exact straighter alignment you’d prefer Link, and what stations you’d skip building/ farther station spacing. Just saying “be more like” BART isn’t that useful. There’s zero point in buying faster trains when the speed is wasted on the route.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, BART skipping so much of oakland is generally seen as a mistake not something to admire; currently prioritizing commuters over a useable system within oakland itself
They’ve even studied into adding infill stations to say Jack London,
Fremont they’re planning on adding an infill station to Irvington.
Other vision ideas were at the children’s hospital, san antonio district, 55th ave etc…
I don’t think Al is praising BART. His point is that even much-maligned BART has something we don’t: it can go faster. Normally the top speed for a metro doesn’t matter. We may have the only light rail system in the world where it does. That is because we built it like BART, with huge gaps in between stations. Some of those gaps (like between Judkins Park and Mercer Island) are inevitable. But others (like between Rainier Beach and TIBS) would have been avoided if we built a normal subway/metro.
I agree with WL — BART should not be emulated. It is important to note that BART was essentially an experiment. No one else in the world had built anything like it. There are hybrid systems (like the S-Bahn in Berlin) but those take a different approach. They basically leverage the existing rail outside the city (the way you would with intercity or regional/commuter rail). But instead of the trains all going to a central location (like King Street Station with Sounder) they add a bunch of new stations inside the city. It is also common to branch at the edges of the city. That way the trips within the core of the city are more frequent. At the same time, most of these hybrid systems also have a metro (e. g. the U-Bahn). The two complement each other. For example, here is a map of the Berlin metro system. If you are inside the “ring” (the area that looks like a dog looking left) you can tell there are dozens of stations with various rail lines going this way and that. Which ones are S-Bahn and which ones are U-Bahn? It doesn’t really matter.
BART did adopt the idea of branching. The trains converge, which means travel along the core is much more frequent than it is on the various ends. But it was built in a very different manner, with very different goals. They largely ignored the existing rail system, which meant that it was very expensive to build. It largely follows the freeway instead. The distances between the stations within the urban core are huge. There are very few lines. They leverage Muni, but Muni is relatively small, and doesn’t cover the East Bay. BART does, just not well. It is a different approach in many ways, and it was oriented towards suburbs. It was assumed that the key to attracting suburban riders is to go to the suburbs very quickly. To do that requires not only fast trains but lots of room between stops.
The problem is this works for only a small portion of the trips. Like in Berlin riders take a bus or train to reach the station outside of town. But because BART follows so little of the city they then take the bus from there. Thus the bus is doing the heavy lifting where there should be trains, and the trains are running in areas that would be just fine with a bus. It is the worst of both worlds.
To be fair, BART was an experiment. They thought this would get people out of their cars. Why drive when the train is so fast? The short answer is “I’m not going where the train is going (and the bus is slow).” But then there is also the issue that in very city (even ones that have outstanding regional rail) most of the trips are taken within the city. I’m sure when BART planners were faced with that reality they said “But only because the system is so much better in the urban core”. Now that they build it though, most of the ridership is still within the urban core (despite short-changing it).
The problem is that other cities have emulated this approach and it has failed every time. Dallas-Fort Worth. Denver. DC Metro was actually designed to be a hybrid system but they managed to cover the core of the city in far more depth. It is a lot more metro than it is commuter-rail. Expansion plans would largely fill the tiny gaps that do exist.
Of course now Seattle will be on this list. We are building a system that short-changes the urban core while extending deep into low density suburbs and more distant low-density cities. The gaps are huge, and unlikely to be filled anything soon (if ever). It is a failed approach but it hasn’t stopped us from pursuing it.
“ I don’t think Al is praising BART. His point is that even much-maligned BART has something we don’t: it can go faster. ”
Exactly Ross! That was my core point.
And trains can operate slower than the track or vehicle design speed. But trains can’t operate faster than either the vehicle or the tracks allow.
Part of the issue is the decision to build low floor vehicles. BART uses high floor vehicles and platforms. I’m not a vehicle designer but I can see how low floor vehicles have more issues operating at higher speeds.
Most of Australia’s big cities I’d argue have BART like rail system.
Sigh it really doesn’t matter unless the track is straight and for a long enough stretch. Maybe I’ll use a road analogy since it’s still not getting through.
Like is one going to say since driving a camry one is limited by this avenue going 30mph and a Ferrari would make it faster?
Or to put it this way even if we replaced the current alignment (I guess elevated with rainier) with Bart trains it’d still be going the same time from tibs to rainier beach.
For the elevated part mt baker to rainier beach probably just marginally faster versus elevated link since it’d need to stop every 1.5 miles.
> “ I don’t think Al is praising BART. His point is that even much-maligned BART has something we don’t: it can go faster. ”
The problem is Al learned the wrong lesson equating the speed with the vehicle when it really isn’t. The speed comes from straight long tracks and few station spacing. That’s really it.
If you want to talk about faster trains it’s about alignment and stations, not about vehicles
WL: it’s very rare — even alongside a freeway — that tracks are truly straight. There are wiggles and slight curves.
With each wiggle or curve, a track engineer must be aware of the super elevation. I’m not a track engineer so I can’t talk about tolerances for higher speeds at a particular curve and super elevation, but I know enough to say that the superelevation has to match the design speed of the vehicle
Have you ever been on a race car speedway? I remember in high school when my marching band bus was invited to take a lap on the Daytona Speedway. To make sure the cars don’t tip over they have high banks several stories high. The bus driver did about 6 mph but stayed on the flatter part of the super elevation embankment. Had the bus tried to climb the embankment, it surely would have tipped over because of its slower speed and higher center of gravity.
*60 mph …
If you want to talk about faster trains it’s about alignment and stations, not about vehicles.
Are we sure about that? I can easily see how that could be the case, but we also know that the trains are definitely limited to a top speed that is significantly lower than BART trains.
> Are we sure about that? I can easily see how that could be the case, but we also know that the trains are definitely limited to a top speed that is significantly lower than BART trains.
For instance the section from Rainier Beach to the airport, it was originally supposed to go down Tukwila International Boulevard both straighter and shorter distance (and time). it was moved to i-5 route due to Tukwila city blocking the path. However that freeway route is relatively curvy. Originally it was going to take even longer on that section, but Sound Transit spent extra money making the curves less shallow and adding embankments after complaints about the extra time.
I mean look at BART’s route on google maps, versus what we have for the TIBs to Rainier beach section.
Here’s from a 2003 article:
> Tukwila elevated line. Engineers recently tweaked this part of the route to reduce travel time by two minutes, to 31 minutes for the entire downtown-to-Tukwila trip.
> The change addresses a key criticism of the project — that the trains would be slower than taking a bus to the airport. Sound Transit increased anticipated speeds on nearly the entire segment to 55 mph by building in banked turns and buying more land so tight curves can be flattened out.
https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=20031108&slug=lightrail09m0
> WL: it’s very rare — even alongside a freeway — that tracks are truly straight. There are wiggles and slight curves.
If you don’t believe me just open google maps/openrailway yourself and see BART’s alignment/ commuter rail lines much straighter routes and then compared to Link’s curvier routes. Sure one can do a bit of banking but it’s a train, you can only mitigate not remove the speed slow downs for sharp turns. And then again, with banking it’s about the route/alignment being built not the train.
Zach,
BART is probably the closest suburban American service that could be compared to an Australian suburban rail. That’s mostly because essentially no American city has successfully modernized its commuter rail system. But the infrastructure (and history behind it) I’d argue is very different
Australian suburban rail systems I’d argue are more comparable to SEPTA regional rail, New York commuter rail systems (take your pick), or MBTA commuter rail, when it comes to the general infrastructure.
This is because nearly every single suburban rail system in Australian except for possibly Perth are legacy systems, with continued investment over the past century-plus. There is of course lots of modern infrastructure that has been built into these systems but at their core they are (well maintained) legacy systems. And thus the very bones of the systems weren’t built out like an expensive subway as BART was
This Australian suburban rail model is maybe useful to some American cities, freight ownership issues notwithstanding, but I don’t think the model carries over well in the Seattle area simply given the complete dearth of legacy infrastructure to work off of. Into the foreseeable future buses will be far more important to regional transit. Some infrastructure in theory could be useful, sounder south, possibly the branch line into Renton, but ultimately there just isn’t much to work with
@John — Yeah, that was what I was getting at. In terms of how they are built, there are significant differences between regional/commuter rail, a conventional metro, S-Bahn and BART. Regional and commuter rail lines just leverage the old railway. If the public owns the tracks this is fairly cheap. You maybe have to add some surface stations and fix up things, but the capital costs are fairly low. In contrast, a conventional metro is the opposite. It costs a lot of money to build a subway or an elevated line in the heart of your city. But you make up for it with dramatic speed improvements. If you add lots of stations you get a lot of ridership. An S-Bahn is a hybrid. Outside the city it is really cheap. Inside the city you add metro-style stations and rail. BART is a hybrid as well, but it ends up being the worst of both worlds. You are not leveraging existing railways outside the city (so the cost is very high there). The stop spacing inside the city is not metro-style. It might work if you already had a metro (e. g. the LIRR). That isn’t the case with BART, and as a result Oakland is screwed and San Fransisco is still heavily dependent on its buses.
It would be difficult for Seattle to build an S-Bahn simply because we don’t own the tracks. Otherwise it might work. There are other issues though. Our nearby cities/towns are not very centralized. Places like Auburn and Kent have quite a few people, but they are spread out far from potential stations. In contrast it is fairly common in Europe for a place like Renton to look like Capitol Hill (but with a lot of fields in between). Then there is the fact that we built freeways right into the city. A train going to Renton would have trouble competing with an express bus like the 101 in terms of speed.
What we should have built is just a conventional metro and a better bus system. You want the two to work together. This means good connections for express buses from the suburbs, as well as good crossing connections for the urban buses (like Vancouver did). Instead we are building a BART-style system, with the same weaknesses.
I will also give BART kudos for cross-platform transfers at MacArthur (full) and the two Downtown Oakland BART stations (partial). Because of this, they don’t run all the branches until closing time. Instead, they have timed transfers at these cross platform points during low volume hours.
BART is about as close as you get to Australian suburban trains in the US, except that the rollingstock is more along the lines of Caltrain’s electrified Statdler trains.
A better solution from ST Staff would be to remind the Board that some of these HCT corridors might be better served by Stride than Link, and it will be much cheaper to provide incremental Stride fleet capacity than incremental Link fleet.
That is a good point. Rail is often cheaper to operate per person, but that mainly comes from the higher capacity of the trains. If ridership doesn’t reach those high levels then operating buses becomes cheaper for various reasons.
Yeah, once the fixed costs are sunk, the variable cost of the train is lower than a bus for the same frequency, but if ST isn’t going to provide good frequency, it becomes a cheaper to provide AND better for the rider to just run buses more frequent on the same corridor. The Swift Green might be slower than Link, but if the Green can run twice as often most of the day it is a better mode than Link. Same for serving Issaquah – an I90 express bus will be degraded by congestion, but if it runs twice as often as Link it will better than Link serving the same corridor.
The subarea boardmembers are the ones standing in the way of replacing the furthermost Link tails and the Issaquah line with Stride. If they agree to it, the rest of the board would probably follow. But they feel like their constituents have been paying into ST since the 1990s for the extensions, so they won’t be dissuaded now.
One of the commentaries said Everett is the most expensive extension and Snohomish has the least capital money. So the biggest issue is getting Snohomish to agree to a truncation at Mariner. That would be half the extension length, and would avoid the issue of the Paine Field detour. Just build a robust BRT network north of Mariner. And given the big freeway tie-up this morning, make sure there are HOV lanes there.
“4 Line: 16-minutes with 2-car trains”
I don’t get this. The 212/216/219/554 overlay was crush loaded west of Eastgate during peak with buses seemingly every 2 minutes. I get that the models will show unimpressive all-day ridership, but with steady growth along the corridor, peak ridership demand will certainly exceed preCovid bus demand along the same corridor. With East Link opening to induce cross-lake demand (the freeway bus truncation to MI or S Bellevue will clearly benefit most riders), crush loads will return during peak.
That’s because Line 4 doesn’t reach the rest of the Link system until East Main and it heads to Downtown Bellevue and Kirkland . Then at East Main, ST will make the riders walk to the end of the train and cross tracks at grade before walking back to the loading spot at the other side platform.
So those crowded buses head into Seattle (or Mercer Island) will apparently continue to run as the Line 4+2 Downtown Bellevue detour + transfer path option on Link will add about 15 minutes to get between Issaquah and Seattle.
Since ST knew that Line 4 was coming, they were just abysmally stupid not to make South Main a center platform station. It would actually be a little narrower than two side platforms.
They really are incompetent.
I’ve rarely used these peak lines to issaquah but from the current route maps:
* 212 – Seattle to Eastgate; most park and riders would just park at south bellevue, or take a bus, they’re not going to detour all the way at east main
* 216 – Rather than the bear creek park and ride one could just park at marymoor village
https://kingcounty.gov/~/media/depts/metro/schedules/pdf/09212021/rt-216.pdf
* 219 – Well issaquah line doesn’t reach issaquah highlands.
https://kingcounty.gov/~/media/depts/metro/programs-projects/link-connections/east-link/route-maps/kcmetro-route-219.pdf
* 554 – I guess maybe someone from issaquah downtown might take the train to east main and transfer
Honestly the new 554 bus is probably better for everyone than using the issaquah link
ST3 wasn’t approved until after East Main reached final design, and the line assumes Downtown Bellevue as the transfer hub between the two lines.
You’re also assuming that Issaquah-Kirkland actually gets built, instead of the ST Board cancelling subarea equity and raiding East King’s unexpectedly burgeoning coffers for North and South King projects.
“Since ST knew that Line 4 was coming, they were just abysmally stupid not to make South Main a center platform station. It would actually be a little narrower than two side platforms.”
I don’t think ST staff is stupid. I think the issue is more that the staff are trained to obey what elected official Board members want. If a Board member had the foresight and motivation, they easily could have redesigned the station in 2017 and began the revision in 2019 to be finished well before the original 2023 opening date. I see it as lazy thinking.
To see how the staff mainly reacts to the Board for changes, look at three recent major topics which happened.
1. N 130th St. Juarez really was the advocate here. Without Juarez it would likely not have happened.
2. East Link Starter Line. Balducci was the advocate here. Without Balducci, it would likely not have happened.
3. Moving Link transfers to Pioneer Square. Constantine and Harrell forced the change of the preferred alternative. If they didn’t it wouldn’t have happened.
A panel of experts even recently admonished the Board for meddling. Ironically, if the Board didn’t meddle, the staff doesn’t appear to have the vision and legitimacy to make even small changes for rider benefit.
Finally, I think the “track mistake” in the DSTT left a real hesitancy for staff to think proactively. And if the ST Board had the willingness to hire seasoned management it would have likely been brought to their attention.
One of the design mysteries for me was why ST designed East Main and Downtown Bellevue with side platforms in the first place. It requires more escalators for Downtown Bellevue specifically. (Both stations are at tunnel portals so that’s likely a factor. )
Just like someone who has practiced surgery or estate law or plumbing for many years, someone like me who has commuted on trains since the 1980’s sees these design mistakes very easily. But when both staff and elected officials don’t have the years of experience using systems like Link, they just don’t see what they’ve done wrong — and they don’t realize the many permanent problems that they create with Link. And the public input process is such a joke that they summarily ignore any attendee who does have decades of rail commuting experience.
Nathan, Al said it: once ST3 was approved it would have cost a few million dollars top to re-design South Main. So now, if Issaquah gets built, hundreds of thousands of riders per year will be making the walk to the end of the station to reverse on a Seattle-Issaquah trip in the off-peak. I’m pretty confident that if ST doesn’t run a Issaquah-Eastgate Freeway stop-South Bellevue peak shuttle, Metro will. Issaquah riders will demand it.
Folks going to downtown Bellevue will take the train; those headed for Seattle will take the bus to SoBel.
So do you guys wish that East Main was further south, or that the tunnel portal was wider and therefore more expensive? This isn’t a free lunch. There’s a reason East Main and Bellevue TC are side platform stations. The design team doesn’t just flip a coin to decide if each station is side or center platform.
I’m deeply skeptical Bellevue-Issaquah Link gets built as proposed in ST3. It may not cross 405, or it may be an entirely different mode (e.g. Stride or a small automated train)
“So do you guys wish that East Main was further south”
It was originally further south at SE 8th Street. An East Main alternative emerged and won the day. No, I don’t wish it were further south because that’s the middle of a single-family area that refuses to upzone. Main Street allows more people to use it. I don’t see how that makes it harder to have a center platform. The tracks would have to widen for it but the total station width would be the same.
“So do you guys wish that East Main was further south, or that the tunnel portal was wider and therefore more expensive?”
Making a minor geometric change to the track alignment to shift from side to center loading at East Main seems pretty modest. At most, one side of the track would have needed to shift no more than 15 feet sideways. To do that would seem to shift the platform no more than about 100 feet southward and likely much less.
It will be curious how the proposed wye and transfer station gets designed in future years. The site looks so tight that I fully expect the current East Main Ststion to be laid out differently when 4 Line design begins. So to me, it is a timing issue — before East Link is operating or afterwards. Since ST didn’t pursue early planning for the situation, there will now be weeks or even months of 2 Line service disruption in about 15 years to create the wye that they have proposed.
I think a lot of people (myself included) wish that the East Main Station was further west. South of East Main it is basically hemmed in by a low density neighborhood (that doesn’t even have good access to the station) and the freeway. There is a small sliver there that might eventually have some big buildings. To the north there are some big buildings but you very quickly overlap with Downtown Bellevue.
In contrast a station at Bellevue Way & Main Street would work quite well. It would be further away from the Downtown Bellevue Station (thus increasing coverage) even though it would be surrounded by more density.
In comparison the issues with the station and Issaquah Link are small potatoes. Issaquah Link just doesn’t make sense for various reasons. It doesn’t help if you are headed to Seattle from anywhere along the route. If you are along I-90 you are better off taking a bus to Mercer Island. If you are in South Kirkland you are better off taking a bus to the UW. In both Kirkland and Issaquah it covers a small part of the city (and not necessarily the most urban). It really only works to connect those places with Downtown Bellevue and Downtown Bellevue is simply not big enough to justify that.
It is really backwards thinking. Normally you try to solve a transit problem and that sometimes leads to building rail. In this case folks were just looking to add a major rail project to the East Side and that was the best they could come up with.
AJ, clearly if the south tunnel portal would actually have to be wider, then so be it. It was excavated, not bored, so at the outside a few million dollars extra.
However, Al said it clearly: to swap the positions of the tracks and platforms (making a wider center platform) just continue curving the southbound track a few yards more and then reverse curve it to parallel. Curve the northbound track less sharply.
And you know what that also gets you? There would be the opportunity for a southbound pocket south of the platforms into which a eastbound Line 4 train could duck and hold waiting for a northbound Line 2 train without fouling the southbound Line 2 track.
Blaming ST for the improper gauge of tracks originally installed in the DSTT is like blaming Hugo Chavez for stealing upcoming elections.
The clear answer to this forecast is “Build the Bypass. the CCC and street rail from 12th and Jackson to Mt Baker station and serve the RV in part from the CCC and Broadway.
Have Line 1 run from Northgate to Tacoma (or Federal Way) via the bypass. Have a less frequent Line 5 from Lynnwood to the airport via the RV, and then run frequent 200 foot trams between Renton and SLU via the RV trackage and the CCC. Line 5 would retain the RV-UW service that exists today albeit less frequently.
If the RV booms between now and then, extend the automated Ballard-Westlake line to 12th and Jackson for folks headed to SLU if they want to transfer for a quicker ride.
I’d be happy if ST would merely look into an automated stub line to Ballard and three lines in the DSTT! That appears to make ST3 affordable and much quicker and easier (construction impacts) to build — with the only loss being Midtown station (which was eliminated in the preferred alternative last year anyway). Beyond that, all sorts of future layouts could be considered.
I actually think that — with a bypass — a full conversion of the MLK segment could be made into a limited stop streetcar operation concept — more consistent with the track profile on MLK. But that’s such a wholesale change to ST plans that a huge political epiphany would be needed. That seems highly unlikely.
That said, thanks for thinking outside of the box, Tom!
Al, of course, I agree completely with your wishful first paragraph ;-) . I’m just offering a way to meet the red demand on Line 1 projected down through the RV. Split it up with surface rail taking the majority of the load. If the RV doesn’t get more built out, it won’t be necessary, because those red humps won’t materialize.
I posted this drone video footage of the 2 Line starter line on the last open thread right before this one went up. I hope it’s ok to repost it. It’s kinda cool. I like the shot of the train leaving Wilburton Station at :35.
https://youtu.be/wHfh8vroqsM
Love some good drone footage. A lot of the shots show how low-rise the areas around the stations are, and how much capacity there is for new development to take advantage of Link.
Two maintenance things starting today.
International District station is getting a 5-week plaza cleaning. Entrances and elevators will not be impacted, but walking paths through the plaza may be constrained.
Westlake Station is getting “variable-information signs” between now and May 17, with work weekdays from 8am to 4pm. Minimal impacts to passengers are expected. I’m not sure if this means the next-arrival displays or the TVs on the walls with tourist information. The TVs on the walls were installed in 2023 so I don’t see how it could get any more of those.
Thanks for the info. Glad to hear that the CID station area is getting a “good scrubbing” but five weeks seems like an inordinate amount of time to get the job done, no?
Also, perhaps one of the contributors here could provide an update on the wayfinding progress at Link stations? ST made a big deal about this a while back but I haven’t heard much about it since then.
The new wayfinding scheme is probably waiting for Line 2.
I LOVE the new “Variable Information Signs” (I just called them ETA boards). But i hate how ST can allow the installation of fancy digital ads and massive print ads in stations and not make the same investment into rider info, such as interactive maps. Customers can easily spot Delta’s ad for flights to Beijing at Westlake station easier than fare & map info.
And good for ST scrubbing down Chinatown! That place has become a legit biohazard with its layers of pigeon filth on just about everything. The John St-entrance at Capitol Hill is becoming worse with pigeon filth. One ORCA reader in particular is subject to repeated pheasant-bombing and the escalators are getting worse.
@Jordon,
“ And good for ST scrubbing down Chinatown”
Yes, it certainly needed it. And it is a lot better now, and the new displays are great.
During the recent single tracking I stopped by IDS and actually met the lady who was managing the installation of the new anti-bird spikes. She was very friendly and very informative about bird spikes, but not to knowledgeable about the new PIMS displays.
I guess everyone has a specialty.
How about installing futbol-style distracto-trons on the sides of LRVs?
I transferred at Redmond Tech today and saw the Link platform has the new next-arrival displays like Intl Dist.
The 245 goes into the station. One aisle is buses; the other is Microsoft shuttles. Getting to the 542 or 545 to Seattle means going outside the station to 40th street and walking across the freeway to the bus stop. There’s a pedestrian bridge but it won’t open until the starter line does.
The walk using the pedestrian bridge from Red Tech to the westbound 520 bus stop is longer than just walking across the bridge over 520. Yes, the ped bridge will be more pleasant to use, and the walk will be traffic-free, but it is a longer walk.
The ped bridge will be quite something. Plants are being planted on either side of the interior pathway, so that eventually pedestrians won’t even be able to see the freeway. There will also be benches inside the bridge, and bike paths.
The above thread(s) about train frequency and the formatting of the comment section is a little too disjointed to properly respond to the correct comment, soo…
Does anyone know the current and future locations for train turnbacks? I know there’s one at SODO and judging by the upcoming service disruption, there’s another at UW. Isn’t there one at Rainier Beach too? Also, will there be a turnback at LTC? What about the eastside?
I assume they exist where the train used to end. Northbound that would be Westlake (although that might have gone away), UW, Northgate and (soon to be) Lynnwood. Southbound it is TIBS, SeaTac, Angle Lake (and eventually) Federal Way. I’m not sure if there are any additional ones or which ones don’t work anymore.
There are also sidings west of Judkins Park (longer than typical), north of Northgate and south of SeaTac. Plus the East OMF north of Wilburton has full access in both directions as done the OMF in SODO. .
There may be others under construction but they aren’t clearly apparent from Google aerials. .
Turnbacks are facilitated by sets of crossover tracks, often built as scissor crossovers.
Based on google maps imagery (last updated 2022, so it’s missing several miles of completed track), available rollplots, and ST drone videos, I’ve found crossovers at the following locations (north to south; west to east)
Lynnwood Link:
North of Lynnwood Transit Center
[ 185th Station is unclear]
North of 145th Street Station
South of 130th Street Station
North of Northgate Station
Federal Way Link:
North of Kent-Des Moines Station
[unclear around 272nd St]
North of Federal Way Transit Center
East Link:
West of Judkins Park (with long pocket track)
West end of I-90 floating bridge
East end of I-90 floating bridge
East of Mercer Island station
South of South Bellevue Station
South of East Main Station
East of Bellevue Downtown Station
West of Spring District Station (leading to OMF-E)
East of Spring District Station/West of Bel-Red Station
South of Redmond Technology Station
South of Downtown Redmond Station
There’s crossovers for partial turnback capability as Nathan has noted.
For full turnback usage and not terminal station, It needs more than crossover tracks but needs the pocket tracks for the driver to walk through/exchange drivers to the other end without blocking other trains. I emailed sound transit last year about it this was their response:
> There are many factors that feed into where turnbacks and pocket tracks are located, and in this case,
it is too soon to have definitive answers to all your questions. Hopefully, we can provide some clarification though.
> Currently Lynnwood, Northgate, and Pioneer Square/Midtown stations all have pocket tracks. Redmond Technology station does not have a pocket track or a turnback, although Judkins Park does have a pocket track. The next set of extension projects that connect to these stations are too early in design and engineering to know if this is likely to change. Everett Link, for example, is currently in the planning phase and is scheduled to complete the Environmental Impact Statement process around 2027, after which we have several more years of design work to complete. So we can only say that there are no current plans to build turnbacks at these stations, however that is subject to change as design progresses.
Aka stations with full turnback capabilities are:
* Lynnwood
* Northgate (north of it)
* Pioneer Square (south of it)
* Stadium (south of it)
* Judkins park (west)
* Redmond town center
(Redmond technology can be used as an end station turn around but not a “full” turnback once extended past it)
* Rainier beach (south of it)
Future planned ones
* Everett
* Mariner
(I didn’t ask about Tacoma dome link so they didn’t talk about them) but I’m assuming
Federal way and Tacoma dome.
Speaking of RapidRide K, does anyone know if the detour into the South Kirkland Park and Ride will be eliminated? I never understood why buses all detour through it; it’s not a major destination and transfers could be handled somewhere along 108th
It’s a Park & Ride, not a Park & Walk.
Sounds like Kirkland went all out on door to door service. Even the poor Mercer Islanders are expected to Park & Walk (across the street)
It’s a Park & Walk West to the Building, not a Park & Walk East to the Arterial. Fixed.
At any rate, I hope it gets to be the next picture in Jarrett Walker’s “Stop Building This!” Series.
The problem is the steep section of the road combined with the sharp turn makes it kinda hard for buses to stop there. Or at least a bit dangerous for cars coming around the corner to come upon a bus stopped there.
There’s another bus stop just up the hill at the trail around. It’s about as steep and an even tighter turn
I’m not sure how to measure it, but I think the section of 108th ave coming down that hill just north of 37th is steeper.
Anyways it probably is possible to move the bus stops but I think one would have to basically reconfigure the intersection of 108 and 37/38.
I have no expectation that the detour will ever go away, as it would require too much thinking outside the box. Best hope is that they tweak the traffic control to make the detour a little bit quicker.
John, I’d like to see some specifics. Where on both sides of 108th would you place the bus stops for the 255, 249, and 250? Tell me about the 249 and 250 routing. How would they get to and from these new bus stops? The 255 is easy. It wouldn’t need to do anything different, but the other routes would. You need to explain how the 249 and 250 would get back on route after serving your new bus stops, especially when the one’s that will be continuing on to go north on Northup.
The 255 is easy, yeah.
The 250 could continue to route through the park and ride. Northbound would continue on the same route. Southbound would route through NE 38th and turn left onto 107th (instead of turning left on Northup then left onto 108th) and then stop on the south side of the P+R or on the east side of Kirkland Crossing, between 37th and 38th
The 249 would follow the same route as the 250. It would follow the current route westbound, and eastbound would turn onto NE 38th instead of Northup. Again, this would stop on the south side of the P+R or on the east side of Kirkland Crossing, between 37th and 38th
For transfers, ideally all buses would stop on 108th between 37th and 38th. If that’s not possible due to turn radii, transfers could be handled further south on 108th, somewhere between 38th and Northup.
That wouldn’t be a huge improvement for the 249 but the 250 northbound would save 2-3 minutes and the 255 would save 1-2 minutes in both directions
250 southbound** would save 2-3 minutes
Thank you for the answer. I guess the trade-off would be quicker through-routing, and a bit longer transfers. It seems like the 249 and 250 would be still be detouring to that area, just slightly less so.
I think they probably made a mistake in rebuilding the P&R in the same location as the old one. It’s not a good location, and never will be, and now we’re stuck with it. If they had built a new P&R a bit further south, near the intersection of Northup and 108th, that would have eliminated the need to detour for most routes. But that ship has sailed, and TOD housing has been built next to the P&R, and some of it is affordable housing, so I’m pretty sure it would be impossible to move bus stops further away from inside the P&R, even just out to 108th.
Yeah transfers would get slightly worse, but would remain the same for the vast majority of trips. Most trips transfer southbound to southbound or northbound to northbound. There are some exceptions (116th or Bellevue Way to UW for example) but those are in the minority and after the East Link restructure most of those will be better served by the 270
It’d be slightly worse for P&R users and Kirkland Crossing residents but would improve Kirkland-Bellevue, Kirkland-UW, and Kirkland-Seattle trips
Fyi there were some supposed projects to help with the detour
Project 1: South Kirkland Park & Ride Traffic Signal
> There is no signal at this intersection and therefore, buses must wait for gaps in southbound traffic in order to make the leftturn into the Park & Ride. Therefore, this project would add a signal at the intersection of 108th Avenue NE and NE 37th Place that has transit service priority to provide a protected left-turn movement for buses.
> On average, 15-20 seconds saved per bus trip
https://www.kirklandwa.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/public-works/kirkland-transit-implementation-plan-final.pdf#page=25
Anyways I realized I didn’t actually check for rapidride K specifically “Speaking of RapidRide K,”. From the remix page it looks like rapidride K still does the detour. I’m not sure if they are planning on changing it.
Welcome, Nathan! Great Roundup!
Yesterday I was reading through the latest Sound Transit (Capital Program) Agency Progress Report and noticed ST staffers had finally changed the revenue service date for the Lynnwood Link Extension from July 17, 2024 to August 17, 2024. The agency still hasn’t announced an actual date for the planned opening but as most of you know ST has changed the narrative under former CEO Timm’s tenure from a midyear opening to a “summer/fall” 2024 target. Hopefully ST can pull this off and get this extension online without the schedule slipping further. (A couple of the primary contractors during the construction period have been fairly inconsistent with submitting completed monthly schedule updates to the agency.)
With all of that said, I am very much looking forward to finally getting Lynnwood Link up and running. We moved to Snohomish County just over 20 years ago and so this is the LR project I have followed the closest since ST2 was approved by the voters in 2008. (My spouse and I have had this running bet whether the line would be completed before I chose to retire and it looks like I’m going to lose that bet by just a few months. Lol.) Although I have been primarily a remote worker since 2005, I do commute to our DT Seattle offices occasionally to meet with clients, review documents, hold in-person meetings, etc. Currently that’s a 3-seat ride from CT’s Ash Way P&R (drive/drop-off or local CT route, STX to Northgate and Link to downtown). Previously that commute had been a 2-seat ride before the STX routes were truncated. My spouse and I were looking forward to being able to commute together via the Lynnwood Station/TC once East Link and Lynnwood opened (destinations of downtown Bellevue and Seattle respectively) but of course that’s not happening now.
Anyway, I just thought I’d pass along this little piece of information. Honestly, I think even the revised August 17 revenue service date is overly optimistic. Late Sep or early Oct is probably the best we can hope for based on my reading of the tea leaves.
It’s been a very long wait. ST2 seems so, so long ago. I do wish the additional two stations that were in the 2007 Roads and Transit measure had been kept in the 2008 plan and that’s where we called it quits with regard to LR’s extension into SnoCo. Everett Link is just a bad idea being kept alive by a political process and a promise made decades ago based on the ill-conceived spine notion. (Sigh.)
https://www.soundtransit.org/get-to-know-us/documents-reports/agency-progress-reports
Tacoma dome link, sound transit is actually proactively buying property.
Apparently there was a parcel of land about to be built with new structures, but sound transit has a chance to buy it ahead of time. Hopefully it goes through and sound transit could more proactively buy other parcels of land rather than say the current west seattle (elevated alignment) debacle with letting the properties get developed.
> The parcel is currently vacant and is the subject of a development proposal. Structures on the property were demolished in 2023. Permit applications to build two 5,998 square foot vehicle maintenance buildings were submitted in September 2022, and approved by the City of Fife in July 2023. Final issuance of the permit is pending successful payment by the property owner. This imminent
development would conflict with all the TDLE alternatives and station options in the Fife segment. Sound Transit submitted a protective acquisition request to the Federal Transportation Administration
(FTA) on January 12, 2024. On February 7, 2024, Sound Transit received concurrence from FTA that the early acquisition meets criteria in FTA’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) rules for
Documented Categorical Exclusions (DCE) as a protective acquisition.
> The parcel is currently vacant and is the subject of a development proposal. Structures on the property were demolished in 2023. Permit applications to build two 5,998 square foot vehicle maintenance buildings were submitted in September 2022, and approved by the City of Fife in July 2023. Final issuance of the permit is pending successful payment by the property owner. This imminent development would conflict with all the TDLE alternatives and station options in the Fife segment.
https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/ActiveDocuments/Resolution%20R2024-06.pdf
A slew of station access projects are to be finalized for both the south tacoma station as well as the lakewood station for Sounder South. Notably the parking lot enhancements have been cancelled. Predominantly sidewalk repair/expansions as well as bike lanes.
“Authorizes the chief executive officer to execute funding agreements at the not-to-exceed amounts and with the local jurisdictions identified in Attachment A and Attachment B to come from the budgeted station access allowance funding included as part of the Stride Program.”
Some select examples:
* S 60th St connections – adds protected bike lanes on the north side of S 60th St. from S Adams St. to South Tacoma Way and then transitions to a bike boulevard from South Tacoma Way to S Puget Sound Ave.
* Pierce Transit Route 206 bus stop at Lakewood Station – modify the intersection of Pacific Hwy. SW and Bridgeport Way to improve the bus turning radius, which makes a Pierce Transit stop at the station more feasible.
https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/ActiveDocuments/Resolution%20R2024-05.pdf
https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/ActiveDocuments/Resolution%20R2024-04.pdf
Stride BRT has a list of station access improvements to be funded as well. Some select examples:
* Seattle 30th Ave NE Shared Use Path: Install 10-ft shared-use path on the east side of 30th Ave NE between NE 143rd St and NE 145th St,
* Kenmore NE 181st St Sidewalk. Construct sidewalk improvements on south side of NE 181st St from 61st Ave NE to 63rd Ave NE to fill a 1.5-block gap between 61st Ave NE
https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/ActiveDocuments/Motion%20M2024-15.pdf#page=10
I think you kind of muddied things up a bit. The motion you cited that reads:
“Authorizes the chief executive officer to execute funding agreements at the not-to-exceed amounts and with the local jurisdictions identified in Attachment A and Attachment B to come from the budgeted station access allowance funding included as part of the Stride Program.”
has nothing to do with the station access improvements for the Sounder stations (Lakewood and South Tacoma) discussed in the resolutions you’ve also linked to, i.e. R2024-04 and R2024-05. In that regard, you have sort of buried the lede, as the saying goes:
“• This action defines and selects the bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and station area improvements to be built for the South Tacoma Station Access Improvements project. The ST2 Plan originally defined the South Tacoma Station Access Improvements Project as structured parking, but authorized the Board to construct these alternative improvements.
• The proposed scope is a permitted plan amendment to ST2 because, due to changed ridership patterns following the Covid-19 pandemic, the originally contemplated parking garage is impracticable to meet the stated project purpose of enhancing rider access to the station, and structured parking is unaffordable within the allocated project estimate in the financial plan. The proposed scope was included in the voter-approved plan as alternative improvements which still fulfill the stated purpose of enhancing rider access to the station area.”
It’s the same with the other resolution regarding station access improvements for the Lakewood Station.
Thanks for the callout the WordPress comment section isn’t the best for sorting and rearranging large amounts of text lol
“ sort of buried the lede” I’ve been trying to keep my comments somewhat shorter so it’s not a wall of text, but you’re right it is quite interesting to see what sound transit can edit and not edit from the original St2
Question for WL, or anyone, who might be good at looking stuff up, or know something about why or how King County buys certain properties.
This is concerning the Whole Foods property next to Wilburton station in Bellevue. Parcel Viewer says the property was sold in 2021 to King County for just $50,000, but is valued at $15 million.
A few questions … why did King County buy this property? Why was the sale price only $50,000? If King County does in fact now own this property, what do they have planned for the site? Why wasn’t it sold to the highest bidder, like a developer?
Again, I’m not looking for someone to guess what they think happened, but if someone can look up information on this, I’d appreciate it. It seems very strange, such a valuable piece of station-area land being sold for next to nothing to King County. (If the info in Parcel Viewer is correct).
The whole foods still exists there. Are you sure it wasn’t just the necessary land for the station to be built?
I checked the parcel viewer and it says
Parcel 2825059328 – VACANT LAND – EASEMENT
It looks like just a sliver of land bought from whole foods for station.
Parcel 2825059080 – Grocery store is still owned by whole foods.
https://gismaps.kingcounty.gov/parcelviewer2/
For parcel 2825059080, the parcel the store is actually sitting on, if you go into property report, then property detail, it shows the last sale was in 2021 for $50,000. Seller Name: RCJ Properties LLC. Buyer Name: King County Govt.
It looks to be just an easement as commenter WL has pointed out. This figure for compensation would be fairly typical for that.
That makes sense. It wouldn’t make sense that the entire parcel the store is sitting on plus parking lot was sold for only $50,000. Thanks Tls and WL.
Yw Sam. Btw, did you ever get any “quiz takers” for your comment contribution the other day for the drone aerial video you shared here? I was going to reply with some kind of cheeky response, perhaps listing the 7-8 wonders of the ancient world or something like that, but then got busy with other matters. Thanks for the video link as I really enjoyed watching it! I don’t think the stations were in sequential order, were they? Perhaps you can supply the answer key now. ;)
Haha, no takers. The clips were almost all in order going from Redmond Technology to East Main. Just one was out of order. But, I liked the views of the BelRed and Wilburton station areas. They really have a lot of potential for growth. Kitty corner from BelRed station is a big gravel/cement plant, and someone told me that a residential developer tried to buy the site, but the deal fell through, so with a little luck, someone else will buy and develop it in the not too distant future.
The New York Times has a story about an actor taking public transportation to the Oscars. Not bad for Los Angeles, but ideally transit would be mainstream enough that somebody choosing to take it would not make news.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/13/style/ed-begley-jr-oscars-public-transportation.html
I think it is news when famous people do something ordinary. A lot of people assume they ride around in limos all the time, but there are a lot of “stars” who take transit, by chili-dogs, etc.
There was a wstc meeting about public transportation (state wide) on wednesday/thursday
Mostly talked about possibility of
* State funding to support plan update focused on feasibility of adding Yakima Valley service
* Expanded study scope to include I-90 corridor and statewide network (5311(f)
funds).
aka intercity buses
https://wstc.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/2024-03-13-BP4-WSDOTPublicTransportationUpdate.pdf
Besides that they also talked about increasing tolls for 405 and 520.
https://wstc.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/2024-03-13-BP8-SR520-TollRateProposals.pdf
Lastly one ‘fun’ thing was about AI for traffic. Well it’s a bit of a buzzword, its’ more just statistics, but anyways still interesting to see. Main revolved around using it for congestion but also for highlighting intersections with high rates of pedestrian fatalities. Even gave examples of how the system could suggest fixes to intersections. Though hard to tell what is actually possible, versus being an ad for the company Inrix.
https://wstc.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/2024-03-13-BP10-AIinTransportation.pdf