Sound Transit announced the Lynnwood Link extension will open August 30th. That’s just under five months from now. Happy Labor Day present.
Mike Lindblom in the Seattle Times notes that Link will switch to a flat $3 fare when Lynnwood Link opens, and that Paine Field extension is targeted to open in 2037, and Everett Station in 2041. That’s 13 years and 17 years from now.
To put all of this into a timeline:
- April 27: Line 2 Eastside-only starter line starts from South Bellevue to Redmond Technology.
- August 30: Lynnwood extension starts. Link fares switch to a flat $3.
- September 14: Metro’s north end and Community Transit bus restructures.
- 2025: Full Line 2 from Lynnwood to Redmond Downtown starts, along with Metro’s Eastside bus restructure.
- 2026: Federal Way extensions statrs, along with Metro’s south end restructure.
- 2035: Tacoma Dome extension, the southern terminus of the ST3 Spine.
- 2037: Everett Industrial Center extension.
- 2041: Everett Station, the northern terminus of the ST3 Spine.
Doug Trumm in The Urbanist has more background on the planning.
This article will be updated if new information or commentary comes out.
This is an open thread.
Last I saw the Redmond Link extension was scheduled to open before the full 2-Link across the lake.
Has that changed? Because I don’t see any reason to delay it.
But the opening of Lynnwood Link will be huge – the biggest improvement in local transit since NG-Link opened, and that was huge too!
So things are really looking up.
And don’t forget, CT and Metro restructures in support of Lynnwood Link have now been delayed until Sept 14th. That is a good thing. Too many moving parts often lead to trouble.
Progress. Real progress. Finally.
My understanding is cross-lake service and downtown Redmond will happen at different times in 2025.
Metro and CT could change their dates. They just need a 2-3 month buffer to reassign and train drivers. Still, it’s a two-week gap, and that’s not much. It gives Link time to prove it will work, so that the bus restructures won’t leave people stranded if it doesn’t.
“That’s not much”.
It’s plenty. The existing schedules remain in effect thru 9/13. The new schedules get two extra weeks to be loaded into the agencies’ respective bid processes and assigned, plus two extra weeks for training on new routes (in CT’s case). Which is to say, the actual prep work for KCM and CT begins now and runs four+ months, and 9/14 provides them with two extra weeks.
Any reason the timeline omits WSBLE?
Living on the Eastside, I’m very much looking forward to the downtown Redmond extension. I’ll be using it regularly!
I would think that Downtown Redmond would generate a considerable amount of the ridership within the East Side, making it all the more important to open early.
And don’t forget, CT and Metro restructures in support of Lynnwood Link have now been delayed until Sept 14th.
Interesting. I think that will be the first time there has been a substantial gap between a Link extension and a restructure. There is no reason why the restructure has to happen right away. It just seems like Metro (and ST) did it that way in the past.
Ridership during that period will be interesting as a result. For some riders it won’t make much difference. If you took a 800 series bus and transferred at Northgate you might continue to do that or transfer to Link further north. Same with the 512 (if you are coming from north of Lynnwood TC). But it will be interesting to see how many people take the downtown express buses. My guess is the ones that serve Lynnwood TC (especially the 402) will see a huge drop off in ridership. At the opposite end of things are buses like the 413 and 415 (to Swamp Creek). People may decide to stick with their existing express bus (presumably because it is easier for them to get to those stops).
For King County the existing network isn’t great for Link. Swift won’t connect to 185th. There will still be the 348, but it will continue to be infrequent (every half hour in the middle of the day) until the change. The only bus to the 148th Station will be 347. This is also a half hour bus and it pick up most of its riders closer to Northgate.
Those who park and ride will undoubtedly change their destination. A fair number of people drive to Northgate, even though it is hard to get to. Now they will be spread out to the north.
Of course there will be folks that walk to the stations. For riders close to 148th and 185th Link will be a huge improvement. There isn’t much bus service there. In contrast, riders close to Mountlake Terrace and Lynnwood TC have had good express bus service for a while now. This will offer a clear improvement though. More frequent, one less transfer and in the case of Mountlake Terrace the stop will be farther away from the freeway.
Mike and Ross: please edit the timeline text to show September 14 for the local bus changes.
Done. Good catch.
Thanks for the timeline, I kind of forgot that the everett industrial center extension is separated from the everett (downtown) extension
I thought ST was considering a phase to Mariner/128th south of the industrial center. But ST’s timeline says it’s to the industrial center.
https://www.theurbanist.org/2024/04/04/harrell-proposes-modest-1-35-billion-transportation-levy-renewal/
Have at it, horde.
> Have at it, horde.
Thanks for the article, though do I find it a bit amusing calling us “horde” lol. Anyways so many articles coming out recently.
Anyways diving into the details https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/SDOT/About/Funding/Levy/SDOT_Levy_Proposal_20240404.pdf
Page 9 has a pretty picture with the main projects. Page 12 has the transit projects.
It very interestingly emphasizes the word “paving” and “reconstruction” a lot, but looking at it more detailed I’m not sure if the ratio of paving currently proposed versus in the past proposal has actually changed or if this is just a wordsmithing to cater to more pro car voters.
So checking the past proposal it was to “Levy Commitment: Repave up to 180 lane-miles of arterial streets, maintaining and modernizing 35% of Seattle’s busiest streets carrying the most people and goods (also funded through the 7 enhanced transit corridors)” or pave around 22 lane miles per year. The only commitment I can see in the new proposal for lane miles is “At least 50 lane miles of spot paving repair on arterial streets, at approximately 400 locations”.
It calls the projects “Major Street Maintenance & Modernization Candidate Projects” a lot of them are unsurprisingly basically from the transportation plan. (transportation plan map here to compare https://seattlecitygis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/basic/index.html?appid=5150950f95e64594b36c278ef17d9f3f I enabled the ‘projects’ view). I’ll highlight some dropped items, though technically they could be funded by general funds so it’s hard for me to tell what’s actually removed.
# North Seattle
Below lists the projects. Notably missing ones are the 85th, Greenwood and Northgate way improvements. N 130th is also listed as a transit corridor. The 65th + 85th was originally described a rapidride corridor with potential bus lanes but now it is only the 65th section with bike lanes.
* N 130th St: 1st Ave NW to I-5 — Paving with a safety redesign to better connect people to the future 130th St Station. Includes protected bike lanes, crossing improvements, trees, sidewalk reconstruction, and transit priority.
• 15th Ave NE / Pinehurst Way NE / Roosevelt Way: NE 92nd St to NE 145th St — Paving with redesign for safer speeds, including upgraded and expanded protected bike lanes and bus stops, pedestrian lighting, sidewalks, and crossings.
• NE 65th St: 2nd Ave NE to 35th Ave NE — Paving with upgraded protected bike lanes, bus stops, and accessible connections to Roosevelt Station. Includes sidewalk repairs, crossing improvements, extended protected bike lanes, and trees.
• NW Market St: 15th Ave NW to 24th Ave NW — Street reconstruction to make existing street designs safer for all travelers and upgrade sidewalks, crossings, and bike connections.
Aurora avenue is not listed here, but that’s probably because the state is providing 50 million, so it’s outside of the levy?
## Middle / Central Seattle
Harrison street probably transit street as previously described. 23rd avenue continues the repaving but no bus lanes. elliott and western probably protected bike lanes with parking similar to roosevelt way
Dropped items: I don’t see the 3rd extension or 5th avenue ones. MLK further improvements north of judkins is missing. pike/pine extension (of couplet I assume) is missing as well. They really want to fix james street for route 3/4. I’m not quite sure how they are planning to fix it though. Seems to be some ‘smart’ signaling, no bus queues or lanes proposed.
• 23rd Ave E / 24th Ave E: E John St to E Lake Washington Blvd — Reconstruction and paving, including a corridor safety analysis, additional transit investment, and crossing improvements, sidewalk repair, and neighborhood greenway upgrades.
• South Lake Union East-West Transit Connections — Transit project to make east-west bus travel more reliable, with connections to the future South Lake Union Station. Includes a proposed new corridor on Harrison St / Mercer St from Fairview Ave N to Queen Anne Ave N, and continued evaluation of the Route 8 with our transportation agency partners.
• Elliott Ave / Western Ave: Bell St to Thomas St — Paving with upgraded bike lanes, sidewalk repair, and safety upgrades.
• James St: 3rd Ave to Broadway — Street reconstruction to support high-volume traffic and bus service. Includes upgrades to sidewalks and traffic signals, pedestrian safety redesigns, and landscaping and trees.
## West Seattle (SODO)
They really want to fix E marginal way S (of spokane street). Most of the other roads are as described to repave.
Dropped items: Fauntleroy way has dropped adding bike lanes. California Ave SW has been dropped from repaving and bike lanes as well. 35th ave SW still has “evaluation of bike routes” but looks like quite possibly doesn’t get bike lanes either. Alki trail improvements were dropped.
• Fauntleroy Way SW — Paving to keep roadway functional during light rail station construction and support future improvements.
• 35th Ave SW: SW Morgan St to SW Alaska St — Street reconstruction with a corridor safety analysis and evaluation of transit improvements. Includes sidewalk repair, crossing improvements, and evaluation of bike routes.
• S Albro Pl, Corson Ave S, and Ellis Ave S: East Marginal Way S to I-5 — Project to preserve pavement and improve crossings, repair sidewalks, enhance the pedestrian environment, and evaluate safety and transit improvements.
• E Marginal Way S: 1st Ave S to 16th Ave S — Project will leverage grant funding to restore pavement, evaluate safety improvements, and make sidewalk repairs and small upgrades to transit.
• Olson Pl SW / 1st Ave S: 2nd Ave SW to SW Cloverdale St — Street reconstruction with a widened sidewalk or trail and treatments to keep vehicles from skidding on wet pavement.
## South Seattle
3 main projects, which are mostly unsurprising. Rainier and Henderson for the rapidride R and Beacon Ave S for the future rapidride/route 36. Surprisingly the rainier ave one still talks about adding bike lanes, but I find it to be impossible if they’re adding bus lanes.
Dropped items: Chief Sealth trail improvements, Lake washington boulevard
• Rainier Ave S: S Walden St to S Jackson St — Street reconstruction and paving to support RapidRide R Line. Includes bus lanes, improved crossings, sidewalk expansion and repair, trees, pedestrian lighting, safety updates, better access to the Judkins Park Station, and evaluation of protected bike lanes.
• Beacon Ave S: 14th Ave S to 39th Ave S / 12th Ave S & 14th Ave S: Jose Rizal Bridge to Beacon Ave S — Street redesign for more reliable Route 36 service and to extend protected bike lanes and trails. Includes paving, sidewalk repairs, and crossing improvements to improve safety and accessibility.
• S Henderson St: MLK Jr Way S to Seward Park Ave S — Street reconstruction to support RapidRide R Line and better connect the Rainier Beach Station with the community, schools, and Be’er Sheva Park. Includes protected bike lanes, crossing improvements, and sidewalk repair, as well as elements from the Recreating Henderson Street plan.
## Bridges
The bridge proposed repairs is more emphasized than in the seattle transportation plan listing:
• Ballard Bridge Structural Repairs + Ballard Bridge Mechanical & Electrical Upgrade
• Fremont Bridge Mechanical & Electrical Upgrade
• University Bridge Mechanical & Electrical Upgrade (was not in transportation plan)
• Magnolia Bridge Structural Repairs (was not in transportation plan)
Ironically, no bridges are proposed to be fixed in West Seattle.
I’ll talk more about the money breakdown and the other items in a separate comment as it’s pretty large already.
Money breakdown:
* Major Street Maintenance – ($423M) Repave and improve streets that carry the most buses, trucks, and cars, and make it safer for everyone to walk, roll, bike, and ride transit.
* Bridges & Structures – ($218M) Keep bridges in good and reliable working condition and prepare for future bridge projects
* Transit Corridors & Connections – ($121M) Connect people safely to transit hubs, including Link light rail stations; improve bus stops; and reduce delays on bus routes
* Pedestrian Programs – ($109M) Build and repair sidewalks, crossings, and curb ramps so people walking and rolling can safely get to where they need to go
* Signals & Operations – ($100M) Install new and maintain and upgrade traffic signals for safe, reliable movement; improve pedestrian and bike accessibility; and support traffic operations during large events and for trips in and out of the port
* Bike Safety Program – ($94M) Expand Seattle’s protected bike lane network; connect schools to bike lanes, paths, and neighborhood greenways; and maintain and upgrade existing bike lanes
* People Streets & Public – ($57M) Spaces Make public spaces more inviting and improve lighting so people can enjoy unique and vibrant neighborhoods and business districts
* Climate & Resiliency – ($49M) Address climate change directly, reducing air pollution and making sustainable transportation options
more available
* Freight & Goods Movement ($25M) -Make freight improvements to support trucks delivering goods and providing services
Interestingly when I compare to the original move Seattle in 2015, that one actually listed the specific projects to fund and how much for each one. The current 2024 just lists a bucket of money in a category.
https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/SDOT/About/DocumentLibrary/MoveSeatte-FinalDraft-2-25-Online.pdf#page=46
Checking the 2015 levy to move annual spending report for 2022 it used 3 buckets to calculate spending
Safe Routes spent 50 million – 10 million in transportation operations. 10 million in bicycle safety, 12 million in curb ramps (there’s more smaller projects that eventually add up to 50 million)
Maintenance and repair spend 40 million – 7 million in maintenance, 7 million in paving, 6 million in bridge repair
Congestion Relief spent 121 million – 77 million in “multimodal improvements” 8 million in transit spot, 8 million in sidewalks
## Comparison
The categories are a bit hard to compare from old to new levy, but this is my guestimate*. It seems like:
* sidewalks go from 8 million a year to 10 million.
* bridges from 6~17 to 24 million a year.
* transit from 8 million to 15 million a year (The description isn’t quite comparable but if I was to assume the category means the same thing)
* bike safety from 10 million to 12 million
* “traffic signals (and signs?) aka ITS from 10 million to 15 million
new categories
* climate and resiliency from 3 to 6 million (assuming urban forest and drainage fix is the same as climate and resiliency)
* freight and goods movement from 5 to 3 million
The most complicated category to compare is the bus+repaving+complete street rebuild. It seems they’ve merged and unmerged some categories so I’m not sure.
(2015) Maintenance and repair was around 30 million per year + Around 20 million multimodal or around 50 million per year. The new “major street maintenance” is 400 million or also around 50 million a year. It seems they just merged two categories.
https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/SDOT/About/DocumentLibrary/Levy/2022_Annual-Levy-Report_final.pdf
https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/SDOT/About/DocumentLibrary/Levy/CB118402SpendingBreakdown.pdf
*I’m just using levy year 2022 to calculate, could do more involved calculations but that will require getting out excel. If I have time, maybe I’ll try calculating a more detail breakdown comparison/finding more detailed documents.
Visiting New Jersey man, who is also a railroad employee, and a transit enthusiast, recently rode Sounder, ST Express, and Link, in succession, gives his feedback on our transit.
“Sound Transit Sampler Pack (Sounder, Express Bus and Link Light Rail)”
https://youtu.be/ymhQFlBsuz0?si=wOyDy_Yp102sUdII
Fun video. I’ve often thought about taking that trip. I forgot that the double-decker buses allow you to see out the front (which is really nice). When combined with the Sounder it is quite the scenic loop.
Nice New Jersey attitude. I was surprised he had such high praise for the 512. I did mention in the Orange article that the 512 buses feel more comfortable than the King/Pierce ST Express routes, so he may be feeling some of that.
I was surprised he said we’re making more strides in regional bus connectivity than the New York area currently is. Of course, they have a better rail baseline that covers the most obvious trips (comparable to Lynnwood-Seattle and Tacoma-Seattle). But apparently they have other gaps they haven’t been filling as well. I’ve heard that about Chicago, that CTA is great at all-direction service within the city and to some nearby suburbs, but Pace is oriented to going to/from Chicago and doesn’t serve lateral trips in the other nine counties very much.
It was unfortunate and typical they encountered urine in elevators or stations. I would have called that a “New York thing” in the 1970s, but now apparently it has reversed. I’m glad they didn’t encounter fentanyl smoke in elevators, as I and my friend in north Lynnwood sometimes do. (And she would say Northgate Station and the rest of the north/central Seattle stations are always bad: dirty, with prohibited residue, bathrooms often closed, security guards who come after the perp has left and say there’s nothing they can do. She wants elevator operators to deter miscreants, and attendants in the restrooms to keep them clean and open. She wanted me to tell you this.)
I was surprised he said we’re making more strides in regional bus connectivity than the New York area currently is.
I remember a national transit writer (I forget who) commenting about how good our regional bus system is compared to what you find in the rest of the country. Makes sense to me. Regional bus service requires quite a bit of subsidy. Way more than urban bus service. Sound Transit has a lot of funding which allows them to have good midday service that a lot of agencies would balk at. WSDOT (for all of its faults) has added HOV lanes and ramps connected to the bus stops. The lanes should all be HOV-3 (or HOV-4) but it helps. It adds up to a good regional bus system.
In contrast I don’t see that with anything else, unfortunately.
Seattle is unique in having good jobs density downtown and a long linear development pattern, but limited heavy rail network. Every American city that has better transit ridership also has a much more mature commuter rail network, so the need for a commuter bus network is less.
Every American city that has better transit ridership also has a much more mature commuter rail network, so the need for a commuter bus network is less.
Yeah, I get that. That definitely explains the extra money spent on bus infrastructure (like HOV lanes, ramps and freeway stops). A lot of cities would just make sure the trains run well during those periods, since the trains would carry most of the commuters.
But every system has holes in it. The regional rail system doesn’t cover everything. Furthermore, even when you own the tracks it is expensive to run the trains often unless they carry a lot of riders. This explains commuter trains. Service is often supplemented in the middle of the day with buses. The point is, a bus like the 512 (which runs every 15 minutes all day long and is quite fast) is unusual, given the overall ridership (which isn’t that high). A lot of agencies would not run the buses that often. ST is basically loaded, and their focus is on regional service. It is an unusual arrangement.
For example consider Marin City to San Fransisco. If you leave at noon it takes about an hour to get there by transit: https://maps.app.goo.gl/sTJZUguRf7QsYLUX9. It takes about 35 minutes to get there by car. This is to downtown (which is at the far end of things). What about Lombard & Filmore (which the bus serves). This still takes close to an hour, while if you drive it takes less than 20 minutes. The big problem is they just don’t have the money to put into the system.
“Furthermore, even when you own the tracks it is expensive to run the trains often unless they carry a lot of riders. This explains commuter trains. Service is often supplemented in the middle of the day with buses. ” Is that true? Everything I’ve read says that best practice is to run the train with good frequency all day, and it is really only in America that intra-city heavy rail networks orient their schedule around commuters rather than all day frequency. Alon Levy write frequently about how when the MTA or Metra says all day frequency is “too expensive,” it’s more about American planners using old fashion techniques, and simply getting up to speed with the rest of the world would resolve the cost issue. My understanding is running a bus instead of a train only make sense if the transit agency has to pay for additional slots (for example, some of Chicago Metra’s key commuter lines are owned by freight lines and carry freight every days).
For your specific example from Marin, yes Golden Gate Transit as a good commuter bus network for the same reasons as Seattle – there is no rail line that runs across the golden gate, so instead the agency invests in regional buses. But the time difference isn’t everything – the Golden Gate bridge is tolled, and the GGT gets most of its funding from those tolls. If I’m driving a car into SF downtown, I need to budget for tolls and for parking – many people will take the bus if it saves them $20~$30 each round trip.
Reece Martin (RMTransit) talks about running rail and BRT as frequently as possible to leverage the capital investment. Frequency generates ridership, and we would have European-like ridership if we had European-like frequency. Right now people can’t use transit when they want to for trips they want to, so that’s latent demand. Building rail and then not running it frequently is throwing part of your investment away. With Sounder there’s a US-specific problem of freight railroads owning the tracks and charging high fees, not wanting passenger trains, or not wanting to hinder freight thoroughput — that will always hinder passenger service until a new ownership structure and freight capacity emerges — but that doesn’t apply to light rail or BRT. There the problem is the agencies’/governments’/public’s attitudes in not supporting transit like most industrialized countries do.
Everything I’ve read says that best practice is to run the train with good frequency all day, and it is really only in America that intra-city heavy rail networks orient their schedule around commuters rather than all day frequency.
Again, only if you have enough riders. Running a train is more expensive than running a bus. Thus the savings come from the fact that the train can carry a lot more people. But what if it doesn’t? What if a train carries about as many people as a bus could carry? Then you are better off running the bus.
This is more likely to happen in the U. S. because we have sprawling bedroom suburbs. A large percentage of the people who live there commute into the bigger city. But outside of commuting they don’t have that much interest in taking the train. They just drive within their own suburb. In contrast you could easily have the opposite in Europe. The town is fairly self contained. People commute into the big city, but not as many. But the town is essentially built around the main city station so a midday trip is less of a hassle. A high percentage of people can just walk to the station (instead of having to drive or ride an infrequent bus). Thus you have more steady demand.
But the time difference isn’t everything – the Golden Gate bridge is tolled, and the GGT gets most of its funding from those tolls. If I’m driving a car into SF downtown, I need to budget for tolls and for parking – many people will take the bus if it saves them $20~$30 each round trip.
Yes, but my point is that it is crap compared to what ST offers. The fact that more would be inclined to take the bus (for the reasons you mentioned) just shows how bad the disparity is. Funding has a lot to do with it (ST has lots of money, Golden Gate Transit does not).
“Again, only if you have enough riders. Running a train is more expensive than running a bus. Thus the savings come from the fact that the train can carry a lot more people.”
The issue is to make transit convenient for people, not to run the least trains/buses possible to keep them at least 50-75% full. That does a disservice to everyone who wasn’t ready for the previous train/bus and now has to wait 15-30 minutes for the next one, or for people who won’t take it because they won’t put up with that. The way to get people out of their cars or not forego trips is to run frequent transit without artificial policy ceilings.
This already happens for say Chicago metra and lirr commuter rail. Sf Caltrain has the same problem of over capacity leading to few trains running especially off peak.
(The electrification will help but running diesel trains was never a true blocker for trains more frequently than one per hour)
“Running a train is more expensive than running a bus.”
That depends on the type of train. Sounder is much more expensive to run than a bus because it’s a huge train and every run means paying BNSF for the trackage rights. But, I doubt Link costs much more to run than a bus, especially if it’s a short train. In fact, a bus that served all the same stations Link does would likely cost more than Link to run because the bus would take longer to do the run, due to all the stoplights.
I’ve been told some of the European operators can put a regional train (Regiobahn or similar) between two places cheaper than a bus, due to the train and track already being paid for, while a bus will be slowed and sit in traffic the whole distance between the desired points.
I’m talking about the cost per hour. According to this (https://www.liveabout.com/bus-and-light-rail-costs-2798852): As the table below shows, it is much more expensive, on average, to move one light rail vehicle than to move one bus.
In many cases the extra capacity makes up for it. In some cases the railway avoids traffic while a bus encounters it (as Glenn mentioned).
But in much of America neither is enough to make up for the extra operating cost. All of this goes together. In Europe the towns are built around the train stations. Buses feed the center of the town. Trips are much faster by train than by bus. It is basically the opposite in much of North America. Often the area around the train station is not very dense. Sometimes the train station is on the outskirts of the city (like Tacoma Dome Link) and consists largely of a giant parking lot. The buses run infrequently to the station area, but there isn’t much there. The freeway runs right into the center of town (basically unheard of in Europe) often in its own HOV lane. To get decent ridership the same bus that goes to the other town has to go through town (or just accept the fact that it won’t get that many riders).
This explains why so many commuter rail systems in the U. S. are just commuter rail (and not frequent regional rail).
@Glenn in That Other City,
You are correct, not including up front infrastructure costs, it is sometimes cheaper on a per cycle basis to operate a rail vehicle than to operate a bus. But the key metrics are actually cost per passenger, and cost per passenger mile. On the basis of these metrics LR is essentially always cheaper to operate than a bus, and by substantial margins.
Yes, if the economics of a nearly empty LR vehicle are compared to the economics of a full bus, then the bus might come out ahead on a per passenger basis. But such a comparison is nonsensical. The proper comparison is to compare modes operating at similar loadings, which is the way the operators tend to operate them.
But hey, if we compared the economics of a nearly empty bus to that of a full car, then the car would come out way ahead. And clearly that is nonsensical too.
This is why here are transportation professionals in this world.
Are you counting a four-car train as one vehicle or four?
If it’s one, it will be more expensive as the train has track maintenance and replacement to pay for, as well as a bigger vehicle to clean and maintain in good working order. Add to that the signal and monitoring tasks that light rail needs but a bus doesn’t,
If it as four, the driver cost is just 25 percent — and labor costs are the biggest item in operating costs. So rail can hopefully operate cheaper than a bus even with the costs of the trackway et al.
> On the basis of these metrics LR is essentially always cheaper to operate than a bus, and by substantial margins.
That is true when the light rail is actually full. If it is carrying the same number of people or same frequency then it isn’t cheaper to operate.
Aka if you’re running buses 15 minutes per hour and replace it with light rail running 15 minutes per hour it’ll be more expensive. You have to be replacing buses running say every 5 minutes per hour with a light rail running every 10 minutes per hour for it to be cheaper.
Of course there are time savings from the dedicated right of way and increased ridership so it doesn’t always need to be a one to one decrease in frequency but I find it quite odd people always cite the “lower cost” of light rail forgetting it comes from lowering frequency.
“expensive as the train has track maintenance and replacement to pay for, as well as a bigger vehicle to clean and maintain in good working order.”
Buses also cause wear and tear on the streets, which also gets quite expensive.
This might not be charged to the transit agency in the USA, but if you have a semi-private operator such as BVG in Berlin operating the buses maybe this calculation changes?
All I can tell you is that at InnoTrans in 2016, I was told by one of the people working at one of the transit agencies in Europe they could often put an entire train out on a line for a cheaper operating price than they could a bus, but obviously under conditions different than here.
WL has got it. The savings from rail in general come from its greater capacity. If you don’t actually come close to that capacity then it is worse than a bus.
But there are times when running a train — even carrying a bus-load amount of people — is actually cheaper. Glenn gave such an example. It is so much faster to run the train that even if a bus could handle the load, the train is cheaper.
It gets complicated, but in general the key is load. If a train carries more than a bus-load of people, it will likely run often. If it doesn’t — and this happens a lot more than people assume — then it won’t. This explains why some agencies run their trains so rarely. They aren’t being evil. They aren’t being stupid. They know they spent a bundle of capital and are now wasting it by running the trains so rarely. But they don’t have that much cash, and the ridership isn’t that high, so they run the trains infrequently.
It is like buying a minivan as your second car right as your older kids become teenagers. Sure, on those rare occasions when everyone piles into the Caravan it is a great car. But most of the time you just use the Civic (while the older kids do their own thing).
@WL,
“ That is true when the light rail is actually full”
It’s actually true across a wide range of load factors, but it is certainly true when both modes are operating at the same percentage of fullness. Rail is just cheaper. Often on a per trip basis, but certainly on a per passenger or per passenger mile basis.
And rail usually operates fuller than buses anyhow.
The reasons for that are multiple.
First, rail represents a substantial upfront financial investment, so it only gets built along routes where ridership demand is guaranteed to be high.
Buses are the opposite, they represent coverage and often operate on long thin routes that don’t warrent large financial investments, and typically have lower ridership demand.
Additionally, rail tends to generate much more TOD near stations due to its permanence. The end effect being that rail ridership increases more with time.
Look no further than our local transit systems for confirmation of this. Link is essentially fully recovered from COVID-19 and operating near capacity even with 4-car trains (peak). Metro not so much.
And don’t forget productivity. Buses are often stuck in traffic, whereas LR is much faster. Meaning a given LR train can often provide a full round trip in less time than it takes a typical bus to travel the same route in just one direction. That represents a substantial economic advantage.
Buses are subject to more than just traffic lights and congestion. They have to turn and follow the road network, which leads to indirect routing. The 574 has to get off the freeway and turn on local streets to get to Federal Way and Star Lake P&Rs. The 512 has to turn on local streets and loop through Northgate Station, which can take several minutes as I experienced Friday afternoon. Even at Lynnwood TC with direct-access ramps the routing is still indirect.
In contrast, Link just swooshes in, stops on the tracks, and swooshes out. That’s one of the reasons people are demanding Link extensions to their area.
You could have bus lanes in an equivalent alignment to Link, but they’d be wider and larger so they’d have more negative exeternalities. And WSDOT/ST wouldn’t build them anyway; or at least they haven’t so far.
@Mike Orr,
Exactly.
There are a lot of reasons buses underperform when operating on the street grid in an urban environment. That doesn’t mean buses don’t have a key role in cities, but clearly that role is not a substitute for high capacity, higher speed rail, on the main transportation corridors.
Traditionally this region has under invested in high capacity rail transit. That changed with Sound Transit, but it has still been a slow process reversing years of neglect.
But that is changing fast. Five Light Rail openings in two years is unprecedented.
The next two years will be nothing short of transformative regionally.
Rail is just cheaper.
NO! Holy cow, man, how many times must we explain this. Imagine a train carrying 20 people. Now imagine a bus carrying 20 people. Which is cheaper per rider? The bus! This explains why trains in some cities run so infrequently. If your train carries as many people as can fit on a bus then you aren’t going to run the train often. People think there is some anti-rail conspiracy (“Why don’t we run the trains more often?!”) when it is simply low ridership.
Buses are often stuck in traffic, whereas LR is much faster.
Trains are often stuck in traffic. If you build a busway (and we have) then the buses aren’t stuck in traffic. Traffic is independent of mode.
Buses are subject to more than just traffic lights and congestion. They have to turn and follow the road network
Yes, and the trains have to follow the tracks. Why doesn’t Sounder serve Downtown Tacoma? Why doesn’t Link serve First Hill? The tracks don’t go that way. It is the same basic idea. You can build a busway or railway. There is fundamentally no difference when you are done. Costs vary depending on what is there to begin with and where it actually goes.
Again, the main advantage of rail is capacity. Everything else depends on the situation.
@Lazarus
> Often on a per trip basis, but certainly on a per passenger or per passenger mile basis.
Trains have always costed more per vehicle trip/per hour. This is a factual statement you can double check any apta or sound transit’s own financial statements, I have no idea why this even up for debate.
Of course it then becomes a lot more efficient for the latter metrics if the train carries more people than the bus.
Trains also use less energy because they’re in more solid contact with the rails on three sides, don’t need to turn the wheels against momentum to steer, and they can be coupled together longer, and already have electric motors.
@WL,
Wrong. And for a variety of reasons as stated above.
Under some circumstances a train can even be cheaper to run than a bus on a per cycle basis, but that is a silly way to measure the economics as the whole purpose of a train is to move a large number of people in a fast and efficient manner.
But hey, for those people who insist on comparing a nearly empty train to a nearly full bus, I say let’s compare a nearly empty bus to a full car. Compare say a 60 ft Metro artic with 3 passengers to an Uber with 3 passengers. Clearly the Uber is more economically and energy efficient, right? So we should all use Uber instead of Metro? Right?
Clearly the above is false economics, and pretty clearly false economics at that. But the train-bus comparison isn’t even this clear.
A Light Rail train has the same number of operators per as the bus, but requires fewer total operators due to its higher trip speed. Additionally its smoother ride makes rail more energy efficient and results in lower maintenance requirements.
Yes, usually ROW maintenance costs roll up under the rail operator’s budget, whereas with buses these costs usually roll up under some other agency’s budget. But that is not a cost “savings”, it is just budgetary gimmickry. The piper still gets paid.
But it doesn’t even really matter. The true way to measure cost is on a per passenger or per passenger mile. Look up the data. Link comes out way ahead.
And again, Link typically operates at higher passenger loadings than do buses. Look at the published data.
The reasons for this are pretty obvious. Rail is expensive to build, and therefore only gets built where transit demand is high and ridership justifies the investment. That is exactly why we built rail where we did.
But hey. Rail is here to stay. Get used to it. And with 5 Light Rail extensions in the next 2 years, there is no going back now.
Several People: Why don’t they run commuter rail more often?
Several Other People (including me): Because it costs more to run a train than a bus. You only get savings if you have lots of riders (i. e. considerably more than a bus can carry). This explains why some streetcars, commuter trains, and even some metro systems have infrequent service at certain times.
Lazarus: ” that is a silly way to measure the economics”
No, it is not a silly way to measure the economics because it was the whole point of the discussion. We wanted to explain why some trains run infrequently.
Lazarus: “as the whole purpose of a train is to move a large number of people in a fast and efficient manner”
Right, and when they don’t, you run the train less often. This happens way more often than you might assume. Not every train carries a lot of riders. Our streetcar, for example, does not. It holds about as many riders as a bus, and is not especially crowded. This explains why they run it every 12 minutes (at best) while some buses run every 7.5 minutes throughout the day.
The same sort of dynamic can occur with larger vehicles, simply because it is usually considerably more expensive to operate them. Check the numbers if you doubt that. Thus even if we owned the lines for Sounder we might very well decide that it just isn’t worth the cost to run the trains every 15 minutes (while we run buses every 15 minutes to Tacoma).
Lazarus, it’s one thing to be a cheerleader, but it’s another to be obstinate. WL is not wrong; a train is fundamentally more expensive to operate than a bus.
Look at ST’s 2022 report to the Federal Transit Administration: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/transit_agency_profile_doc/2022/00040.pdf
Operating Expenditure per Vehicle Revenue Mile (OE per VRM):
Commuter Rail: $34.91
Light Rail: $24.54
Commuter Bus: $14.28
Street Car Rail: $130.92
Operating Expenditure per Vehicle Revenue Hour (OE per VRH):
Commuter Rail: $1,089.03
Light Rail: $492.41
Commuter Bus: $273.74
Street Car Rail: $1,008.22
The average Link train needs to carry about twice as many passengers as a commuter bus to break even on operating cost per rider. Fortunately, Link generally carries about 4 times as many riders as the commuter buses, so the operating cost per passenger trip is lower. So, you are correct that generally, Link’s costs are spread amongst more riders, so the per-passenger cost is generally lower.
>Rail is here to stay. Get used to it. And with 5 Light Rail extensions in the next 2 years, there is no going back now.
Who is saying that Link isn’t here to stay? Who are you saying should “get used to” rail being here?
> But hey. Rail is here to stay. Get used to it. And with 5 Light Rail extensions in the next 2 years, there is no going back now.
Link light rail is good for seattle. Making up falsehoods that light rail is cheaper operationally per vehicle versus buses is bad and misleading.
The reason why this is important to clarify is that thinking the above is true leads one erroneously to believe replacing a bus with a light rail means more frequent service due to operational cost savings (per vehicle); That has never been true. light rail can be more frequent than a single bus route with the reliability of having dedicated right of way, just spending more money in general, and consolidating multiple bus routes into one light rail line (aka 71/72/73).
This gets even more important when we’re talking about farther out bus express bus lines with a lot less passengers. It is highly unlikely the tacoma/everett segments will be filled with passengers and will probably just cost a lot more passenger trip compared to buses not less.
> It is highly unlikely the tacoma/everett segments will be filled with passengers *
to anywhere near their capacity
@Nathan,
Thanks, you make my point for me.
If operating LR costs only about 70% more than a given bus, but carries 300% more passengers, then of course rail is cheaper on a per passenger, or per passenger mile basis. It’s just math.
But I would caution anyone from making generalized conclusions by comparing Link to ST commuter buses. Commuter buses are a bit of a unique subset of bus transit, and ST transit commuter bus operations aren’t necessarily indicative of typical bus operations.
But hey, this whole “it’s cheaper to operate a bus than a train” argument is pointless. It is obviously cheaper to operate a car than to operate a bus. Does that mean we should all switch to 100% cars?
This region has traditionally underinvested in rail. That is why we have been so far behind in transit. That is changing now, and change is always hard. Particularly for people who are invested in the “old ways”.
But we need to move beyond that, and we are moving beyond that. That is a good thing. Five LR openings in approx 2 years is going to completely transform regional transit. There is no going back. And nobody will want to,
… Lazarus we already knew that we are talking about in the context about against express bus frequency. That was the original point of Mikes comment
“Rail is expensive to build, and therefore only gets built where transit demand is high and ridership justifies the investment. That is exactly why we built rail where we did.”
Except that the problem in the US is rail doesn’t get built where it is justified because the thresholds are unrealistically high. Bus frequency is the same way: implementation lags far behind need, and many people argue for a level that isn’t enough for normal people to live without a car, or they think that people only commute to work and don’t make any other trip.
@Mike Orr,
“ Except that the problem in the US is rail doesn’t get built where it is justified because the thresholds are unrealistically high”
The solution to that is to lower the thresholds so more rail gets built. That would certainly improve things, but it really gets tied up in funding and our cumbersome funding mechanisms for infrastructure development.
But ST has done a good job so far of tying together the larger transit demand neighborhoods/business districts to insure that the LR system we have built will be successful. And it is.
Even for those that never visit the Eastside, having a train running every 5 minutes all day long between downtown and Lynnwood will be very nice. This is starting to approach New York Subway level of frequency.
To be clear. LLE will run at 8-min peak until such time as the full ELE opens across the lake.
When the full ELE opens the line from IDS to LTC will see 4-min frequency (interlined), while the line to Bellevue etc and Angle Lake will remain at 8-min frequency.
Around here even 8-min frequency is pretty darn good, but having 4-min frequency in the urban core is totally unheard of.
It’s going to be awesome. It’s almost like we are becoming a real city.
Yeah, it will be the best frequency through downtown since the bus tunnel. Except unlike the tunnel there will be a lot of trips that will be a lot more frequent (not just the ones within downtown).
Yes!!! I’ve noticed this all along, that world-class subways run every 2-5 minutes, and that’s when you get the most transformation in ridership and public and government attitudes toward transit. Pugetopolis has never had that before, but it finally will in the CID-Lynnwood axis.
It’s the kind of transformation we saw when Capitol Hill station opened. It immediately shot up to one of the top two stations (vying with Westlake), and every midday afternoon you see dozens of people getting on and off every train — like in New York or London or Toronto.
So far it’s only one station and partially a few others, but that’s a start, and a bigger start than we’ve ever had before. There’s still potential for this level of ridership to increase and expand to other stations. If ST keeps the frequency up, the bus feeders and walkability are at least somewhat good and incrementally improving after the initial restructures, and the cities are at least moderately successful in upzoning station areas like Roosevelt got (to cite a middling example).
My anecdotal experience is that Capitol Hill Station has reached at least the lowest level of European ridership. U-District and Roosevelt are a little lower, and sometimes dip down to 5 people per afternoon run. Westlake has wider extremes: the most peak hours, but down to Roosevelt levels off-peak. UW I’m not sure about: there’s less all-day activity than I’d expected, but overall it’s probably like U-District or a little behind. The other downtown stations are like Roosevelt. The Rainier/Beacon stations are lower, with 1-5 people per most off-peak runs. TIB and further south I don’t visit often enough to say. But must southbound runs in Rainier Valley have at least a few people per car with airport-style suitcases. Northgate, my experience is between Roosevelt and Capitol Hill, but ST says it’s the highest-use station now, and my friend in north Lynnwood who uses it regularly says it’s busier than I think.
So a reasonable goal would be to get the CID to Roosevelt stations up to the ridership of Capitol Hill; then we’d have a large European-looking segment. Beacon/Rainier could aspire to a lower level, especially as they’re not expected to get 5-minute all-day service until 2038 if ST’s maximum scenario opens on time. (And let’s not forget the the then-bad transfers to northeast Seattle, which will dampen some ridership.) I don’t have as much of a feel exactly where Bellevue Downtown and Lynnwood will fall in midday ridership.
Some of you may get a kick out of this YouTube channel called Highway Videos. WSDOT drove around various regional roads and freeways decades ago and filmed it. Many seem to be from the 1980’s. I like this one from 1983 when they drove east on 520 from Seattle to Redmond. 51st street was actually a signaled intersection cars on 520 had to stop at! A bit after that you can see the golf course in Redmond where today the Redmond Town Center is. @14:45
https://youtu.be/rUNzGAvQUNs?si=QdTrskYK07kmAJFk
What an awesome trip down memory lane. I grew up in Bellevue and took many trips around the eastside playing soccer. This video and companion videos (SR-202, SR-908, I-90) really took me back.
Thanks for the link!
I have seen some of those. I love that stuff. I think there is one on 522/Lake City in Seattle near where I live. It is a little disappointing that some of it has not changed in about 40-50 years. It is almost as if the Lake City corridor is the last to rezone in the city.
With Lake City a lot of it has to do with the Pierre family. They own just about all of the car lots in the area. There has been talk of them selling the land, but they continue to hold onto it. It is zoned for taller buildings, but if they don’t sell, nothing happens.
i mean at the same time, there’s nothing stopping seattle from upzoning one block deeper rather than basically only upzoning Pierre’s land https://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Research/gis/webplots/k227E.pdf
No Bellevue skyline at all and the cars are much more reasonably sized!
Does anyone know, have they been doing testing/simulated service from Northgate to Lynnwood?
I just realized they couldn’t go all the way to Northgate station itself, but are they at least doing testing with trains on a portion of the LLE?
The reductions since Saturday are supposed to be for Lynnwood Link testing logistics. On Sunday I didn’t see any trains north of Northgate, and at Northgate they were laying over at both platforms as usual. Since the reduction starts at 8pm, maybe they’re testing in the evening?
@Sam,
Yes, they are doing at least some simulated service testing right now, which means they are past the verification phase.
I’ve seen at least two LRV’s operating on LLE. Both were running as one car trains, operating at reduced speeds, and operating mid-day. And one was operating SB on the NB tracks.
However, one of the local papers was reporting today that ST is now conducting full speed tests on LLE. This is very good news as it indicates that ST is in fact starting simulated service testing.
So progress is being made. Lots of good news today.
@Sam,
The Everett Herald updated their story and indicate that “pre revenue service testing” will begin April 15th, and that is when we should see more trains on the line.
Right now the article is under the same link as before, but you can almost feel how excited people in SnoCo are to finally get a direct connection to the Link system.
So the testing department can walk on the eastside and chew gum on the north end at the same time. If they have confidence this is not stretching them into increasing safety risks, great! If they feel they are being pressured Boeing-style into rushing, I hope someone speaks up, knowing there is no incentive for ST to silence them, and we will have their back.
Once the trains start continuing north of Northgate, I suppose there will be need of dedicated eviction personnel to clear the sleepers off all four LRVs in under a minute. Has this been a problem for any previous extensions?
I have not seen any trains running on the new track. That is pretty strange. I am assuming ST has done some testing. Publicly announcing a start date for ST is pretty bold. They are under a public microscope. I would hope that if they say it, they can do it.
@Jimmy James,
I have seen 3 trains on LLE.
One was a dead tow, clearly working to verify the static and dynamic envelops.
The other two trains were operating under their own power, but at reduced speed. However, the Seattle Times is now reporting that ST is operating LRV’s at full speed on LLE.
We should see more consistent activity after April 15th.
So progress. Lots of progress.
Simon Andersen of Intercity Simon did a review of the Copenhagen 5C CityLine BRT
https://youtu.be/xKQ6iXK7X4s?si=Jbl3IpQge-tEHmcg
it fairly sarcastic tone, but does speak to how even places like Denmark can be imperfect to building good BRT and susceptible to bad BRT Creep like other places. I’ve ridden that route before when in Copenhagen and can agree with a lot of the issues and complaints in the video. It’s definitely better than a lot of US BRT routes, but can see why to a Dane this would be seen as not firing on all cylinders as it should be.
CT and Metro will, thankfully, delay their Lynnwood Link restructure by 2 weeks. This gives riders a chance to test out Link and get accustomed to it.
https://www.soundtransit.org/blog/platform/looking-forward-to-lynnwood-whats-next-1-line-extension (cited in second section of the text)
Also, Lynnwood Link opening on a Friday? I hope it will be midday like the inauguration and UW section opened, with festivities and ceremonies.
All the openings so far have been on Saturdays.
CT and Metro usually have service changes mid-March and mid-September, so this isn’t really a delay in service changes, but more giving the 1 Line extension a couple weeks’ head start. It will give ST a chance to get a more precise estimate of ridership demand the 1 Line service plan will need to prepare for after the first two weeks. Smart move.
@Brent White,
“ It will give ST a chance to get a more precise estimate of ridership demand ”
Ah, no. The two week delay in implementing the CT and Metro restructures has nothing to do with gauging “demand”. It’s about achieving a smooth transition.
ST knows that 1-Link will be operating at/near total capacity as soon as it opens. As such, there won’t be a lot of extra bandwidth to handle large numbers of confused or disoriented riders. Having ST go first is simply an attempt to smooth the transition to Link by not having the confusion of all the system changes compound each other..
There is a whole sub-field in engineering on how to achieve change. I never studied it in detail, but it all seemed to come down to something along the lines of “one step at a time”.
That is what is occurring here. “One step at a time”. And it doesn’t hurt that it gives ST an extra 2 week pad, just in case.
@ Brent…Indeed, the openings have been on Saturdays. But ST states Friday, Aug 30. CT and MT were supposed to begin their service changes on Aug 31st. When Northgate extension opened, everything switched over at the start of service early Saturday morning – as if it was no big deal the 41 was being replaced by a train or the 512 being cut in half. I’m glad this time there’s some overlap to allow a transition period.
@Jordan,
Yep, it makes a lot more sense to spread out the confusion as opposed to having it all happen on the same day at the same time. I never understood why Metro did that with the Northgate Link restructure, but this makes more sense.
As to why ST picked a Friday for start of service, I’m not really sure. The only thing I can think of is that they are trying to spread out the looky loo’s a bit.
The excitement about LLE opening is palatable in SnoCo and Shoreline. It’s really hard to comprehend unless you know people up there. Having the open on a Friday, but the public ceremonies on a Saturday *might* help with the crush load of looky loo’s a bit.
Having Link arrive with 8-min frequencies will be transformative for SnoCo residents. I know it will be for my in-laws in Shoreline.
It will give ST a chance to get a more precise estimate of ridership demand the 1 Line service plan will need to prepare for after the first two weeks.
I don’t see how it would do that, given that demand is at least in part dependent on the buses. Riders who switch from driving may do so only when the buses run more often to the station. It could give an idea of preference (express bus versus Link) but even then it is largely irrelevant, as the express buses will be eliminated soon after (with the exception of the 510). I suppose CT could continue to run express buses if the trains are mobbed and people complain, but my guess is they won’t.
It was ST that set Link’s date after the other agencies had set their semi-annual bus service change date. It traditionally happens in September but in some recent years it has drifted into October. In any case, it’s around then. ST clearly wants to get Lynnwood Link started as soon as it can, even if it’s before the bus restructures.
The result will be like the 2 Line Starter Line, where the East Link bus restructure is postoned to a later phase. Buses won’t initially connect to Link any better than the do now, but the flip side is they won’t be any worse. If they pass 5 minutes away from a future Link station now, they’ll pass 5 minutes away initially, and you know where they are and when they run, so you can just use them then if feasible. Or take the parallel routes that will still be running.
This will also allow ST to see how much crowding on Lynnwood Link occurs before taking away the bus alternatives. If crowding occurs anyway, ST will have a bigger problem than it expected, and then it may have to look at things like Ross’s suggestion to keep a 415 or 513 equivalent to siphon off riders from other Snohomish P&Rs. Or if no crowding occurs and there’s still room to accommodate all the current express-bus riders and more, then truncate away and cancel the 515.
@Mike Orr,
If crowding occurs, running more buses won’t solve the problem. Peak crowding will occur between CHS and UWS, and none of these buses are going to help anyone left at the platform at CHS (NB PM peak).
They will just wait for the next train and hope they can get on. Train loading is often uneven so it’s not a bad bet. And ST apparently is going to run gap trains to handle any crowding that does occur.
And nobody is going to give up a spot on Link at WLS just in case crowding occurs down the line at CHS. People just want to get where they are going in the fastest, most efficient way possible. They will get on Link if they can find a spot.
A bus on I-5 won’t compete with a spot on Link. We knew that regionally in the early 90’s. It is the reason why we created ST and now have Link.
Peak crowding will occur between CHS and UWS, and none of these buses are going to help anyone left at the platform at CHS (NB PM peak).
They will if people actually ride them. I’ve explained this before. I’m not sure you get this. The folks who are left at a platform are being left there because of everyone who is on the train as well as folks trying to get on. This includes people trying to go from Downtown to Lynnwood. Or Downtown to Northgate. Or Beacon Hill to Roosevelt. Everyrider on the train taking a trip through the area (not just the ones that board at those stations).
Now if you want to argue that the bus that ST came up with is a terrible bus, then join the club. As many have mentioned it is probably not the most cost effective approach. An express serving SR 522 corridor would be much better. Even for Lynnwood it is really bad, as the 413/415 (serving Swamp Creek) is much better. But you don’t have to actually serve Capitol Hill or UW — you can serve the people that ride the train through that section.
This will also allow ST to see how much crowding on Lynnwood Link occurs before taking away the bus alternatives. If crowding occurs anyway, ST will have a bigger problem than it expected, and then it may have to look at things like Ross’s suggestion to keep a 415 or 513 equivalent to siphon off riders from other Snohomish P&Rs. Or if no crowding occurs and there’s still room to accommodate all the current express-bus riders and more, then truncate away and cancel the 515.
I suppose, but the two scenarios seem unlikely. I don’t see them getting rid of the 515 before they even offer it. The other scenario (way more crowding than expected) is possible, but two weeks is not a lot of time to figure out a plan. Where do you get the drivers? Which buses (the ones with ST livery or the CT ones)? Are they dead-heading back, or finding layover downtown?
Two weeks is also a really small sample set. Most of the folks “checking out” the light rail will travel outside of peak. But I could definitely see people who work mostly from home deciding to work at the office that week (to check it out).
I guess it does give them time to sound an alarm, even if they don’t make any changes. That could be enough. That would be like “Carmageddon”. Everybody hears about it and changes their behavior accordingly (and there is no problem after all). So in this scenario ST looks at Link ridership and the people who are still taking the express buses and pulls the alarm (by notifying the press). They emphasize the importance of their solution (the feeble 515). But since everyone got the memo (it is going to be crowded on the trains) they adjust their schedule a bit (just like they would for driving). Not everyone can do that of course, but enough so that it isn’t that crowded.
Personally I don’t think it will be that crowded. I think peak ridership is just much lower than it used to be. I think they are basically just offering the 515 as a cosmetic solution. A “just in case” that won’t work very well but doesn’t matter since it isn’t really needed. Like a sprinkler system for an igloo (in case it catches fire). That would explain why it is so poorly designed (in terms of alleviating crowding). ST feels like it is unnecessary, but to adhere to promises they made to Snohomish County they will run a few buses anyway.
I note with some satisfaction that both “BLE” and “WSLE” are omitted from this prognostication. Is the sickening reality that North King doesn’t have the money for both of them casting a pall over the festivities west of The Lake?
The Federal Transit Administration is almost certainly “messaging” that there’s no “There” in West Seattle, at least not unless the neighborhood goes Full U-District throughout the rectangle between California and Edmunds and 35th and Dakota.
The DSA is running as fast and hard as it can away from DSTT2, while Hizzoner and The Chairman plan the best way for taxpayers throughout the ST Taxing District to make their contributions to Downtown Seattle Betterment.
The truth is, the only part of ST3 as planned in Seattle that ought to be on that timetable [railroad pun…] is “BLE” from Westlake Center to Wherever The Board Decides To Put The Terminal Station.
In a normal process, a transit board would have already planned three lines into the DSTT and planned an upgrade for more automation to ensure a higher frequency (like 2.5 minutes peak and 3 to 4 midday) — then plan Ballard as a stub to Westlake as you and many others like me suggest. It’s more likely affordable with no disruption south of Westlake in Downtown (and smaller station vaults from Westlake northward), and the stub could be automated so that frequencies could easily be every 3-5 minutes. I mean it’s just so obvious to many of us!
But this is ST. It’s the land where a few people first draw a line on a map in a rush (DSTT2 in 2016), ignore its ridiculously low cost estimates even then, ignore the station construction issues in a dense greater Downtown, try to “solve” other needs with transit (County building), come up with developer-fed backroom plan changes (campaign donations?) — all the while refusing any serious rider input or concerns (even in public meetings) and acting like it’s all affordable (the failed “realignment”). We live with the ST Twilight Zone. Riders must follow the Board wishes and blindly accept them as a slave to a Master.
And directly related to this opening day topic is the lack of funding which will delay projects already by 5 years and likely many more until the funding rolls in. Those opening dates beyond 2028 have been set based on tax revenues and fare collection revenues. Anything beyond 2030 that can’t “borrow” (wink) from other projects (wink at West Seattle) is surely delayed at least 5 if not 10 years (Tacoma Dome Link set at 2035 or 5 years late already).
My expectation is West Seattle won’t fully open until 2037 (this last mile tunnel and end station will be time consuming and costly to build). I don’t see Ballard Link with DSTT2 as currently planned until 2045 or 2050 unless billions rain from the sky. I don’t see a full Everett Link until 2045 either — yet people won’t care as buses will connect Everett to Lynnwood Link (or maybe Mariner Station) so much faster than the planned Industrial Center deviation.
I agree, Al. It is a sad state of affairs.
I didn’t think about Ballard and West Seattle when I was writing the timeline, as it was mostly ST2 plus the extensions. I tend to think of BLE/WSLE separately from the Snohomish/Pierce extensions. When I remembered them, I decided they’re in so much flux and uncertainty it wasn’t worth making a special effort to add them.
I personally have doubts about whether DSTT2/Ballard can be finished as planned, and whether anybody will use the interim West Seattle stub. I’m ultra-concerned about the ultra-bad transfers and split spine in the current preferred Ballard alternative, to the point that it wouldn’t bother me much if they weren’t built.
Everett and Tacoma are more straightforward: the alignment is pretty fixed, and they will be built if finances allow, and I care less about those alignments. My prediction is Tacoma will be finished on time because it’s relatively inexpensive and Pierce has been saving since ST1 for it. Everett may have to be postponed/downscaled further because it’s a longer distance (Lynnwood-Everett is as long as Westlake-Lynnwood) and Snohomish is right at its budget limit.
“The DSA is running as fast and hard as it can away from DSTT2”
It is? Do you have links for that? Some CID activists are advocating against the CID/N and CID/S station alternatives (in favor of 4th Avenue Shallow), but I haven’t heard the Downtown Seattle Association speaking against them or DSTT2. I’d assume DSTT2 is being built partly for the DSA, since it would presumably be interested in capacity and bringing commuters/shoppers to downtown and sensitive to overcrowding concerns.
Actions speak louder than words. Every change to WSBLE in the downtown core area has been to bury it deeper, and site it farther from the “important parts” of downtown and SLU. That would only be true if “The Stakeholders” were demanding it, and the DSA has lots of tent pegs in inventory.
Follow the money.
Once the line is mined instead of cut-and-cover, it doesn’t matter how deep it is, it doesn’t affect the businesses on the surface. So the DSA has no incentive to push it deeper. It has an anti-incentive, because deeper means it’s harder for workers and customers to get to their businesses, so they may go to other businesses outside downtown instead.
@Mike Orr,
You are correct. Mining tunnels using TBM’s allows the light rail system to operate at any depth, which essentially allows the sytem to be designed in three dimensions instead of constrained to only two dimensions as defined by the local surface topography.
The other advantage of mining tunnels using TBM’s instead of using cut-and-cover is this the tunnels built using TBM’s aren’t constrained to follow the street grid. For example, it would be practically impossible to build the tunnels we have today between DT and Northgate using cut-and-cover. The system would have to be redesigned to follow the street grid, and that would lead to higher costs and a substantial loss of utility.
> Once the line is mined instead of cut-and-cover, it doesn’t matter how deep it is, it doesn’t affect the businesses on the surface. So the DSA has no incentive to push it deeper. It has an anti-incentive, because deeper means it’s harder for workers and customers to get to their businesses, so they may go to other businesses outside downtown instead.
Just to clarify a bit most of stations are still cut-and-cover even if the tunnel uses TBM. It’ll still involve street closures. This is why for example westlake was proposed to be closed for 4 years.
The merchants could still demand even deeper mined stations built not on the road at higher cost to avoid street closures.
“The merchants could still demand even deeper mined stations built not on the road at higher cost to avoid street closures.”
The merchants should look at our single-tunnel alternative then. If some large business leaders came out for it, that would have clout with the ST board.
In the ST January Progress Report, NE 130th or Haller Lake could be added to the summary as June 2026.
That report also has West Seattle Link opening on Dec 31, 2032, and Ballard Link opening on Dec 31, 2039. I think it’s safe to say each will be later than that. There are many hurdles ahead.
I think it’s generally very speculative to give any opening date that hasn’t been fully funded and designed. ST is two years late on Hilltop and the East Link across Lake Washington and those were under construction before these long delays were announced. Even the upcoming ELSL is about nine months late.
Passed on the opening date for LLE to the sister-in-law and family. They are very excited.
They don’t drive, but bought a townhouse near the 185th St Station in anticipation of having Link nearby. They have been making do with the infrequent 348/7 and a transfer to Link at Northgate, but often found themselves just skipping the bus leg and taking an Uber instead.
For them having LLE open is a complete game changer. And the addition of Swift Blue at 185th is a huge bonus as they will get a non-stop, direct ride to Costco. And this all means less driving for me too!
On the flip side, I was talking to a lady who is moving out of her apartment because of the cancelation of the 20. Her, and her roommate, depend on the 20 and don’t have a good substitute. So they are simply going to move.
I guess you win some, and you lose some.
When posters say things like changing bus route structures, they can overlook that thousands of people make housing choices and job choices based on those routes. Thanks for the example!
Of course, rail is less susceptible to changing . The main risk is to service frequency and even then it will be good on Link. That is why station positioning and layout is so much more important to thoroughly critique than a bus stop is. It’s a minor effort to move a stop (even RapidRide), but moving a Link platform is almost impossible and it’s always expensive. Riders on the East Coast systems still suffer from design mistakes over 100 years ago. Thats why LLE riders will notice the missing escalators very quickly. That’s also why we must really scrutinize the ST3 Link projects so closely as they are being planned right now! #RethinkSODOStation
@Al S,
Ya, and not only is she moving because of the deletion of the 20, but she is taking her plants with her! This won’t be easy.
And her landlord will have to find a new tenant too. I suspect that will be easy, but turnover is never cheap. So this has a business impact too.
That said, the ephemeral nature of bus stops is one of the reasons bus routes don’t generate much TOD. No good businessperson would make a 50 year investment based on the proximity of something that might be gone tomorrow. At least with rail you know it will always be there.
And, if you want to see LR TOD in action, wander around the 148th and 185th St Stations. There is a lot of development going in along LLE! And it will generate more ridership — ST had better get full ELE open soon.
Um, the development around Link stations, while certainly to be celebrated, is mostly the result that it is the only place it is allowed without “variances” and NIMBY obstructionism.
There really is no TOD in Seattle. It is “ZOD” for Zoning Oriented Development. Basically anywhere the city allows new housing, new housing is built. Most of these places have good transit, but with the exception of downtown there is very little correspondence between growth and transit quality. For example if they allowed six story buildings in west Magnolia they would start popping up very soon, despite the poor transit (by Seattle’s standards).
“Thats why LLE riders will notice the missing escalators very quickly.”
My friend in north Lynnwood will notice them when she transfers 2-3 times a week to Seattle. She can walk down them, while I would now find it difficult and would use the elevator.
@Lazarus …Ah yes, that’s the downside of service changes. However, I’d say in this case: “you win a lot and lose a little”, given the low ridership south of Northgate. Now if we can just apply the same philosophy to other underperforming routes…
I used to live along 185th. I’m curious: Swift is planning to terminate there. I wonder how much bus layover space is at 185th and if it can accommodate other buses, such as the E-line..
@Jordan,
I know the 185th St Station has some layover space, but I’m not sure if it is adequate to add more routes. But there are probably other layover options besides laying over in the exact station footprint.
But you raise an interesting point, the extension of Swift Blue to 185th St Station is a big win for SnoCo residents. Why doesn’t Metro steal a page from the CT playbook and simply extend the north end of RR E to also terminate at/near 185th St Station?
Because it is obvious that a lot of transit riders on the northern end of Aurora would benefit from a better connection to Link.
Kcm is currently planning on extending the rapidride e to mountlake terrace station I can find the document if you’re interested
WL: an extension of the E Line to Mountlake Terrace is a weak concept that will die of its own fiscal weight.
It wouldn’t make sense for the E to be extended to 185th Station. That would leave a gap in Shoreline with no bus service (since Swift won’t be covering it). It would make the awkward transfer from Swift to RapidRide even worse. The dynamics are all wrong.
Extending the RapidRide E to Mountlake Terrace would make geographically. From from Snohomish County could more easily get to the north end of Aurora. However, I’m not sure if that many riders from Snohomish County are heading to that stretch of Aurora. There aren’t any big destinations along there. It wouldn’t be cheap, either. Even if you don’t pick up anyone it takes a while to get to Mountlake Terrace (especially if there is traffic).
The biggest weakness in the area is the Swift routing. You would get quite a lot of benefit by having it follow Aurora and then stop at 200th and 192nd (if not 185th as well). The cost would be minimal (a few extra stops) and the ridership gain would likely greatly exceed an extension of the E. You would not only add a fast direct connection for those around 192nd to Link, but you would make it easier to transfer from Swift to RapidRide (for trips along the same corridor).
Found it. There’s two documents I bookmarked about the rapidride E extension.
## King county metro
as part of the Interim Network RapidRide Candidates has the projected labeled as “E Line extension to Mountlake Terrace TC” 3.2 miles
It would after reaching aurora village transit center, go east across N 205th St the head north up 56th ave NW.
https://aqua.kingcounty.gov/council/agendas/RTC/20240221-RTC-packet.pdf
## Seattle
on the other hand actually did note in the recent aurora avenue survey’s asking whether to route it to “Shoreline” (it did not denote whether 185th or 140th but I think it’s kind of assumed to be 185th) Asking survey members notably Exhibit 28 – Likelihood of Using E Line if it Connected to Future Link Light Rail Stations:
* Connected to Shoreline
* Connected to Mountlake Terrace
* Connected to Both
* Connected to neither
The survey does not outline how exactly what route the bus would take to reach shoreline nor how it would work to reach both.
Survey: https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/SDOT/Projects/Aurora%20Ave%20Project/23_0510_Aurora_Flash_Survey_v2.pdf
Survey results: https://www.seattle.gov/documents/departments/sdot/projects/aurora%20ave%20project/09_06_2023_auroraaven_workshopsreport_final.pdf#page=40
@WL,
Ya, I know they looked at extending the E to MTS, but my understanding is that it just didn’t pencil out. You’d have to run RapidRide on the street grid east of the Link alignment, and in SnoCo. And there are already buses from KC that do that (briefly). And there is no “Rapid” when you run on those streets.
It would make far more sense to run RR E to 185th St Station and actually provide service to KC residents, who, you know, provide the subsidy for Metro riders.
But what can you say? At least we are only talking about buses here, and Metro can always change course latter and get it right by doing what CT is already doing with Swift Blue.
> Ya, I know they looked at extending the E to MTS, but my understanding is that it just didn’t pencil out.
I haven’t heard or read anything about the mountlake terrace extension not penciling out?
> It would make far more sense to run RR E to 185th St Station and actually provide service to KC residents, who, you know, provide the subsidy for Metro riders.
Shrug the swift blue extends into KC area as well.
I’m pretty ambivalent either way. I guess more complicated the exact alignment the rapidride E would take aka would it still go through aurora village etc…
@WL,
Yes, Swift Blue does extend into KC, but it will only make two stops: one at AVTC (which it already makes), and one at 185th St Station (which is a high priority for SnoCo residents using the Blue and wishing to transfer to Link).
It would make far more sense to run RR E to 185th St Station and actually provide service to KC residents, who, you know, provide the subsidy for Metro riders.
No. The geography is all wrong. A bus from Downtown Seattle would go all the way up to Aurora Village and then turn around and go south to 185th. No matter the Link destination this would mean backtracking. Just to back up here, these are the potential combinations of RapidRide E extended to Link:
1) Snohomish County to the north end of Aurora. This works, but leaving from Mountlake Terrace would be quicker.
2) Seattle to north end of Aurora. This works, but as you get farther south it becomes less and less valuable (too much backtracking). It works for Aurora Village, but Swift does that. It works for 185th but the 348 does that. Swift could serve 192nd at minimal cost. 155th and 160th are better served by a bus that goes east-west from 148th. That really only leaves a handful of stops and at that point and it just isn’t worth it.
I think the only reason you would send it to 185th instead of Mountlake Terrace is because of traffic between Aurora Village and the station. It may be easier to serve 185th despite the backtracking. Regardless, I don’t think it adds up to that many riders.
The best value by far is for Swift to just run down Aurora, and stop a few times. By stopping at 200th you make the transfer between RapidRide and Swift much better. By stopping at 192nd you pick up a lot more riders. There would be no backtracking. Metro could chip in (likely for the bus stops) but in terms of service-cost it is quite likely that Community Transit would come out ahead. 192nd has enough riders that it could probably pay for the minimal amount of time it takes to actually stop and serve them.
In contrast, extending the E to any station would likely require a significant subsidy as there probably aren’t that many people in those two categories I listed up above.
Yes, Swift Blue does extend into KC, but it will only make two stops: one at AVTC (which it already makes), and one at 185th St Station (which is a high priority for SnoCo residents using the Blue and wishing to transfer to Link).
Yes, which is the problem. If nothing else it should stop at 192nd. 185th is at least covered by the 348.
Swift isn’t the only flaw in the network though. The 333 will cross on 175th, but not serve 185th. The solid 155th/160th trip taken by the 330 is basically ignored (even though it would greatly speed up trips between Shoreline College and Link). Still, even with all of the flaws there will be quite a few crossing buses, serving Aurora Village, 185th, 155th, 145th and 130th (when Link gets there).
Metro can always change course latter and get it right by doing what CT is already doing with Swift Blue.
CT is “doing it right” even though you pointed out how they weren’t doing it right. Seriously, doing it right would mean going along Aurora and adding a few bus stops. CT failed miserably with this extension, but since they aren’t Metro, they get a free pass.
There is nothing that Metro could do that is equivalent because the dynamics aren’t equivalent. Swift Blue will connect the riders in Snohomish County to all the destinations in Seattle that Link serves. In contrast, an extension would connect riders from the north end of King County to Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace and maybe 185th Station. None of these are significant destinations. They have a few apartments. They are certainly transit hubs. They have gigantic places to park your car, but they aren’t destinations like Northgate or Capitol Hill, let alone the UW or Downtown. If anything, the places that Swift Blue serves are more of a destination (because of the hospital and college). The dynamic is just very different.
You can see this in the ridership reports. For example the 512 used to carry about 4,500 riders. About 150 took trips within Snohomish County. That’s it. Almost every trip involves Seattle. The reverse-peak ridership was nonexistent (the northbound buses had the highest ridership right before the peak express buses kicked in). Anyone from anywhere in the country is familiar with this pattern and can guess what is going on. The two big destinations (the UW and downtown) are in Seattle, and every stop to the north is a suburb.
As a result, you just can’t expect any extension of the RapidRide E to get that many riders. In contrast, you can expect Swift Blue to see a nice bump in ridership. It is worth noting that the RapidRide E also carries about twice as many riders as both Swift buses combined. Thus it is quite likely that the extension yields more riders per service hour for Swift, whereas an extension of RapidRide E would be the opposite.
@Lazarus
> Yes, Swift Blue does extend into KC, but it will only make two stops: one at AVTC (which it already makes), and one at 185th St Station (which is a high priority for SnoCo residents using the Blue and wishing to transfer to Link).
This really isn’t that big a deal. The transit agencies all have routes that enter each others areas for a couple miles. Or worse case they just transfer a small amount of money. Rapidride E would only enter snohomish county for 1 mile.
@Ross
> I think the only reason you would send it to 185th instead of Mountlake Terrace is because of traffic between Aurora Village and the station. It may be easier to serve 185th despite the backtracking. Regardless, I don’t think it adds up to that many riders.
I will note, one thing in favor of a shoreline north routing is that most people in the survey did favor Shoreline north over mountlake terrace by a 5 to 1 ratio. Granted this is kind of a biased survey since most people were probably in shoreline/seattle and not in mountlake terrace but still.
“extending the E to any station would likely require a significant subsidy”
It’s only a short distance, not much more than going to a layover place.
@WL,
“ one thing in favor of a shoreline north routing is that most people in the survey did favor Shoreline north over mountlake terrace by a 5 to 1 ratio”
There are several reasons for this, and none of them are because the poll was biased or people are stupid. Quite the contrary actually.
In particular, when going from AVTC to Link the route to 185th St Station is much faster and more direct than the route to MTS. This is actually true in both directions of travel, but it is particularly true when going from AVTC to Link at MTS.
Getting to MTS from AVTC requires a bus to go EB past I-5 all the way to 56th Ave, then to head north on the street grid using 56th, and then to head back WB on 236th St just to get back to the station. This is a fairly large waste of time.
The other issue in favor of intercepting Link at 185th instead of MTS is where people are heading.
Most people transferring to Link at these two stations will be heading south on Link, and it simply makes no sense at all to make people travel longer to intercept the northern station just so they can reverse direction and go back south to 185th St Station.
It’s much more efficient to simply avoid the extra time and all the backtracking by making the intercept point at 185th St Station. It’s a better connection to AVTC anyhow, and it avoids making the riders go north just to waste time going back south again.
It should also be noted that CT also had a choice of running Swift Blue from AVTC to either MTS or 185th St, and they choose 185th St. Clearly they thought there was a compelling reason for doing so.
Metro and RR E? Well, Metro decided to do neither.
But I guess RR E riders wishing to get to Link can always transfer to Swift Blue at AVTC and then let CT take care of it from there.
“But I guess RR E riders wishing to get to Link can always transfer to Swift Blue at AVTC and then let CT take care of it from there.”
Yeah, right, that will require waiting 10-20 minutes for Swift, riding 2 minutes, then waiting 5-10 minutes again for Link. Talk about an undesirable 3-seat ride. Instead they’ll do anything they can to take an east-west Metro bus to Link, even if they have to walk a long way to said route. Or if it’s too far to walk, they’ll just curse that they can’t get to the express Link/512 corridor the same as now.
It’s only a short distance, not much more than going to a layover place.
Right, but it is in addition to the current layover place (Aurora Village Transit Center). It is about a five minute drive. That is basically another 10% of the travel time. Will this yield another 10% in ridership? I’m skeptical.
Most people transferring to Link at these two stations will be heading south on Link
Right, but the people who go to Aurora Village have gone north on the bus. This makes them an unusual subset of riders. Consider some trip pairs (after the planned Metro restructure):
105th & Aurora to the U-District — Likely better going south on the E until 45th and then transferring. Or taking the 40 and then taking Link.
105th & Aurora to Northgate — Better off taking the 40.
130th & Aurora to Northgate, Roosevelt, etc. — Much better off taking the 77 to the 130th station.
145th & Aurora to Northgate, Roosevelt, etc. — Better off taking the 333 to the 148th station.
185th & Aurora to the U-District — Probably better off taking the 348 to the 185th station. The E is more frequent, but takes a lot longer.
Anywhere south of roughly 175th to downtown — Better off taking the E other direction (directly to downtown) if there isn’t a crossing bus.
Basically the only place where there isn’t is Aurora Village — which is served by Swift! That and the folks who are going from Aurora up to Mountlake Terrace or Lynnwood. Those are the only trips that don’t involve backtracking.
Meanwhile, the areas that are borderline (192nd and 185th) would be much better served by Swift if they simply stopped there. That is what I find so odd about this discussion. A looping RapidRide E would not add that much. In contrast a combination of better crossing service and a couple of stops for Swift would add a lot. If I’m standing at 185th & Aurora and want to get to Link I definitely don’t want the bus to go all the way up to Aurora Village and then head back down again. Not when it is literally right across the way! This detour gets worse as you go farther south. So much so that when you get to Green Lake it becomes ridiculous.
This is why even with the current disappointing Metro restructure (that choose 145th over the much superior 155th/160th combo) you just don’t have that many places where people would “round the horn”.
“but it is in addition to the current layover place (Aurora Village Transit Center).”
The current layover place is inadequate: it doesn’t reach the Link station for regional transters.
“Meanwhile, the areas that are borderline (192nd and 185th) would be much better served by Swift if they simply stopped there. That is what I find so odd about this discussion.”
Metro can’t force CT to do something it doesn’t want to do. The net result of not extending the E is that neither Swift nor the E will serve Aurora riders going to Link. And making E riders transfer at 185th would be a 3-seat ride again. Bus routes should serve Link stations, not terminate a mile short of them.
Oh, and in contrast consider the areas where the Swift Blue extensions does *not* work. From what I can tell you basically have:
Link to Edmonds CC — Take Link to Lynnwood and then take the Orange Line or any of the other buses that go across.
Link to Downtown Everett — Take Link to Lynnwood and then the 512, 201 or 202 to Everett.
That’s it. Every other crossing route is too slow and/or too infrequent. In some cases you might save some time by taking the train to Lynnwood, then taking a bus to SR 99, then taking the Blue Line. Maybe. It might not be worth it (you might end up on the same bus anyway while dealing with the hassle of two transfers instead of one). The Blue Line extension to Link just adds a lot more than any extension of RapidRide to Link because there is no backtracking, and not many alternatives.
> There are several reasons for this, and none of them are because the poll was biased or people are stupid. Quite the contrary actually.
I never said “people are stupid” I’m not sure why you interpreted that from what I wrote. I just double checked where the surveys were sent out and it was not sent to mountlake terrace so rightly that should be highlighted.
I think either works for rapidride e. Whether extending to shoreline north or mountlake terrace.
For shoreline north alignment it’ll still need to reach aurora village or involve more bus restructures so the other community transit routes like 101/130/114, reach rapidride e
Metro can’t force CT to do something it doesn’t want to do.
So you want to force Metro to do something it doesn’t want to do. The biggest difference is that the change for CT is just a much better value.
The net result of not extending the E is that neither Swift nor the E will serve Aurora riders going to Link.
That is simply not true! There will be Link to Aurora transfers at 200th (Aurora Village), 185th, 145th, 130th (along with the existing transfers to the south).
The current layover place is inadequate: it doesn’t reach the Link station for regional transfers.
Yes, but I’m saying that it is quite likely that only a handful of people are interested in the regional transfers. It is the opposite of the Blue Line extension. There are not that many trips that actually make sense. Basically you have:
1) A stop on Aurora (that doesn’t have crossing bus service) to Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood or someplace to the north.
2) A stop on Aurora (that doesn’t have a crossing bus) where making a “U” is actually faster than heading south on the E and then making a transfer to another bus (e. g. Licton Springs to U-District via a southbound E and the 44). This only occurs at the far north (and only for a handful of stops).
There just aren’t that many people in either category. Regional transit is great, but there are only so many people taking trips like that. There are places where there are apartments and no service at all. There are places where the buses run infrequently or common trips — to major destinations like the UW — require a lengthy detour. There are places where Metro or CT have made really bad routing decisions that hurt riders. This isn’t one of them.
I was talking to a lady who is moving out of her apartment because of the cancellation of the 20
Have those folks tried to get the 62 moved (as I wrote about here: https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/03/20/improve-buses-on-the-east-side-of-green-lake/)? The 20 isn’t coming back (nor is the 16 or the 26) but the fact that Metro wants to move the 62 means that there is a very real possibility that it be moved closer to riders like her. But like so many things, the community needs to fight for it. I can write to the city (or county) but it won’t have as much of an impact (since I don’t live there).
Thank you for this information.
I would like to know who is paying for the delays and relaying of the tracks across I90 bridge?
Another good article on the upcoming Lynnwood Link extension. This time from Mountlake Terrace.
https://mltnews.com/ready-to-roll-sound-transit-link-light-rail-service-to-lynnwood-begins-aug-30/
“Community Transit and King County Metro have agreed to revise the date for bus service upgrades and improvements originally planned to take effect Aug. 31, the Sound Transit announcement said. Bus changes will instead take place Sept. 14, allowing a smooth launch of extended 1 Line service before bus routing changes occur.”
We now have two scheduled expansions of Link with fixed target dates. Both represent significant expansions of Link that will permanently change transit regionally.
And yet we don’t have a countdown clock? For either one of the openings?
This blog has had countdown clocks before. And supposedly the blog is run and/or founded by IT experts. Isn’t it possible to just dust off the old countdown clocks and set them running with the new dates?
I know a lot of the people on this blog aren’t too excited about expanded rail transit, but these openings really are major events regionally. We really should have countdown clocks to major events like this.
And for those who are more excited about the bus restructures than excited about Link itself, there could be a third countdown clock which counts down to the bus restructures. The 400 and 800 series buses going away is also a major event.
I think Lynnwood is more countdown-worthy than the eastside-only line. Lynnwood will be well-ridden, and will actually go somewhere. I think it’s cool the starter line is coming to Bellevue/Redmond, but it won’t be a truly major event until it goes to Seattle. It’ll be more show pony than serious people mover.
tickcounter.com let’s you make a countdown clock for free. Just click ‘make countdown,” and you’ll have a countdown clock you can share with others or embed in under a minute. Requires zero technical expertise.
@Sam,
“ I think Lynnwood is more countdown-worthy than the eastside-only line. ”
I agree. I was just trying to be polite to the Eastsiders. They get a little sensitive sometimes at being perceived to be a bedroom community to Seattle.
And it still is a major event, just not as major as full ELE will be. It still deserves a countdown clock.
“ It’ll be more show pony than serious people mover.”
Funny. ELSL is predicted to carry more passengers than all but two of Metro’s RapidRide lines, and they have been in operation for almost 15 years now. If ELSL is just a “show pony”, then what is something like RR F?
It doesn’t matter how many people ride the ELSL compared to the F Line. The F Line is more vital to the people who ride it than the ELSL will be vital to the people who ride it. For example, there is no other way to get from TIBS to downtown Renton other than the F Line, but there are plenty of other ways to get from the Bellevue TC to Overlake other than the ELSL. The F Line is essential transit, the starter line isn’t. Again, I’m making a distinction between the ELSL and the full lake-crossing 2 Line. And, like I said, I think the starter line is cool. I personally think they should have waited and opened the whole thing all at once, but now that it’s almost here, I will acknowledge that is pretty exciting that the Eastside is getting light rail for the first time. But, yeah, on the spectrum of not essential to essential, the starter line is closer to the not essential side of things. I wouldn’t say that about the full 2 Line, however.
@Sam,
No transit is truly “vital” when you can just grab an Uber and get direct door-to-door service with minimal wait. That is what my sister-in-law does now when she attempts to transfer from Link to bus only to discover that the bus won’t arrive for 30 mins. Just call an Uber. Problem solved.
But ELSL should beat the pants off most RR lines on day one of operation, including RR F. And that is a real accomplishment that should be celebrated.
So…..countdown clocks please?
Sure countdown clocks would be nice.
> But ELSL should beat the pants off most RR lines on day one of operation, including RR F
Rapidride F had around 5500 riders pre covid now 4000. Given most Sound transit ridership estimates are overly rosy it’d probably be more around 4500~5000 from 6000. It’s nice, but like it did cost 3 billion dollars. It’d be pretty sad if it couldn’t meet the ridership of one rapidride.
Anyways the real test will be when it opens across the lake.
Since most of you don’t like doing any real work, and would rather have absurd debates like how trains on the moon will do in curves, I’ll do it for you.
https://www.tickcounter.com/countdown/5097850/2-line-grand-opening
@WL,
This region has had precious little to celebrate since U-Link opened in 2016 (8 years ago!). Yes, NG-Link did open in 2021, but that was during COVID-19, and we weren’t supposed to be cel rating anything.
ELSL will be a major event, and is worthy of a countdown clock.
LLE will be a bigger event, and is also worthy of a countdown clock.
And Sam says it is easy.
No transit is truly “vital” when you can just grab an Uber and get direct door-to-door service with minimal wait.
Wait what? If that is the case than Lynnwood Link isn’t very vital. Just about all of the trip combinations are faster with an Uber. The only station that isn’t being built right next to a freeway ramp is 185th. Even then southbound trips are pretty fast. It is one of the drawbacks of building close to the freeway. To be clear, some of this was unavoidable. Downtown to the UW was critical, and the freeway serves both areas. But the farther away you are from the freeway ramps the better. Capitol Hill to U-District, for example, is faster by Link than by car, even at noon. It is why Ballard to the UW has such strong fundamentals — for a lot of trips it is faster to take the train than drive (at noon).
I still remember this cop show (it might have been a movie) where the cops were trying to get across Manhattan (to apprehend some bad guy). They quickly debated whether it was better to use their squad car — with sirens blaring, blowing through red lights — or take the subway. Unfortunately for too little of our subway line we don’t offer that kind of speed advantage. Like so much of our system we aren’t terrible, but we aren’t great either.
Thanks Sam. I looked at if for a couple seconds, and can now basically ignore it, just like every other countdown clock in the world. I know how to read a calendar, and look things up. Speaking of which, there has been talk on the blog about creating a calendar (with dates like this listed). I can definitely see how it would be useful, especially with deadline dates for commenting.
> And Sam says it is easy.
I mean I don’t see the real advantage versus just checking the sound transit page. It’s not too hard to create a countdown page as Sam has just done, but to embed it on the website (beyond just one page) is a bit more involved. Of course it could be done janky and enabled with a random plugin.
> Speaking of which, there has been talk on the blog about creating a calendar (with dates like this listed). I can definitely see how it would be useful, especially with deadline dates for commenting.
@Ross
That seems pretty useful. and could highlight important meetings.
Is the current action around whether to add it, or about the effort/complexity to add it.
@WL,
I’d just embed the countdown clocks on the main STB homepage. They have done that before, so it should be pretty easy, off the shelf type stuff. And it would be incredibly convenient.
But key, maybe ST will do it themselves. They seem to get how important these two openings will be. .
But ELSL should beat the pants off most RR lines on day one of operation, including RR F
Here are the current ridership numbers for the RapidRide buses:
A — 8,500
B — 4,400
C — 6,900
D — 9,000
E — 12,700
F — 4,600
H — 7,400
So the midpoint is the H at 7,400. I could see it getting more riders than that, and thus exceeding the ridership of most RapidRide buses. Weird that you mentioned the F since ridership on the F is so low. It is like saying “We are better than most teams in the NBA, including the Pistons”. (The Pistons are the worst team in the league.)
It is also interesting to think about where it eventually ranks compared to single-digit Metro buses. The 7 now carries 20,000 a day and I doubt it will get that many riders. The 5 gets 8,000 while the 8 gets 6,600. Of course then you have to decide whether the 3/4 counts as one bus or two.
Anyway, if it gets even decent ridership I think it is worth it. This wouldn’t make sense as a stand-alone line (which makes you wonder about Issaquah Link) but it was the agency making lemonade out of lemons. Kudos for Balducci for salvaging something of value while they fix the main project.
People seem to have questions about the blog. A little background on me first: I have programmed websites before and if I wrote this one, I could modify it quite easily. But of course it is not built from scratch, but rests on top of a WordPress platform (and I’m grateful that it is). I’ve learned a lot more about WordPress over the last couple years but I still get hung up from time to time with things that don’t seem to work as I expect. Partly this is because there are different versions of WordPress and I’m not really sure how the website was setup. Frank knows all about that stuff. He also has the rights to make changes of that nature (and everyone is comfortable with that setup). He is the guy we contact when we want to change things.
Frank is not as active on the site as the other regular writers (Mike especially, but Martin Pagel, Nathan, Sherwin, Alex and me). I feel like we should only bug him about changes that are worthy. Coincidentally, we are going to make some long overdue changes (like the “Who We Are” page) fairly soon. This is why we are currently considering a calendar.
As noted I don’t think a countdown clock would be that difficult, but it isn’t clear whether the folks who run the blog like the idea. Speaking for myself, I don’t. In any event we would have to come to some sort of consensus about the clock (what things to count down to, whether there is more than one clock, etc.) then decide whether to bother Frank. I just wanted to make it clear that the problem has little to do with the technical nature of countdown clocks themselves.
> The 7 now carries 20,000 a day and I doubt it will get that many riders
Not that I’m against increased ridership but this is a doubling of ridership counted. When did route 7 suddenly get so many riders?
Did they change the calculation for route 7? I checked my notes and it clearly says route 7 had 8k daily riders in 2022 but when I check the dashboard it now says 17/18k? None of the other route ridership number have changed.
I have low expectations about the starter line’s ridership. With several stations having extremely little ridership (East Main, BelRed, Wilburton), and other stations having very little ridership much of the day, and it being well before the implementation of the East Link Connections, etc., I’m going to be surprised if it consistently breaks 4000 riders a day after the initial curiosity factor goes away. But, I think the future for the full 2 Line, once it crosses the lake, is very bright. I think it’s going to be very popular, and get ever more popular over the years, esp as station-area TOD grows.
Did they change the calculation for route 7?
Good point. It doesn’t add up. The 2020 Metro System Evaluation (https://kingcounty.gov/~/media/depts/metro/accountability/reports/2020/system-evaluation-attachment-a) has the 7 peaking at about 11,200. Yet the rider dashboard (https://kingcounty.gov/en/legacy/depts/transportation/metro/about/accountability-center/rider-dashboard) shows ridership during that period as about double that. I haven’t seen any other route like that. My guess is the dashboard is wrong (instead of the other way around) and ridership is just now getting back to 10,000.
“[Eastsiders] get a little sensitive sometimes at being perceived to be a bedroom community to Seattle.”
That’s so 1980s.
Sam, there is a group of authors and editors who do the work of the blog. You could, like, join them. Then your demands might get more of a hearing, and you’d have the opportunity to do some of them yourself. My opinion of a countdown clock is, “It would be neat, but it’s a low priority.” The editors who set up the earlier clocks are long gone. You can bookmark your clock and then look at it all you want. I can picture in my head how many weeks the 2 Line SL is and how many months Lynnwood is, and how that time is shortening. Since it’s so easy, you can make a second clock for the 2 Line SL.
Mike, I wasn’t talking about the bloggers putting up a countdown clock on the blog, I was talking about anyone in general making a quick countdown clock and link for Lazarus. You and Ross are to be commended for the work you do here.
Btw, do you remember when you told me this? …
“JANUARY 23, 2024 AT 11:47 AM
East Link operational testing has started. Expect trains every 10-15 minutes, including at level crossings in Bel-Red and south Redmond. Sam, get your camera and reporter’s notebook out.”
Well, that’s exactly what I did.
@Mike Orr,
“ That’s so 1980s.”
Yes, but that attitude still exists on the Eastside.
I remember a few years back when ST was debating the name change from Blue Line and Red Line to 1 Line and 2 Line. Some Eastside politician at the time then objected to the term “OMF-C”
His objection was that “OMF-Central” made it sound like Seattle was at the “center” and therefore more important than the surrounding cities.
He suggested OMF-1 and OMF-2 to go with 1-Line and 2-Line, but it didn’t go far. Thank gawd.
OK, it was Lazarus demanding the clock and Sam just being helpful. You make so many demands it’s hard to keep track of which one is not yours.
“Sam, get your camera and reporter’s notebook out.”
Did it ever get any further than your private notebook? I meant to write an article, not just write in your notebook, or just open your notebook at the crossings without writing in it.
@Mike Orr,
“ OK, it was Lazarus demanding the clock”
I wasn’t demanding anything. And everyone doing their own countdown clock isn’t that hard. I could do it, you could do it. That is not the point.
Supposedly this blog is a location for all things transit, and this blog has put up countdown clocks before. So why not now?
Ya, you can have every single individual user do their own. But why? Why not put all the information in one place? So that even the casual user can understand the meaning?
But hey, whether this blog puts up a countdown clock or not, these LR extensions will still open, and will still expand transit in the local area. There is no stopping progress.
Supposedly this blog is a location for all things transit, and this blog has put up countdown clocks before. So why not now?
I explained why.
I wasn’t demanding anything.
No, more like whining.
April 11 meeting has two important items
* Presentation on Ballard Link Extension South Lake Union area feasibility assessment results
* Presentation on Scope Control Policy updates
It’ll be interesting to see what/how much the slu alternatives cost or if even feasible. Secondly the scope control policy, hopefully it reins in the costs a bit and stops sound transit from continually proposing more expensive underground alternatives over the elevated ones
I went back to Lynnwood station to check the train-bus transfers. It’s a 1 minute 15 second walk from the southern station entrance to the nearest Swift Orange bay, with no street in between. The 512 bays are two bays away, with a 4xx bay in betweem. The other Swift Orange bay is just across the bus driveway.
I also looked at what nearby retail/restaurants are available, but that proved futile. They’re all north of the station, and all the sidewalks north, west, and east are closed for construction. I tried to go around the eastern end (between the garage and I-5) toward the library, but I ran into a street with no sidewalks and later it was blocked off too. I could probably have gone around the south and west sides, but that would have taken ten or fifteen minutes just to reach some strip malls, so I didn’t bother. I looked at taking Swift one stop to downtown Lynnwood, but its next stops are Alderwood Mall and 99. There are other CT routes, but I didn’t know them or where their stops were, so at that point I just turned around and went back to Seattle.
The 512 stops used to have next-arrival displays, but I couldn’t find them this time. My friend even mentioned the displays when we rode on Sunday, but I didn’t see them then or Friday.
The 512 runs every 15 minutes weekdays, even peak hours. It looks like there’s only one other route from Lynnwood TC to Northgate, the 880. It only runs in the AM peak. But there’s a plethora of 4xx routes going northbound, even as early as 3pm. Swift also has lots of runs: I saw at least four of them in the half hour I was there.
I wrote and tallied up the transportation levy by items. Surprisingly (or unsurprisingly) it seems like the ratio spent on each item hasn’t really changed.
It seems that the transportation levy draft plan has just reworded and renamed the “larger categories” to make it seem as if it favors cars more. But just funds everything around the same proportion.
For instance the major street maintenance category says it’s 423 million this time which may seem like an 80% increase over the 235 million spent on arterial maintence. However this larger category also includes many “multimodal projects”. Also for instance the 2015 levy had a goal of paving 180 lane miles and 580 spots while the new levy only has a goal of 50 lane miles and 400 spots. (Note does use slightly different definitions)
I’m like 95% sure sdot is just using confusing categories to make it seem like this levy overly favors cars this time. A bit funny I guess considering the last levy somewhat did the opposite aka with “safe routes” category which one might assume meant bike and pedestrian routes had a large amount of traffic light signalling funds.
Interesting. I think the biggest disappointment to me is just the size, not the so called priorities. The previous levy had plenty of wiggle-room when it came to justifying a project, and when they actually made specific transit promises (e. g. the so called “RapidRide+” projects) they fell woefully short. Ultimately it is up to the administration to decide priorities and I’ve been quite happy with Spotts. I think he is the best SDOT director we’ve had since I’ve been paying attention.
I also think things change. For example the work on the 40 is huge, but it isn’t as important as it would have been just a few years ago. In contrast, fixing the 8 has rapidly become a lot more important. I think it is good to be flexible when it comes to prioritizing various projects as well. This is definitely true of the bridges. Deciding what to do about the Magnolia Bridge is bound to be controversial. There is no reason to have that fight as part of this proposal (have that fight later).
WL, would you be interested in writing (or ghost-writing) a commentary piece regarding the levy proposal?
What do you guys think about them closing S Holgate St in sodo?
Apparently Amtrak and BNSF would like to close the street and have requested Seattle if it’ll be possible. Seattle’s pushed back about the plan saying only if amtrak also funds a pedestrian bridge, but one main thing that has changed is the new addition of the lander street overpass.
https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/programs/freight-program/s-holgate-st-at-grade-crossing-elimination-study
the pros are that it’ll allow both bnsf freight trains and sounder/amtrak trains (supposedly) more frequency/reliability. Cons are that it’s basically one of the few east-west roads in sodo so it’s going to be quite constraining removing it.
“the pros are that it’ll allow both bnsf freight trains and sounder/amtrak trains (supposedly) more frequency/reliability. Cons are that it’s basically one of the few east-west roads in sodo so it’s going to be quite constraining removing it.”
The trains already have crossing priority. It’s the auto traffic that currently suffers. I prefer Lander/Edgar Martinez when driving anyway. I think they’re asking from a logistical support perspective. Since there are maintenance facilities north and south of Holgate there is more vehicular traffic between them perpendicular to the current traffic flow.
A pedestrian overpass sounds reasonable, especially on game days.
“BNSF and Amtrak have approached the City of Seattle in support of permanently closing S Holgate St from Occidental Ave S to 3rd Ave S”. So not all of Holgate Street.
On the topic of commuter trains, it’s worth noting that if the sole purpose of the train is to get people to downtown jobs without paying for downtown parking, you could probably do the job considerably cheap by just turning most of SODO into giant parking garages and running buses and trains every three minutes to ferry people between downtown and their cars. This is essentially the approach that Disney takes with its theme parks.
The reason why Sound Transit does not do this is that it is not their mission. Their job is to get people around the region without needing a car at all, not merely to run parking shuttles to downtown. Hence, the need for buses and trains that actually go places.
It’s kind of a misnomer to call it the “Paine Field extension,” as the last I saw, there are no plans to have a station at PAE, the region’s secondary airport. In addition, there’s no ST Express bus service going to/from Boeing/Everett today, except going in the opposite direction – towards Seattle. Light rail is apropos for high density areas, express bus service for less-dense areas. Southwest Everett will apparently go from nothing to light rail in 13 years.