Countdowns: East Link Starter Line (This Saturday! 11am), Lynnwood Link (August 30).
Transit Updates:
Pierce Transit is hosting a ribbon-cutting event at 12pm today at the Tacoma Dome Station celebrating the opening of the Stream Community Line. Service started on April 1, serving as an express route along the Pacific Avenue/State Route 7 Corridor. All Pierce Transit services are fare-free for the day.
Seattle Times ($) writes about the imminent opening of the East Link Starter Line, features an interactive map of the new stations, and reviews the history of the 2 Line.
Sound Transit is sending workers to survey riders onboard Link, Sounder, and ST Express about their experience. The survey effort will continue into the Fall.
Local News:
Ryan Packer writes about the plan to turn Harrison street in SLU into a transit mall but is concerned that capacity won’t be any near the corridor estimates for 2050.
The Seattle Times ($) writes about the 24 “Neighborhood Centers” chosen for inclusion in the draft One Seattle Plan.
On Tuesday, PubliCola and the Urbanist reported on how Seattle’s Office of Planning and Community Development (OPCD) original draft of the One Seattle Plan was gutted by Mayor Harrell’s office.
Opinion/Miscellaneous:
Alon Levy does math about how the length of a trip influences riders’ willingness to wait for the next bus/train.
Community Transit blogs about their bus cleaning crews, known as “Vehicle Service Attendants”.
SDOT blogs about the work completed last year under Seattle’s Transportation Electrification Blueprint, adopted in 2021.
Videos:
The carbon footprint of electric bikes (Simon Clark; 20:33)
Upcoming Events:
April 22, 6pm: One Seattle Plan DEIS Public Hearing #2 (City Hall, Floor L2)
April 24, 6pm: A Strong Towns Vision for Kirkland (St John’s Episcopal Church)
April 25, 6pm: One Seattle Plan Open House (Eckstein Middle School)
April 29, 5:30pm: new date for webinar regarding the feasibility of a further-west SLU station (Online, link pending). Second webinar scheduled for May 2, 12pm. Survey will open on April 25 and close on May 7.
April 30, 6pm: One Seattle Plan Open House (McClure Middle School)
May 2, 6pm: One Seattle Plan Open House (Final Meeting, online only; link pending)
This is an Open Thread.
Looking at the Central District section of the growth plan, I’m not sure how this plans for any growth. The four sites which were “included in the draft plan” are the ones which already are neighborhood centers, and the two which were excluded from the plan are the ones which are… not. Looking north of the ship canal, I’m less familiar with the neighborhoods, but the same pattern seems to hold. Is this supposed to be a plan for change, or just some documentation of what already exists?
The current draft plan has been largely derided as maintaining the status quo of limited opportunities for economical housing construction, and doing nothing to slow the forces of displacement that are ravaging Seattle.
This. The zoning changes envisioned by this plan are relatively modest. The studies estimate that housing development under this plan would proceed at about half the rate we have actually experienced in the past decade, a rate that was itself insufficient to keep rents in check.
Eric, who, other than renters, wants to “hold rents in check? I’m certain that the City considers renters as 100% disposable.
Given that renters are now a majority of the population of the city, it seems that the desires of renters ought to have some clout in the city.
That might seem reasonable, but it’s not how politics works. Renters are not “stakeholders” simply because they are seen as holding no “stake” in the city’s future. They can easily go elsewhere, and many do over the period a politician expects or at least hopes to serve.
I’m not saying that it’s fair or even “smart” on the part of the politicians, but the results of governance tell the tale.
Well, obviously city government should only serve those who are literally financially invested in the city, and should not serve those who only have a personal/cultural/professional interest in the success of the city.
The majority of residents translates into the majority of potential voters, so that affects who gets onto the city council and mayorship. Some councilmembers or candidates have run on being renters. The problem is the same candidates are often far-left in general and counterproductive, so you can’t separate their renterhood from their general political polarization and just vote for a moderate renter. But that will probably get better in time. Another is the swing back to the center in policing, etc; that has a side effect of elevating homeowners’ concerns. Many homeowners do support renters and density (like Ross), but some just want home prices to increase as much as possible (to benefit them), are suspicious of density, and don’t want apartments in single-family neighborhoods.
Nathan, I said that I don’t think it is fair or smart. It’s a “follow the money” thing. Renters are not reliable campaign contributors, so in very real ways they don’t “count”.
“Renters are not reliable campaign contributors”
Are you saying rich people are campaign contributors, while those with more modest means are not?
The new ped bridge at Redmond Tech Center is now open? How did I miss that? But good news!
https://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2024/04/city-of-redmond-microsoft-open-new-bridge-over-state-route-520-for-pedestrians-and-bicyclists.html
According to the handy little countdown timer, it is now less than 4 days until ELSL opens!
Yes, the pedestrian bridge opening is exciting! It was not well-announced that it would be open in time for the starter line.
@Nathan,
Ya, that was pretty darn low key for such a major event.
Even the Seattle Times didn’t put up an article on it, although they probably will later.
But the improvements for Link just keep on coming. Now if we can just get that ped bridge at 148th St Station built. The western pier is done, but they haven’t started on the rest.
But things good news.
@Lazaus,
Sorry, the eastern pier is done. No progress on the western side.
@ Lazarus… About that 148th St Bridge…
https://www.shorelinewa.gov/government/projects-initiatives/148th-street-pedestrian-bicycle-bridge
Note that the design does not mute the traffic noise from I-5 like the Microsoft funded bridge does. It’s instead similar to the John Lewis bridge at Northgate, and will be very loud for those using the bridge. Maybe with EVs it will get a little quieter over time but it still won’t be pleasant.
@Al S,
If the noise bothers you just put in your AirPods.
But I could care less about the noise. Nobody is going to walk all the way down to 145th and cross on a freeway bridge that is nearly as loud, just to walk back north.
And I’d rather have a loud pedestrian bridge over the freeway than no pedestrian bridge at all.
People will take the bridge.
Good grief, Lazarus! I didn’t say people wouldn’t use it. I just said that it will be loud!
Everyone complains when streets are designed by professionals who think that they are designing them for cars and not pedestrians. Had this bridge been designed for cars the noise would not be an issue. I’m simply commenting that the bridge designers haven’t considered noise in their design — likely because their training and practice is mostly in building bridges for vehicles rather than people. They aren’t stupid; they’re negligent .
And expecting a pedestrian to have to carry AirPods to walk somewhere because of thoughtless design has to be one of the most transit/pedestrian-hostile comments I’ve read in quite a long time.
I don’t think it’s so much not considering noise so much as the fact that reducing noise would add a significant amount of money to the bridge’s price tag, and since you’re not there for that long, it’s not worth it.
In the future, the simplest way to reduce the noise level would be for WSDOT to repave the freeway with grooved payment, similar to what is in use on the new 520 bridge. (EVs reduce noise level of cars at slow speeds or when accelerating quickly; when cruising at highway speeds, noise level is not much less than combustion cars, although EVs will at least get rid of the exhaust fumes).
The John Lewis Bridge (the one connecting Northgate with the college) was supposed to be wider. There were a bunch of issues in building it, so the thing got scaled down in width. This makes it noisier than it would be otherwise.
@Al S.
“Maybe with EVs it will get a little quieter over time but it still won’t be pleasant.”
I don’t think EVs are any quieter on highways. At high speeds the sound from the tires dominates which would be about the same if not worse due to higher weight.
“If the noise bothers you just put in your AirPods.”
To protect your ears you need around-the-ear insulated headphones with noise cancelling. Earbuds just encourage people to turn the music louder to cover the noise, and that makes it loud enough to damage hearing.
I checked the bridge out this morning. It is beautiful. Wide area for walking, two-way separated bike lane, lots of planters and overall feeling of separation from the highway, and the cover will be excellent for the rainy days. It immediately improves connecting to/from buses on the 520, especially heading East, but will obviously make connecting to Link very good.
It goes to show what type of infrastructure we could have more of with the right funding, since it looks like this bridge was funded by Microsoft.
@TOD,
Yep, from everything I have heard it is a great structure.
Will be nice to check out someday.
Now if we can just get the full ELE open so I don’t need to drive to the Eastside. Can’t wait.
You don’t “need” to drive to the eastside. If you live in north Seattle, you can take Link from Northgate to the UW, then transfer to the route 271 to Bellevue.
@Sam,
So you propose that I take Link to the 271, then the 271 to Bellevue, and then something like the B to Redmond Tech Center?
So you propose a 3-seat ride, with 2 unpredictable and unreliable transfers, just to spend 15 minutes or so at the new bridge?
Sorry. Ain’t going to happen. There are much better ways to waste time.
I’ll wait and combine it with a car trip.
If you are going to Redmond Tech from north Seattle, you still don’t “need” to drive. You simply take Link from Northgate to the UW, then transfer to the route 542 to Redmond Tech.
Lazarus, you haven’t come out and said it directly, but you’ve hinted at it a lot, but, do you avoid using public transit buses?
Lazarus, if you think all buses are unpredictable, what do you say about the near-daily unplanned delays Link experiences, or the random nature of traffic congestion caused by accidents?
So I’m no expert on this bridge, but my understanding is that one of the key elements is to connect to the buses that run along 520. Thus I’m guessing you could take one of those buses. Sure enough, a couple all-day buses from Seattle serve it — 545 from downtown, and the 542 from the UW. You could even make a loop of it. Take the 550 to Downtown Bellevue, ride the starter line, and then cross the bridge and take a bus back. Given all that, it would seem really silly to drive.
“So you propose that I take Link to the 271, then the 271 to Bellevue, and then something like the B to Redmond Tech Center?”
What do you think everybody in Wallingford and Ballard and Greenwood and Hawthorne Hills and most of North Seattle have been doing forever? That’s one of the reasons there are Microsoft shuttles to North Seattle neighborhoods, because those trips on Metro are so time-consuming.
“Lazarus, you haven’t come out and said it directly, but you’ve hinted at it a lot, but, do you avoid using public transit buses?”
I think Lazarus lives in Shoreline, where it’s a long, slow trip to get to the U-District or UW Station to transfer to the 271. It’s comparable to me going from central Seattle to eastern Bellevue, particularly someplace not on the B or a (nonexistent) ST Express route. That’s like getting from Northgate to Shoreline, especially a non-major part of Shoreline.
P.S. Interlining the 271 and 45, as we’ve sometimes suggested, would give better connectivity between Bellevue and much of North Seattle. It would reduce those long travel times, and thus increase ridership.
&Mike Orr,
Just because everybody in North Seattle has been suffering on this commute route for decades doesn’t mean I should voluntarily suffer on the same route just for “fun”.
If I check out the bridge it will only take me about 15 minutes. I am not spending a couple of hours on a round trip, multi seat, bus ride with unpredictable transfers just to spend 15 minutes looking at a pedestrian bridge. No matter how nice it might be.
As for the Microflaccid shuttles, MS isn’t dumb. They recognize a need when they see it. Metro should be able to also.
And part of the reason for those shuttles is that it is a controlled environment. Employees can discuss work, and that effectively increases productivity and team building. I.e., it is not just a cost for MS. They get something out of it too.
Lararus’ argument falls apart when you look at how long it will take to go from Northgate to Redmond Tech bus stop using Link+Route 542 vs the future full 2 Line Link from Northgate to Redmond Tech Station. The first option is at least 10 minutes quicker.
His argument also doesn’t make any sense because in his complaint he says he’s just going to spend 15 minutes touring the ped bridge. He asked, why waste all that time for a 15 minute walk? But the full 2 Line from Northgate to Redmond Tech will take around 45 minutes each way. But, he didn’t ask why waste all that time for a 15 minute walk. So it’s not about the time.
I think Lazarus just has a very irrational aversion to public buses. His dislike of them is spread throughout many of his comments. Which leaves him with, as a public transit user, only with the 1 Line, which I never hear him talk about riding.
@Nathan,
I haven’t experienced a delay on Link in probably 3 months. But maybe I’m just lucky.
“Just because everybody in North Seattle has been suffering on this commute route for decades doesn’t mean I should voluntarily suffer on the same route just for “fun”.”
No, I understand your situation. It’s one reason I don’t live in Ballard or Fremont or Shoreline, because I have family on the Eastside I often visit. I’d hesitate to work on the Eastside and endure a 5-day cross-lake bus commute, and if I did work on the Eastside, I’d hesitate to live in Wallingford or west/northwest of it. Most of the places I’m familiar with and go to are in the eastern half of Seattle or in Bellevue, and when I lived in Ballard for nine months that became apparent; there was a 30-45 minute overhead to get to/from Ballard to practically all my activities in eastern Seattle, or to transfer to anywhere else (the transfers being in the U-District or downtown). If you live in Shoreline, and presumably do most of your activities in Shoreline or North Seattle, you might not want to go to the Eastside that often, especially a 1+ hour transit ride. So if you only go occasionally, like to the Redmond Tech bridge opening you might drive to it. I would take transit anyway because I don’t have a car, don’t want to drive, and don’t want to use Uber/taxis. But if I lived in Shoreline and didn’t have to go to Bellevue for family reasons, I might hesitate to go there much.
“As for the Microflaccid shuttles, MS isn’t dumb. They recognize a need when they see it. Metro should be able to also.”
Metro probably does see it, that a typical trip from the Eastside to most of North Seattle doesn’t have a good transit option (with a reasonable travel time, especially if you’re doing it many times). But Metro also has other priorities, and having many cross-lake one-seat rides is low among them, and not very efficient. So the only thing it can do is improve trunk service. The full 2 Line will do that. A 270/45 route would also do that, especially with street improvements to speed up the entire combined route.
Lararus’ argument falls apart when you look at how long it will take to go from Northgate to Redmond Tech bus stop using Link+Route 542 vs the future full 2 Line Link from Northgate to Redmond Tech Station. The first option is at least 10 minutes quicker.
Agreed. The 271 is irrelevant. It is basically a strawman argument. It is like arguing that service along Aurora is terrible since you have to transfer to Greenwood Avenue and take the 5. Uh, no. Just take the E.
The 542 takes you directly there. According to the schedule it takes 15 minutes from the UW Station to SR 520 & 40th NE (which is where the bridge is). This is much, much faster than riding Link all the way around (when the trains go over the lake). If you are downtown, then the 545 is a direct connection to the stop (no need to take Link and transfer). From 4th & Pine it takes 21 minutes. This is still considerably faster than Link.
The only significant advantage to Link will be frequency. That, and the fact that the bus is simply going away. At that point if you are downtown then the only reasonable option is to take Link, even if the trip is much slower. If you are on the UW though (or somewhere to the north) then you can continue to take the 542, which will be more frequent once East Link opens.
As for the Microflaccid shuttles, MS isn’t dumb. They recognize a need when they see it. Metro should be able to also.
Ah, and there we have it. Somehow the inability of Lazarus to figure out which bus actually gets you to the destination is the fault of Metro. There is an express bus from Downtown. There is an express bus from the UW. Both are major destinations and serve Link stations (and connect to lots of other buses). Both are operated by Sound Transit. From either destination the bus will be faster than the future train. Yet somehow Metro is to blame for Lazarus not knowing the buses exist, and thinking the only way to get there is indirectly via the 271 (or driving).
The issue isn’t the 271, it’s the gap between the 271 and where people live in North Seattle. A 271 trip from Bellevue TC to the U-District is already 27-31 minutes (or longer), and then the transferring buses aren’t that frequent or reliable or fast, so the total travel time can end up being 45 or 60 minutes. That conflicts with people’s instinct that a commute should be 20-30 minutes, and that a bus trip from e.g., Bellevue to Wallingford should take around 30 minutes given its distance. That’s what raises the demand for Microsoft shuttles, driving, and improving transit service.
@Mike Orr,
“ A 271 trip from Bellevue TC to the U-District is already 27-31 minutes (or longer), and then the transferring buses aren’t that frequent or reliable or fast, so the total travel time can end up being 45 or 60 minutes”
Thanks Mike, I think you get it.
I’m just not going to spend 45 minutes to an hour each way just to spend 15 minutes looking at a ped bridge. Even if that ped bridge does have nice landscaping. It’s just not a good use of my time.
And, for the record, it was Sam who suggested the 3-seat ride involving the 271. I would never take a 3-seat ride each way just to spend 15 minutes looking at a ped bridge. I’d find a better way.
I’ll just wait until I have an errand on that side of the lake and accomplish a couple of different things in the same trip. Date TBD. I’m not in a hurry.
Lazarus is twisting what I said. He said “Now if we can just get the full ELE open so I don’t need to drive to the Eastside. Can’t wait.” I then said he could take Link + the 271 if he wanted to visit Bellevue. He then twisted that and said he wouldn’t take Link + 271 + B Line to go to the Redmond Tech Bridge. So, no, I didn’t suggest that three-seat ride for a trip to the bridge. I suggested a two-seat ride to visit Bellevue. I later suggested Link + the 542, a two-seat ride for the bridge trip.
I’d just wait until Saturday and experience the ped bridge with the rest of the Link opening. But the reason I latched onto multi-seat 271 rides is that’s what people face for typical trips between North Seattle/Shoreline and Bellevue, and have always faced, and are a significant burden if you do them repeatedly, that wouldn’t be so bad in a fully robust transit network.
I’m just not going to spend 45 minutes to an hour each way just to spend 15 minutes looking at a ped bridge.
Then you will never take Link to the bridge from Seattle, because as Sam and I explained, the bus is much faster than Link will ever be. As I wrote before: UW to Bridge: 15 minutes. Downtown to Bridge: 21 minutes. Will Link ever beat that? No.
Look, if you want to drive because it is faster, be my guest. But stop spreading bullshit. Stop pretending that the buses aren’t fast when in this particular case they are.
@Mike Orr,
“ I’d just wait until Saturday and experience the ped bridge with the rest of the Link opening”
I won’t be doing that either. I’m in no rush to experience either ELSL or the ped bridge, and I’m a bit busy right now. Too busy actually. And I’d rather avoid the crowds.
I’ll wait until a good opportunity to bundle a couple of trips together so I can make good use of my time. No need to make multiple trips when you can just get everything done in one trip.
And, yes, I will drive to at least some good intercept point on the 2-Link.
But I will get over there sometime. The opening of ELSL is a huge event for the Eastside, so I need to see it eventually.
A 271 trip from Bellevue TC to the U-District is already 27-31 minutes (or longer),
The bus ride should get better for a couple reasons. First the 520 work (when they are finally done) should remove a lot of the uncertainty. Buses should be able to get right to the front of the bridge (if it opens) which means at worse it has to wait a few minutes to open and close. Right now it is much worse, as you bet big backups that take a long time to dissipate. Second, the new route of the 270 will not only serve more people along the way, but be faster.
Unlike Kirkland and Redmond (where the bus is significantly faster) it is basically a wash. My guess is if you are already on Link (e. g. from Northgate) you will stay on Link. If you are somewhere in the U-District where catching the bus is more convenient (e. g. Campus Parkway) you will just catch the 270. If you are close to the U-District Station you’ll probably take Link (as it is a bit more frequent, and the bus is unlikely to be much faster even when you account for the time it takes to get to the platform) but if you are close to the UW Station you will take the 270.
The 271’s schedule may say 17-31 minutes on paper, but it’s heavily padded, and in light traffic, routinely arrives several minutes early. The actual travel time is more like 20 minutes; Metro just refuses to promise that.
The bridge would have been very helpful 15 years ago; Route 545 trips could have skipped their afternoon deviation to the OTC, saving several minutes for riders, and allowed a bus to be pulled from the schedule or shorter headway.
Does the current westbound pm peak route 545 deviate into RTS bus loop?
@Sam, no, it hasn’t since COVID and since so many Microsoft workers started working from home.
Oh, I experienced that a month ago when I tried taking the 245 to Renton Tech after my east Bellevue visit. The bus went into the station. The bridge wasn’t open yet so a security guard was standing in front of the entrance. He directed me to go to NE 51st Street, cross the freeway, and the 542/545 westbound stop was there. I wanted a bit to try the 542 but the 545 came first. I don’t know how close the western end of the bridge is to the bus stop.
“I think you meant the security guard directed you to the 40th street bridge, not 51st.”
Is it 40th? I always get confused whether Redmond Tech is at 40th or 51st; they’re the two major east-west arterials in the area.
Mike, You accidentally edited my comment, then replied to me under my name. But that’s fine. You don’t need to fix it.
But, yeah, RTS is next to 40th. And, if walking from RTS to the westbound 520 freeway stop, using the 40th street bridge is the quicker than using the new ped bridge.
So where does the west end of the ped bridge go to? Who is it convenient for?
I found this little tidbit in a recent Board presentation:
https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/FinalRecords/2024/Presentation%20-%20ST3%20Light%20Rail%20Service%20and%20Fleet%20Planning%2004-04-24.pdf
It says that staff recommends the completion of ST3 (way past 2040) requires the 1 Line at 5 minutes and both 2 and 3 Lines at 8 minutes. In trains per hour, that’s 12 and 7.5 and 7.5 or 27 total.
My observation: With a change in vehicle type or layout to increase train capacity (less driver cab space) that easily could be Line 1 at 9-10 trains, and Lines 2 and 3 at 6 trains each. 21-22 trains per hour is doable in the DSTT as 20 was the original ST3 promise.
ST keeps putting quantitative tidbits out there that DSTT2 isn’t really needed for overcrowding. All they have to do instead is assume different vehicles.
PS. Listing 4 Line at 16 minutes in this presentation seems continued naive thinking that it will not be fully automated and that it will not get many riders. That should be a red flag that the line will be an unproductive investment.
Yes, ST has recently been suggesting the 1 Line (Ballard-Rainier-Tacoma) would run at 5 minutes, twice as frequent as the individual 2 and 3 lines, and comparable to the 2/3 overlap. That would make DSTT2 better used, than just one train every 10 minutes. It also blows out of the water the argument that MLK can’t have more than 6-minute frequency. SDOT apparently wanted a 6-minute limit earlier, but is now more relaxed about it. At least, I assume ST isn’t planning scenarios without consulting SDOT, that SDOT would object to and block.
“Listing 4 Line at 16 minutes … That should be a red flag that the line will be an unproductive investment [and will not be automated].”
That has been obvious ever since it was made an ST3 candidate. I-90 between Bellevue College and Issaquah is nothingness, so much that the Eastmont station is deferred. Even if the Northwest Isssaquah regional center is fully built-up, it and the I-90 area will probably have a density less than half of downtown Bellevue and the Spring District, to say nothing of the continuous moderate-to-high density from downtown to Northgate, or the moderate but continuous level from downtown to Rainier Beach. And Issaquah’s exurban location and history of little transit disproportionately attracts car drivers who are slow to switch to transit. Even when Issaquahites do take Link, it will mostly be to work/events in downtown Bellevue, Bellevue College, Microsoft, or ballgames/work in Seattle. Other miscellaneous trips to Bellevue or the Eastside or Seattle they’ll continue to drive. At least that’s my prediction. So that’s why Issaquah Link only needs two cars at 16-minute frequency.
Look at ST’s map on page 4 saying the 4 line goes to “Kirkland”. South Kirkland P&R isn’t the main part of Kirkland.
I wonder if instead of building a line to Issaquah, we could build a branch from Rainier Beach to Renton. Renton is in the East Subarea, so this would maintain the subarea equity. Either that, or go all the way to Downtown Kirkland.
re Harrison Street. Why does the STB piece use the term “transit mall”; what is that?
For Packer and SDOT: why do they think they can move transit any better on Harrison Street than they do on Denny Way? It has two lanes, curb bulbs, several signals, and turns in the pathway. The segment between 5th and Dexter avenues North is new and could be used today.
The current Route 8 serves Belltown, a very dense area, that is not served by the alternative. Do SDOT and Metro think they can afford two frequent crosstown routes three blocks apart? Both pathway serve an ST3 Link station. Would one route with shorter headway be more efficient?
I’ve come to dislike the term “transit mall”.
A “mall” is generically a promenade designed for slow-moving pedestrians. So a “transit mall” is designed for slow-moving vehicles interfacing with meandering pedestrians.
It may be fine for a block or two — but not several blocks. Low-speed transit is costly to operate usually making it more unproductive. Consider that our bus-only lanes are created make buses faster — not slower.
When a “transit mall” is the stated design objective, the resulting street design doesn’t maximize transit speed.
It should be called something like a “transit priority street” or “transit first street”. Even something like a “transit parkway” or “transit boulevard” would be an improvement.
I guess the term locally is traceable to Third Avenue. But one has to only see that DSA keeps wanting to make Third Avenue to be more “mall like” that would seemingly reduce bus speeds (and increase operating costs) to grasp the problem of using the term.
How about “transit promenade”?
Seriously though, I think “busway” is a better term. People usually associate a busway as a fast, exclusive pathway for a bus. Some are completely grade separated (like the bus tunnel) while others (like the SoDo busway) have cross traffic.
My guess is “transit mall” came into being because of the negative connotation (especially by upper class people) about buses. “We don’t want a stinky busway down our street” became “How about a lovely transit mall then?”. It does imply more people wandering around, which I think is a fair delineation. A busway might not have any stops or its stops might have enclosed stations whereas a transit mall (although also a busway) is expected to have a lot more pedestrians out and about (as well as shops).
A transit mall is a street with a lot of bus routes, that has been designated as primarily for transit, and a good place for transfers, and hopefully (but not always) has street features to let the buses move relatively fast and get in/out of the stops quickly. It goes back to Portland’s transit mall in the 80s and probably others around the country. Third Avenue has been a de facto transit mall for decades, but it’s only in the past fifteen years that it has been officially recognized as such and given transit priority and cars were kicked out of it.
In adding to Ross’ point, “transit mall” seems to be more of a marketing term than a reflection of actual function. I like to think of a transit mall as a street that (in some way) equally prioritizes pedestrians and transit, and deprioritizes freight/SOV’s.
To be fair, Ryan Packer referred to it as a “transit street” or “transit corridor”, so calling it a transit mall was a sort of editorial decision on my part. If “transit mall” is unclear or misleading, then I’ll stop using it.
A transit mall is basically comparable to a large train station, a subway transfer station, or a shop-lined pedestrian passage connecting two or more stations. Its importance in the transit network is comparable to those. I don’t see the need to remove the word “mall” just because some people are allergic to it. “Mall” means more than just a shopping mall.
@Mike Orr,
“I don’t see the need to remove the word “mall” just because some people are allergic to it. ”
Exactly. This is a silly topic of discussion. The term “transit mall” is deeply entrenched in the lexicon, and that isn’t going to change.
And calling it a transit “promenade” is even sillier. The only people who promenade through a transit mall are likely selling “something”, and that is exactly why we have security.
Personally, I prefer to jaunt on my way to the bus, saving my promenading for the walk home.
And calling it a transit “promenade” is even sillier.
Yes, that was the point. It was a joke, Lazarus.
“Busway” focuses on the right of way treatment and doesn’t say how many routes are on it. It may have one BRT route, or it may be like the SODO busway with a few routes but not many useful transfers. A “transit mall” has a lot of routes, possibly most of the routes in the city, so you can transfer between all of them or get to anywhere from there.
[Fixed]
For Packer and SDOT: why do they think they can move transit any better on Harrison Street than they do on Denny Way?
I’m sure the thinking is that it is easier to add bus lanes on that street. Packer mentions the trade-offs, which is why Ryan isn’t eager to see it either. It is a cop out. It is throwing up your hands and saying you are stuck with traffic on Denny, so the only alternative is to have the bus run on a side street. But this in turn causes all sorts of problems. In the middle of the day it is actually slower! As you mentioned, it also would end up serving a different area. It makes sense as an additional route, some time in the distant future when the buses are all running frequently. But it is basically a distraction from what we should do now: Just take a lane of Denny.
Hey just as a heads up, Ryan uses they/them pronouns, not he/him.
Thanks. I didn’t know that. I’ll correct the previous comment.
I was completely oblivious PT’s new BRT line was already open. However, I am bewildered that it only runs during peak times. Is this due to funding, driver or vehicle shortage? Or all of the above…
It’s a shame Tacoma/Lakewood has such poor transit service. for its size and higher transit-dependent demographics. The city would benefit from creating its own transit system to shield itself from anti-transit voters in the rest of the county but that aint gonna happen.
It’s seemingly driven by branding for grants. FTA loves anything called BRT, and no agency dares to call out bad or ineffective BRT proposals.
Maybe it’s time to come up with a real definition of BRT.
There is a BRT scale with four levels. Most people have switched to using it rather than continuing the never-ending debates on what is “real BRT”. RapidRide is probably at the lowest or second-lowest level, so I doubt the Stream Community Line would even get on the chart.
I don’t think fta funded this one.
That’s what I thought. They’re saving the grant for the real BRT in the future.
I’m not sure what you have to promise the feds to qualify for matching funds. I don’t think mode is that important. Streetcars get matching funding for example. It used to be that you needed to do well on particular metrics. The big one was rider time saved per dollar. So if you spend a million dollars and a thousand riders save ten minutes a piece, then it works out to a hundred dollars per minute per rider. The feds basically moved away from this model since it tended to help those on either end of the spectrum. New York could spend a fortune saving people a few minutes (e. g. Second Avenue Subway) and yet the numbers are great because there are so many people riding that line. Commuter rail can save a lot of time (for not much money, typically) and see similar numbers. Thus everything in between would not qualify. Making matters worse, there was the case in Minneapolis (if memory serves) where the rail line basically skipped over the poor part of town, despite running through it. By these metrics it made sense to do so. As a result, they have largely downplayed this number.
There are other issues as well. Should you focus on new riders, or existing riders saving time? What are the social impacts? How about TOD, or the network?
Which brings up another issue. Estimating ridership can be very difficult. There is modeling software, but it is very crude. There are just too many variables. The city can grow around the transit line. Other lines can poach riders, or it can complement the service. You can see this with something as simple as the RapidRide G line. If the 48 runs a lot more often, then ridership of the G goes up. If the 2 continues to run close to the G and sees higher frequency, ridership goes down. If the city upzones around each stop, it would have more riders. It is impossible to plug all of that into a model, since it is dependent on future decisions.
I’m sure there are other discussions out there about the subject, but this one is good (and locally relevant): https://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2016/04/22/which-riders-matter/
I remember it being in the announcements (last year) after pierce transit cut the transit lanes that it would fail to qualify for FTA funding so they had to pivot to something else. And WSDOT didn’t want to let them reallocate the existing lanes.
> I’m not sure what you have to promise the feds to qualify for matching funds. I don’t think mode is that important.
Theres a minimum amount of transit lane/speed up required to qualify for “fixed guideway”. It is like technically 50% but usually the FTA is more lenient than that. The other one is corridor based brt but even for that one need to implement queue jumps and tsp.
> It used to be that you needed to do well on particular metrics
If yall are curious it’s public. It’s 1/6th weighted into mobility, environment, congestion, cost-effectiveness, economic development, land use.
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/2023-01/CIG-Policy-Guidance-January-2023.pdf
The original project, which ST3 is contributing to, was an all-day BRT corridor like RapidRide. (Full-stop without a local shadow, unlike Swift.) But cost increases or bad budgeting broke the budget, and there was more resistance to center transit lanes (removing space for cars) than expected. So Pierce Transit decided on this interim alternative, that it could build with the local funds it has (or a very small grant, I’m not sure which). It wasn’t clear until later that it would be essentially a peak express. The terminology is misleading, because it’s clearly like Metro’s route 15. But Pierce Transit doesn’t have expresses, so its residents may be unfamiliar with the term except for ST Express. The “Community” part seems to be sponsor contributions.
I missed the ribbon cutting (because – what’s the point), but rode the first northbound Stream this afternoon from 152nd in Spanaway to S 38th. It took about half an hour, maybe 15 minutes of savings over the two local 1s that passed me. About 15 minutes before the Stream arrived. ;)
Me and 2 others rode it. One got off, and a teen got on around 72nd. The driver was very nervous I didn’t understand I was getting on the express. He flashed his lights and pointed up to the sign. He knows most people on Pac Ave really need local service, and much more frequent local service than they have. The 1s were 1/2 to 3/4s full.
I talked to the bus driver. He said mornings were more popular than afternoons.
He said most in the morning were heading to their shifts at SeaTac on the 574, or transferring to a Seattle bus (590 and 594). But he liked the shiny new bus, and was optimistic that as people learned about it, ridership would pick up.
re Seattle comp plan: is housing type a margin worth adding the discussion? Were single room occupancy (SRO) and micro apartments or apodments made illegal? Seems like they could be helpful is providing more units with less dirt; Seattle dirt is very costly. SRO could be used to link housing units with social services.
The housing market is atomistic (many players) with plenty of competition for dirt, units. and houses by developers, renters, sellers, and buyers.
Another margin is subsidy. Poor households will need financial help in affording rent. Subsidy could come from the feds or from the billionaires. Who is enlightened enough to help?
SROs were made illegal in the 1970s. “Apodments” appeared in the 2000s due to a loophole in zoning: an 8-unit microapartment building could qualify as a “single-family house” in single-family zones. That loophole lasted for several years and was then closed. In the 2010s the city outlawed small studios (under 220 square feet). (The difference between a small studio and a microapartment is an in-unit kitchen and bathroom, although apodments have bathrooms.) Now I don’t know. Apodments seem to be coming back, at least to some extent. Certainly something along those lines could be used as a model for low-income housing or supportive housing, like tiny houses have become.
On the topic of north Seattle-Microsoft commutes… combining the 271 and 45 would help some, but not as much as one may think. The problem is that such a move only really connects one corridor in Seattle with one destination on the Eastside, when in reality, travel demand branches out on both ends.
There is also the fact that, once you’re at UW station, Link gets you to Roosevelt much faster than the 45 does, to the point where it’s not even clearcut whether a 271 to 45 thru route would even get you from Bellevue to Green Lake faster than the three-seat 271->Link->45 option. Especially, once the 2 line finishes and Link runs all day every 5 minutes. Sounds crazy, but that’s the advantage of an underground subway.
“On the topic of north Seattle-Microsoft commutes… combining the 271 and 45 would help some, but not as much as one may think.”
I was thinking of all types of Eastside-North Seattle trips, not just commutes or Microsoft commutes. I’ve traveled between Bellevue and North Seattle for forty years now, and I can think of dozens of reasons to take it., and how it would help people in many parts of North Seattle or going to destinations there, and how people’s trip patterns and route choices would change. It would even have helped when I lived at 55th & University Way.
Yeah, the combination would have been a lot more useful a few years ago (before Northgate Link). Link provides some of the functionality of the 45. Not just in terms of a couple shared stops, but also the connection. For example you might take the 62 and then transfer to the 45-270, except then you might as well get on Link. Once you are on Link, it is probably easiest to just round the horn if you are headed to Downtown Bellevue.
Now Redmond is a different matter. I could see the 542 (which is going to run more often) being extended further into Seattle. Then again, it is hard to see it work. As you get out to Roosevelt a three-seat ride (as mentioned) becomes more appealing. Beyond Roosevelt the next connection is Aurora, but at that point a different three-seat ride (RapidRide E, 44, 270) might be better.
The best bus would likely be the 44, but the 44 is fairly long. If they could somehow make the 44 a lot faster than I could see it working. But unlike a lot of corridors I don’t see how they can make the 44 a lot faster. Unless of course they built a tunnel, and that point it should be rail.
Which is really the core issue. Looping around to get to Downtown Bellevue (via Link) is not that bad. The express bus to Redmond is good, even if riders make one (or two) seat connections to get to it. But going east-west in Seattle is fundamentally slow and effects a lot of potential riders going to the UW as well as the East Side. The weak link if you will (no pun intended) is east-west travel within Seattle, which is why Ballard to UW rail would save a lot of time for a lot of riders.
> Second, the new route of the 270 will not only serve more people along the way, but be faster.
I do find it a bit funny/unfortunate though that the new 270 won’t be able to use the hov ramps since they are at 112th ave ne.
In general I’m kinda confused what exactly was the original i-520 transit plan even back then. They decided not to build montlake (center) fly over stops instead routing buses to UW/u-district. But then opted to build the reversible i-520 to mercer/i-5 express ramps.
Actually, what I read is that, Metro being Metro, the 270 will actually use the HOV ramp, but it will do use using an ugly backtrack on Northup Way, which will likely cost more than than it would save in all but the worst traffic conditions.
I’m assuming they decided to do it this way because the Bellevue Way ramp is too close to 92nd Ave. to allow the bus to get over into the left lane in time to reach the 92nd Ave. freeway station, but I think this is a mistake. It’s essentially a 3-5 detour of every bus in both directions, just to serve the 92nd Ave. freeway station. 92nd Ave. is already served by the 255 and 542 going to the same U-district, and by the 246, going to the same Bellevue Transit Center, and doesn’t get enough riders to warrant bus detours to increase service to that stop beyond that. Also, even if the 270 skips Yarrow Point, connections between the 270 and peak-only buses to downtown or SLU would still be possible at Evergreen Point, which offers the same quality of a connection as Yarrow Point does.
The 270 may seem like a faster routing than the 271 on paper, but when you factor in all those extra stoplights and backtracking, it’s going to be essentially the same. I think part of the problem is that Metro is not really envisioning the 270 as the primary way to go between Bellevue Transit Center and the U-district (as evidenced by the 270’s very poor evening and weekend frequency); instead, Metro envisions people riding Link for 40 minutes, all the way around, with the 270 relegated to people boarding the bus along Bellevue Way. The 270’s detour and poor frequency will work to make this a self-fulfilling prophecy, which may be the point, as Metro doesn’t want the 270 to get too many riders, or else they’ll have to add more buses to it, which would mean taking away buses from other routes.
asdf2: yes, that is a question that the council should consider before approving the conceptual Route 270; how many minutes will the deviation via Northup Way between 108th/112th avenues NE and Bellevue Way NE take?
Yes, some considered breaking Route 271 more than a decade ago, but it was never allowed in the scope of a project. Yes, some mused about combining it with north Seattle routes as a through route past the UW Link station (the only one between 2016 and 2021). During that time, Route 45 terminated at the Triangle and routes 71, 73, and 78 had ugly live loops.
That’s not what I see on the pdf https://kingcounty.gov/en/legacy/depts/transportation/metro/programs-projects/fares-routes-and-service/-/media/depts/metro/programs-projects/link-connections/east-link/route-maps/270.pdf
Though has it been changed again?
“when you factor in all those extra stoplights and backtracking, it’s going to be essentially the same”
So what? It serves an entire corridor of apartment buildings, dozens of them. It will be shorter for those riders because they’re only only part of the route. It gets on the freeway sooner and for more of the trip. It will connect north Bellevue Way to downtown Bellevue better.
“the 270’s very poor evening and weekend frequency”
That’s the driver shortage and service-hour limitation. Metro’s own reports say the 271 is practically the most needful route for more runs to fix that hourly frequency. Metro wants to do it, it just doesn’t have the resources now. When it does, it will add runs. The 270 is also a RapidRide candidate, so if that ever happens, it will get 15-minute full-time service. That shows an interest in more service in the area, and incremental improvements over time can bring some of the benefits RapidRide would bring.
The service hours are there, they’re just not deployed efficiently. For instance, instead of having the evening/weekend trips on the 271 run all the way out to Issaquah, they should have just turned the bus around at Eastgate TC during the weekend daytime and Bellevue TC in the evening. It means a few single family houses on Newport Way lose evening service, but in exchange, the bus from Bellevue to UW now runs every 20 minutes instead of every 30, or every 30 minutes instead of every 60. That’s a huge deal, and would certainly produce a net increase in the route’s ridership.
That said, I don’t have a lot of faith that the service cuts due to the driver shortage are really temporary. The cost per service hour has consistently gone up over the years faster than inflation, which means continual tax increases are necessary, just to maintain the same level of service. In the long run, that’s unsustainable.
“when you factor in all those extra stoplights and backtracking, it’s going to be essentially the same”
It looks a little faster, mainly because you avoid extra turns and spend more time on the freeway. As WL pointed out, the bus is going to straight on Bellevue Way until it turns onto the freeway. This is a straight shot (no extra turns — definitely no extra backtracking). When I ask Google for directions (from the south end of Bellevue Way to the UW) this is the route it takes me, even when there is congestion on the freeway (which the bus will largely avoid).
It isn’t an ideal connection though. It would be better if the bus stayed on the freeways (520 and 405) the whole way. Ideally there would be a connection between the HOV lanes, but even if there isn’t that is still much faster. Given that the vast majority of riders travel in the middle of the day, it doesn’t matter as much. Some riders would lose their direct connection from Bellevue Way to the UW, but that would be a fairly small price to pay. A bigger issue is funding. Unlike the current route, the proposed 270 is a good match in terms of frequency. So instead of having two routes (one for that part of Bellevue Way and an express) you just have one.
This would be well suited for an agency like Sound Transit. They are spending oodles of cash on projects with far less merit. An express between the UW and Downtown Bellevue (serving only the freeway stops along the way) would be right up their alley.
“An express between the UW and Downtown Bellevue (serving only the freeway stops along the way) would be right up their alley.”
There is such a route, the 556. Before the recession there was also a 555. One of them continued to Greenlake; I think both went to Issaquah on the other end. The 556 is currently peak only. There may have been some midday service earlier. So ST could adapt this service.
The future 554 will consolidate the 550, 554, and 556 between Issaquah, Bellevue Way, and Bellevue TC. I don’t think it will continue to the U-District, but maybe ST has another route for that segment. Or it could be encouraging people to use Link instead.
Pittsburgh’s system has an open comment section available for the public. It’s interesting to see what riders are saying in the raw. PIT is embarking on a network redesign. I’ve been to PIT a few years ago. It’s an underrated destination with decent bus service if you stay close its core. One cool thing about PIT is that has a busway running all the way through the northern half of the city. It was lacking, unfortunately, night time frequency… which I was forced to walk 30 minutes from the bars to my Airbnb.
https://engage.rideprt.org/buslineredesign/buslineredesign-home
I visited Pittsburgh last summer and got to see some of it myself. The central part of the city is quite walkable, and they have a dedicated busway connecting downtown to some of the eastern neighborhoods. Pittsburgh also has a lot of hills, similar to Seattle.
One striking thing I noticed in Pittsburgh was the contrast well the well-off neighborhoods and the run-down neighborhoods, often just blocks apart from each other. The city has potential, but need something like a tech boom to get it going.
I love Pittsburg!
But we have to honest about the difference between Pittsburg and Seattle. Yuppies with money colonized all the poor neighborhoods in Seattle. When I was young, a house in Rainier Beach cost 75-125K. I dated a girl who’s dad owned a lawn care business… and a house. Now some White rich family owns that home…. with a Black Lives Matter sign in the yard no less. Any City where the working class can’t own their own home is failure.
Someday soon the Liberal yuppie class will find Pittsburg and fuck it up just like they did Seattle. That will be a sad, sad day. for a nice, interesting city. The yuppie colonizers will tell the same worn out lies about “saving the planet” and “the need for density” and spend billions and stupid commuter trains and public housing and apodments and other gawd awful shit. But the wonderful Pittsburg, August Wilson’s Pittsburg, that will be long gone.
There’s nobody 50 years old that can tell you that Seattle is better now than in the 1980s and keep a straight face.
As someone who grew up in Seattle and now lives in Seattle I can see with a straight face that in some ways Seattle is better, and in other ways it is worse. I think that is likely true with most cities. Nostalgia is a common emotion. We often forget the ways in which things in the past weren’t so great.
Ross Bleakney,
I think Seattle is nicer now than it was in the 1980s…. but only if you have lots of money. I watched a lot of baseball games in the old King Dome, which in many ways was a giant parking garage. The “new” baseball stadium is much nicer…. and way more expensive. For a guy like me…. the King Dome is more than nostalgia…. it’s what Seattle was before it got “fancy”. Everything in the City got upgraded during this last Amazon tech boom. I remodeled so many funky cheap apartments on the edges of Capitol Hill into high end yuppie apartments. Hey it’s all good if you have money. That’s never been my life. I helped evict long time renters and the working class. I’m not proud of that at all.
The problem Liberals have is champagne taste… on a beer budget. There’s this false idea that by changing the zoning….. the working class will somehow afford to live here again. I wouldn’t hold breath for that. I guess you could say it’s sort of a supply and demand problem, but housing has nothing to do with it. It’s the supply of upper income folks in the USA who want move the Emerald City. Tear down as many great old houses, as much of old funky Seattle as you want for “density”. You’ll never build out to meet demand…. until the boom is over and the yuppies stop coming. That’s the day when shit stops being built….. maybe Seattle finds sanity again. But right now, (and in the near future) the housing–cost of living–blue collar income ratio is so out of wack that my only advice to young people is… just leave. Even poor Tacoma is overrun with people with stupid money now.
lol once Seattle enters the bust phase you’ll probably say all the young people should leave for cities with more jobs.
“I think Seattle is nicer now than it was in the 1980s…. but only if you have lots of money. ”
That’s pretty much everywhere in the USA though. It’s the natural result of 40 years of Reaganomics policies aimed at making rich people richer.
I guess you could say it’s sort of a supply and demand problem, but housing has nothing to do with it.
When people make statements like that I wonder if they are trolling. You are claiming that a basic economic principle understood by just about everyone including kids selling lemonade … is false. Why? It just is. Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim? No, it just is. Is there counter evidence to support the obvious — why of course. Can you cite cities with very liberal zoning that somehow couldn’t manage to build enough housing? Of course not. Can I cite cities that added way more people and yet kept housing prices low? Of course.
Look, I don’t want to be rude here. But it is the zoning, plain and simple. If we had a zoning code that resembled what they have in Japan or Germany than we would have housing costs similar to Japan or Germany, which is to say much lower. Yes, demand to live in Seattle is high, but it is nothing like Tokyo. Tokyo grew by 2 million people since 1990. Seattle added about 200,000 or one-tenth that amount. Tokyo (like the rest of Japan) was able to build its way out of the problem. We weren’t, because of the zoning.
As a child of the 70s, it baffles me that someone of a similar age doesn’t get it. Do you remember the oil crisis? Do you remember what caused it? Was it a sudden increase in demand? No, it was caused by a cartel shutting off the supply. Well guess what. Zoning acts just like that cartel, in limiting the supply.
Ross Bleakney,
Paris and NYC are both more expensive to live in than Seattle, because of super high demand. A world class city like Paris couldn’t possibly hope to even come close to meeting housing demand, right? I mean I’d retire there if I could afford to and there are millions and millions people just like me.
Seattle is a desirable city… there’s been a steady flow out-of-town money rolling in for 30 years. There’s the real demand. The price of housing is controlled by the number of people who want to move there, not zoning. At some point the tech boom will end or the homeless crisis will grow too large and the desire to live in Seattle will fall…. and housing prices along with it.
Yeah, I remember the big oil crisis of the 1970s. OPEC manipulated the market to their advantage. If you think the US building industry isn’t just as smart as OPEC you’re kidding yourself. Change the zoning. Doesn’t mean builders will build squat. I know builders… those guys are really savvy about not overbuilding, not flooding the market. It isn’t really a free market, there’s plenty of unspoken collusion between the banks, the planners and construction companies. Nobody is killing off the golden goose here. I mean everybody involved made a ton of money building in Seattle over the last twenty years. We basically flipped all the “underperforming” housing (where poor people used to live) into more expensive housing for the money moving in. Sucks big time of less well healed locals!
Here’s a company that’s made millions buying up older “rundown” buildings in the PNW and “upgrading” them or tearing them down completely for lux high end housing. Think a change in zoning will change their behavior? Or maybe Charter is in on changing the zoning in some bullshit backroom deal?
https://www.chartercon.com
You might want to check your facts about Paris. Meanwhile, you’ll also want to check your facts about housing construction rates in NYC per capita.
“The price of housing is controlled by the number of people who want to move there, not zoning.”
If all those people find available units vacant for them, the price won’t go up, or at least not much. If they find a housing shortage, they’ll compete with each other and existing residents for the few available units, and they’ll bid the prices up so that they can get the unit instead of the other people. Seattle rents go up and down as supply and demand increase and decrease. It has gone up and down and flatlined several times since 2003. It’s also different for each neighborhood.
Dallas, Houston, Chicago, and Tokyo,build enough housing for their population surges, so prices don’t go up much. Seattle, the Bay Area, and New York City don’t. I don’t know about Paris. If you think any of these cities are too large and growth should be channeled to smaller cities, then those smaller cities need to have good transit and walkability so that they can be viable destinations for car-free/car-light living.
The Liberal cities have Conservative zoning policies; that’s why they have a housing crisis. Dallas, Houston, and Chicago have Liberal housing policies; that’s why they don’t.
“lol once Seattle enters the bust phase you’ll probably say all the young people should leave for cities with more jobs.”
I mean he’s basically told my generation (Millennials) to move to bumfuck nowhere because his generation is so godamm obsessed with houses as an investment to the point of being irrationally blinded by it and irrational to protecting it. And then look down upon renters as if they’re beneath them in being of value to a city and community compared to a homeowner who I might add is likely house-rich cash-poor and one recession away from foreclosure, not a rousing endorsement for strengthening community bonds in my view.
To me, boomers who won’t wake up to the reality and frankenstein mess they themselves created in the first place are just burying the heads in the sand.
Alongside pulling up the ladder and giving the younger generations the middle finger to upward mobility that they themselves benefited from off the backs of their own grandparents. Who gave them these gifts at the ballot box and in legislation at the state and federal level back then to help them get ahead and have better opportunities that they were never afforded as youths themselves.
Telling someone “just go buy any cheap starter home, no matter where” is just unhelpful advice and is being condesending and sneering at young people who actually don’t wanna live in sad, depressing, middle of nowhere North Dakota (which I’ve seen a fair share of boomers do). And I’m saying this as someone who will say we need people there too, but it shouldn’t be the only option for young people to buy homes.
As we need young people to stay in Seattle as well. You know how all those aging Boomers and Gen Xers who gush about nostalgia for Almost Live, Gunge, Sir Mix-A-Lot, Jimmi Hendrix, Cap Hill arts scene, Seattle’s coffeehouse culture before Starbucks, etc. Yeah they need to remember that only happened because of cheap enough housing, commercial, and studio space available to actually foster such creative and entrepreneurial endeavors.
Young professionals need actual afforable places to live, including in the big cities. Telling them to accept crap where no one lives and no means to build upward mobility professionally is just a signal to me that a lot of older generation people have become complacent, lazy, and foolish in their own endeavor to protect “their precious” as if their Gollum in Lord of the Rings. Maybe the older generation should recognize that if no one is able to take care of them in old age where they live, then how are they going to get the proper care and community they need in their final years.
I honestly believe that boomers are leading to their own demise in their old age from killing any and all housing due to their own very childish and very irrational behavior. Nowhere do you see grown adults who should know better throwing the biggest temper tantrums and metaphorically stomping their feet like toddlers do than at local city council meetings over housing. Cutting your nose because you have a raging hatred in your heart for renters because renters = poor and lower class is just irrational and bonkers. But as an old italian saying goes “You wanted the bicycle, now pedal.”
> Someday soon the Liberal yuppie class will find Pittsburg and fuck it up just like they did Seattle. That will be a sad, sad day. for a nice, interesting city. The yuppie colonizers will tell the same worn out lies about “saving the planet” and “the need for density” and spend billions and stupid commuter trains and public housing and apodments and other gawd awful shit. But the wonderful Pittsburg, August Wilson’s Pittsburg, that will be long gone.
Wouldn’t it be more likely a conservative “Pittsburgee” class refuses to build any housing besides single family housing and only builds offices and emulates the bay area?
Secondly “apodments” were already banned by Seattle for over a decade.
And we can look at the alternative nearby USC where a 1 bedroom/1bath goes for 4 thousand and a 2 bedroom goes for 5 thousand per month which is for students.
I just find it astonishing @tacommee that we literally have live examples of your end game nsisting on single family housing in both SF and los angeles and one just puts their head in the sand.
> Even poor Tacoma is overrun with people with stupid money now.
Gee I wonder how. Again the bay area provides a literal example of what happened, SF and the penisula cities refused to build any housing to the point where all of the tech workers bought houses farther and farther away. Just search reddit right now there’s plenty of examples of bay area people contemplating driving 2 hours for cheaper housing
https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/16lw6db/is_a_1hr_commute_worth_it/
https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/vc1wtc/vacaville_to_sf_commute_5_days_a_week_is_it_all/
Like the second example the person is contemplating driving 55 miles every day one way. And there’s other much more awful examples. This is your ideal outcome tacommee. Not some utopia of single family homes but people soul crushing driving hours stuck in traffic or forced to move out of seattle.
Look, I’ve known this was happening, one way or another, for years. There is no “free market” in rental units. No zoning change is going to fix anything, in fact tearing down houses for rentals only gives more power to the “Big Boys”
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/03/realpage-antitrust-lawsuits-allege-collusion-among-corporate-landlords.html
Even if Real Page loses in court…. and they may not, this sort of shit will keep happening all the same. The landlords are going to stack the deck against us. Owning your own home is the only solution, the only option.
Zach B,
My generation didn’t start is mess…. it’s been going on forever. Home ownership made America great. Read some Sinclair Lewis…. big business has been fucking over the common man in the USA forever. Home ownership is one of the few ways to fight back. Decora Iowa is a town I’ve always loved. Look it up online. Then make a list of everything you currently have in Seattle and see how little old Decora adds up. There are good jobs there…. and a house with your name on it. Seattle is just played out now.
Anyway…. I’m out. But if anybody believes that changing zoning or regulations is going fix the housing shortage in Seattle, you don’t know the same people I do….. the money’d class, the banks, builders, the contractors all engage in collusion to keep the prices high.
The recent changes in zoning? Written by the same group who have been keeping housing sky high for decades. Only a total fool would trust these bastards.
https://www.mbaks.com
And here’s the worst part. Call them out, take them to court….. even if you win… the bastards will take their money and leave. You lose either way.
It’s not a boomer thing, and that verges toward an ad hominem attack against boomers. Most of the people who emerged from the 1920s through WWII had that attitude, and the regulations got more entrenched in the 1970s and 1980s when the boomers were still young adults or thirtysomethings.
There’s the real demand. The price of housing is controlled by the number of people who want to move there, not zoning.
Wrong! You have no evidence to support such an outrageous claim. In contrast, I’ve cited repeated studies that confirm the obvious.
There is this paper for example (that cites other studies): https://furmancenter.org/files/Supply_Skepticism_-_Final.pdf
Or this study that makes it quite clear that zoning is the problem. https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/hier1948.pdf. Allow me quote from the conclusion:
In much of America the price of housing is quite close to the marginal, physical costs of
new construction. The price of housing is significantly higher than construction costs
only in a limited number of areas. In those areas, high prices have little to do with conventional models with a free market for land. Instead, our evidence suggests that zoning and other land use controls play the dominant role in making housing expensive.
Seattle is a desirable city…
More desirable than Tokyo?!! Give me a break. Oh, and New York City is desirable, and yet it is shrinking! How the hell does a city with sky-high housing prices see shrinking supply? Zoning!
Change the zoning. Doesn’t mean builders will build squat. … Here’s a company that’s made millions buying up older “rundown” buildings in the PNW and “upgrading” them or tearing them down completely for lux high end housing.
You are contradicting yourself. Builders won’t build anything, yet they are building lots of things. You think there is some sort of cabal that is trying to make sure that only single family homes are built, when it is pretty obvious what is going on: That is all they can build! Come on, just look at it. This is an 80,000 square foot lot: https://maps.app.goo.gl/y3XRcgzMgW1LfRng6. They will build ten houses. Right down the street they build an apartment on a similar lot with about 300 units. Obviously the apartment building would make the developer way more money. Hell, just building fifty houses would make them a lot more money. So why in the hell did they only build ten houses on such a huge lot? Zoning! The area is only zoned for single family houses, and the lots have to be big. In other words, that is all they could build.
There is no “free market” in rental units. No zoning change is going to fix anything
Wow! That is such a contradictory statement. You rightly point at that there is no free market, then turn around and say that a free market won’t fix anything. This is like saying “There is no free market in oil because of OPEC, but breaking up OPEC won’t fix anything.”.
Look, I’m not suggesting this, but just imagine we got rid of all of the zoning rules. No zoning, no design review — nothing. Just build whatever the hell you want to build (other than safety related regulations). What do you think would happen? I think it is pretty obvious. They would build like crazy. That lot I mentioned (which is right down the street from me) would have a large apartment building. Similar apartments would go up all around the city. There would be way more small houses and row houses as well (as more middle-class folks want their own land). At some point you would reach the exact equilibrium point mentioned in the paper. The price of housing would be quite close to the marginal, physical costs of new construction.
> There’s the real demand. The price of housing is controlled by the number of people who want to move there, not zoning.
You do realize there’s the demand curve and then the supply curve right?
Tacomee states:
“Look, I’ve known this was happening, one way or another, for years. There is no “free market” in rental units. No zoning change is going to fix anything, in fact tearing down houses for rentals only gives more power to the “Big Boys”.
I agree! The development community has created a perception that things must be 6-8 story apartments that only a big corporation can finance and build, or that owners belong in suburbs. It’s created a trapped generation now getting into their 40’s that cannot buy and don’t want suburban life anyway. The trend started growing with Reagan and now a huge proportion of adults under 45 cannot own homes. And add to that the oppressive student loan saga that has been penalizing younger citizens for decades. Combined it works like permanent financial handcuffs on two wrists.
Before widespread single family zoning, middle housing and alternative arrangements were common. Duplexes, garage apartments, boarding houses, larger structures that could be divided into two or three units, and other types were legal and common without controversy. So an individual could financially survive just by owning a large home that could be partially rented out in a myriad of ways.
I would however say that zoning laws are also a factor in the problem. The problem is not one factor but many factors. All of the structural elements need to change to send the market into a new direction —and even then it will take a few decades to undo what has been created.
Sadly, the most populist approach is to pursue taxing for these local housing initiatives that come with hurdles and requirements to ultimately benefit corporations more than residents. The affordable housing builders are corporations and out to make a buck too — and benefit greatly from the extra money.
Ross Bleakney,
Here’s a personal story for you. Back in the early 1970s, I lived in half built house outside of Denver Colorado. Denver had a building boom and then a bust… my dad bought a house with no plumbing and no real electricity or central heating and we moved in. It was camping at a construction site. Over time we finished the house and later sold the place for big profit.
There’s been many boom and bust cycles in housing in the USA…. but now things are different. In the past builders built houses and sold them to home owners for a big one time profit. This honest business that made America the richest nation on earth top to bottom.
But there’s two things that are happening in Seattle now that are killing real estate in the city. One, rich people have bought up all the houses and two, huge real estate conglomerates are engaging in build and hold tactics. Sure, you can change zoning…. but that just speeds up the Big Boys gobbling up real estate. If you don’t think price fixing has driven up rents in Seattle…. I don’t know what to tell you. There’s big software out there tracking vacancy rates, rental prices and construction of new units. The Feds are investigating this for Gods sake. If you think the housing mafia is ever going to give you a fair deal, you’re dead wrong. The housing mafia wrote your ballyhoo’d zoning changes,!
Al S.
Yes!!!! You get it. We need a lot middle housing owned by mom and pop owners who actually live in the community. In Ogden UT, any house can be converted to an owner occupied duplex…. no questions asked. Most of this type of housing is for Weber State students. There’s not a lot of ridiculous renter protection rules either. It doesn’t have to be so hard. Seattle makes it hard.
Meanwhile…. the House our Neighbors crew (I-135) are planning on another public vote to fund “social housing”. ….. 100 million in taxes to add maybe 200 units of rent controlled housing per year for a decade. Over 250,000 households in Seattle will be eligible to enter into a lottery to win the “golden ticket” . Less than 1% percent of Seattle housing will “social housing” after a decade of this program. doesn’t look like much of a solution to me.
Home ownership is the only way forward. People need the chance to take control of their lives and not just pay the rent monster forever.
> Yes!!!! You get it. We need a lot middle housing owned by mom and pop owners who actually live in the community. In Ogden UT, any house can be converted to an owner occupied duplex…. no questions asked.
That’s literally a zoning change as well….
> Home ownership is the only way forward. People need the chance to take control of their lives and not just pay the rent monster forever.
lol, what a brave statement tacomee. Just as long as they live in the next state over right?
WL,
Let’s talk a little about zoning and permits.
So if I own a big run down house somewhere in Seattle…. can I measure everything out, get an architect to draw up some plans for a triplex, have me and my buddies gut the place, be my own general contractor, hire electricians and plumbers, get the work inspected and signed off on…. then do the drywall, trim and flooring myself? Final inspection by the City of course. Everything straight and above board. This is how affordable housing is built.
Can I do this in Seattle under current zoning? And what would the permits and inspections cost?
Some big construction company certainly can just tear down the house and build 4 overpriced lux units. That’s been the goal from 2000 on…. tear down any affordable, slightly funky housing and replace it with new, more expensive housing. You watched it happen, right?
Any zoning changes endorsed by The Master Builders Association may not do what the activists pushing for them want. We’ve been hearing how building more units would make housing more affordable for 20 years now. It hasn’t. As long as the builders and big property managers are calling all the shots… and City and State governments just rubber stamp them…. how could anything change?
Don’t take my word for any of this…. email Angela Jossy at the Weekly Volcano (in Tacoma). Ask her to explain why zoning and renter protections are squeezing out the little people in PNW real estate. She’s very savvy about this sort of stuff.
https://weekly-volcano.com/the-scoop
@tacommee
So at the end of the day the zoning needs to be changed right? I don’t know what exact point you are trying to make or basically just arguing against yourself.
His problem is his own unwillingness to engage the topic in a meaningful and realistic manner compared to the rest of us here who understand how much renting and improving zoning is actually an important part of the housing equation rather than just arguing “nothing can be done” till your blue in the face. Alongside that homeownership the end all be all ideal situation for everyone, homeownership doesn’t make sense for my field of work (Hospitality) where moving around is a fact of life.
Saying “just move to Decorah, Iowa and buy a house there” is genuinely unhelpful and very awful advice to give to younger people. There’s few economic opportunities there. The main employer is a private Lutheran liberal arts college, that’s not a lot of economic opportunity to be had on top of being somewhere that gets very hot and very cold with not much in terms of mild or moderate temperatures. Like for my field, I can go work at what a Super 8, Quality Inn, and a Fairfield in the town. That’s not economic opportunity that supports upward mobility compared to actual towns and cities with good amenities, high quality of life, and where upward economic mobility is feasible because I can tell you that ain’t coming from moving to godamm Decorah, Iowa of all places.
“The price of housing is controlled by the number of people who want to move there, not zoning.”
That’s comparing apples and oranges. You can’t live in a zoning regulation, you can only live in a house. You’re looking at half of the equation: the number of people moving there. (Also add births, young adults moving out of their parents’ house, divorces, and subtract deaths.) The other half is the number of units available for them to move into. If there are more units than people, prices stay the same or go down. If there are more people than units, prices go up. Zoning is not units, but it indirectly affects the number of units. It has affected it too much, and prevented the number of units from expanding to match demand.
Zoning also restricts the types of units. Different people want different types, but the zoning regulations allow only a few types. Development has bifurcated into two extremes: single-family houses and their relaxed cousin ADUs, and large wide breadboxes with 100+ units financed by Wall Street. People want things in the middle, but they haven’t been allowed on 70% of the land since the 1950s/1970s, and the remaining 30% is so little that Wall Street breadboxes outbid them for the land. So people get a kind of apartment/house they don’t want, with a walkability level they don’t want, at a price they don’t want, because that’s all that’s available.
WL,
Oh yeah, the zoning has to change. But letting the same players, (The Seattle City government and The Master Builder’s Association) make a “new” zoning plan that doesn’t actually change the dynamics of what’s currently slowly killing Seattle. Mayor Harrell’s plan doesn’t change the dynamics of the situation. As Seattle shifts from a city of home owners from a city of renters, there’s less and less local control.
The problem is many urbanists don’t see people taking responsibility for their own housing as a good thing. Think of home ownership as a commitment to community…. as well as solid financial move. Seattle needs young home owners even more than young home owners need Seattle.
Strong Towns has a new book out about housing…. maybe they have a fresh take on the problem? Urbanists need to come up a solution here…. having big business build and own a majority of the housing in a city is much worse than suburban sprawl ever was. How do we build density and community at the same time? Because has all the growth Seattle had in the last 30 years built any community?
Zack B
The best hotel in Decorah is Hotel Winneshiek. I’ve stayed there. It was nice enough, sorta fancy, in that plain Midwestern way. Many employees there likely have houses with mortgages, they’re league bowlers, fly fish for trout, listen to classical music recitals at Luther College, ride their bikes around the bike trail that loops around town, cross country ski in the winter and play pickle ball all summer.
But the most import thing is the Hotel Winneshiek employees are, by and large, a lot happier than hotel employees caught in the rat race of Seattle.
Everybody makes their own choices.
Oh for the love of God man, just actually listen to what people are actually saying for godamm once in your life instead of running your mouth every time someone pokes a hole in your very shaky and outdated arguments as if you desperately need to win it.
I’m sorry that listening and being empathetic to younger people is a such a godamm difficult concept for your to comprehend and that you cannot muster much of an argument than yelling about moving rural America as your lil broken record stump speech to young people.
Here’s a godamm reality check for you
Nobody under retirement age wanna go to bumfuck nowhere Iowa of their own volition.
There’s a reason why the rural areas are dying, and so is Decorah as well from the looks of it when you look at census data.
I’m sorry you cannot comprehend in that mind of yours that no young people would wanna go live in bumfuck Iowa of their own volition. You may call it being condesending, but I’m quite frankly tired of someone who’s stubborn as mule who cannot recognize that homeownership doesn’t always bring happiness like you keep telling yourself as some sweet self-reaasuring lie in your head.
You know what brings actual happiness, being around people and community that care about me. Can’t do that in Decorah or rural Iowa for that matter as a gay man myself. Being able to see family on a consistent basis, can’t really do that in Decorah without an expensive drive and plane trip. Being able to have mobility and freedom to go where I want without a car, I can’t DO THAT in Decorah as a disabled person as there’s no .
All you’ve done here is sneer and be very condesending as if everyone is a stupid moron for not picking the choices you say are good in your own head.
Let me make something perfectly clear, I do not care if someone wants to move to rural America of their own volition. But at the same time I don’t see many of my generation do that because there’s not much of an economy in rural America that leads people out there for jobs.
I have multiple older friends (40s/50s) online who live in rural areas and they all say the same thing, rural America doesn’t have much to offerfor young people and that small towns they live in all got more or less not much to do compared to bigger cities near them like Houston, Kansas City, etc and would tell young people to stay in the city for their own sake and mental well being.
They recognize how much economic opportunity there is in bigger regional centers compared to small town America. Small Town America is great for retired people who want a slower paced life but most of us here aren’t of retirement age and need to be where we can actually make money, be close to friends, be close to our communities, etc. That’s not something really viable in rural America for most people. Plus rural life can just plain suck, had a cousin who moved to Soldotna, AK because of her husband’s military orders amd she was very happy the day she left there because it’s a very boring place to be and raise children. Alongside having to deal with petty small towm drama that forced her to leave her stable decent payimg job in the town to go work as a coffee stand batista. She said Hawaii was actually a much more pleasant place to live during their orders there despite how expensive it is.
For me, I’m a progressive with some realistic pragmatism. I view throwing out the baby with the bathwater with cynical doomerism on stuff like housing and zoning as wasteful and accomplishes nothing. People would say “you’re too happy and idealistic” but I would rather die an idealist than be a cynic on my death bed. Life is too short to be overly cynical.
This might need its own post, or at least discussion and debate on this one.
https://komonews.com/news/local/bellevue-light-rail-train-police-security-public-safety-washington-seattle-eastside-link-sound-transit-trains-commute-teavel-downtown-station-grand-opening-ribbon-cutting-ceremony-when-does-it-open-redmond-mercer-island-patrol#
” … Bellevue Police Department on Wednesday announced its newest patrol team: the Bellevue Light Rail Unit …” Has any other city done something like this? Is there a Tukwila, or SeaTac, or Seattle police Light Rail Unit? Will there be a Shoreline, or Lynwood, Federal Way, etc., police Light Rail Unit? I thought Sound Transit Link had their own security officers.
Well, if you want nice things, you have to pay for them. Bellevue has always known that. The idea that people will ride mass transit with homeless actively smoking fetty, sleeping or fighting their imaginary enemies doesn’t fly on the Eastside.
I guess if you’re tax payer in Bellevue… you have the right to oppose this. The rest of us? Why care?
ST security is a joke. They’re not even allowed to touch people. But ST does have their own police unit: the King County Sheriff’s Dept …which is understaffed (Community Transit has their own security unit and contracts with Snoho Sheriff’s Office). If something were to happen on the 2-Line on the Eastside, it’ll be harder for the Sherriff’s (ST Police) to respond because they’re understaffed and focused on where “the action happens”, i.e. Seattle.
I applaud Bellevue (and Redmond? I saw the RPD on the train with King Co a few weeks ago) for being proactive. Yes, it’s an obvious “lets keep the riffraff out” initiative. But I’d like to see more law enforcement on transit in general and it also gives Bellevue familiarity with Link stations in case of a major emergency – fire, mass shooting, major accident, etc.
I wonder is sound transit paying for their services or is it free?
I saw a group of Redmond police officers on the train a few weeks ago. They were with King Co. Transit Unit. They were obviously training or familiarizing themselves with Link in anticipation of the 2-Line opening. There should be next to no crime on the Starter Line. There are much longer bus routes on the Eastside for sleeping and the segmented nature of the Starter Line isolates itself fairly well from illicit activity.
But when the 2-Line connects to Seattle, no doubt criminal activity on the route will increase.
Things I have seen on the B, which does not go to Seattle: people smoking cigarettes, people smoking fentanyl, people playing (very) loud music, people sleeping, people getting into fights. Seattle does not have a monopoly on bad behavior. Criminals do not need Link to get to the Eastside; they’re already here.
“people smoking cigarettes, people smoking fentanyl, people playing (very) loud music, people sleeping, people getting into fights”
Some of that also happens at Bellevue Transit Center. I commented about that a few times in 2002 when I was going to Bellevue once or twice a week, mostly on weekends. One evening a guy with alcohol got on the 550, and the driver refused to leave the transit center for twenty minutes until the person got off the bus before the police came.
kinda curious how is it going to work once the 2 line crosses lake washington. Also will bellevue police go to mercer island lol?
I assume they’ll get off at South Bellevue and then go back the other way.
Eastside Transit has a couple of videos up showing the new ped bridge at Redmond Tech Station. Now you don’t even have to drive there to see the bridge. You can check it out remotely:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wa6Zd7xWcME
I like how the canopy periodically directs rain water inward toward annual gutters that then direct the water down into central flower beds using a series of pipes.
I’ve often wondered why the Seattle area doesn’t have more “rain sculptures”, but at least they have some now in Redmond. So I guess the best time to check out the bridge would be during a heavy rain.
I have been following Eastside Transit also.
@Jommy James,
Ya, Eastside Transit is good. I check them periodically just to see if they have posted anything interesting.
Unfortunately I do not know of a Westside equivalent. Although Eastside Transit does make field trips once in a while.
Maybe they will do that more often once ELSL is in full operation.
Just 1 day 18 hours to go! According to the handy countdown clock!
I do not know when I will have a chance to ride this extension, but I am excited to see it open.
East Link opening is 2 days away. Is there any STB meetup going on?
We’ll be at the opening ceremony at Bellevue Downtown station at 10 am. Service starts at 11 or soon after. Then The Urbanist will take the 550 to South Bellevue Station and start from there. We might do that, or take the 241 or 249 the same way, or take Link southbound then northbound. It partly depends on whether the crowd is so large we have to wait for multiple train runs or 550 runs.
I see. For those of us coming from the city which 550 are most people taking to get to the DT Bellevue ceremony? The one leaving 5th and Union at 8:53, 9:08 or 9:23? Sorry for all the questions. Should you do a standalone post about this?
PT – there will be a post tomorrow discussing Saturday’s festivities.
Great, thanks Nathan. I’ll be on the lookout!
We’ve been working on a pre-launch article for Friday but I can’t finish it tonight. Sherwin might be able to.
The plan is as above: be at Bellevue Downtown at 10am, then when service starts after 11, go down to South Bellevue and take Link end-to-end to Redmond Tech. Wear a hat, and we can be the Hatted Transit Fans. People from The Urbanist and other groups will be there.
I’ll be coming on the 550. It leaves Seattle at 5th & Union at 8:53am (arrive 9:24), 9:08am (arrive 9:49), and 9:23am (arrive 9:54). I’ll probably aim for the first one.
Who from the blog is posting videos on X of themselves riding the starter line? That’s so cool.
https://twitter.com/SeaTransitBlog/status/1783569122829484041?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
the starter line meets translake bus routes at several stations: RTS, routes 542 and 545; BTC, routes 271 and 550; South Bellevue, Route 550. With two bus routes, any station could be used; Route 255 serves South Kirkland and KTC; the latter is served by Route 249 that serves BTC; the former is served by Route 245 that serves RTS. Eastgate is served by Route 554; the Eastgate local bays are served by routes 221, 226, 240, 245, and 271, all of which reach or get close to a station.
The east link starter line shows up on google maps now :)
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6153096,-122.1730405,13.2z/data=!5m1!1e2
Cool.
I remember when the monorail wasn’t on Google Maps. This was actually part of an interesting discussion about the monorail. The comment section of this blog is largely responsible for the monorail now accepting the ORCA card.
I have looked at the Seattle version for a few years now. I just started looking at transit overlays in different cities on Google maps. I think it is interesting.
There’s a new south lake union station feasibility study. Also outlines the construction method road closures. I’ll call the alternatives by their cross streets with both on harrison street. the original alternative the 7th and dexter station and the new alternative the 5th ave;
Also analyzed the drop in rapidride E transfers from the shifted station. “Overall transit ridership would remain steady but Link ridership would be slightly lower.
Link ridership reduction due to lower volume of transit transfers – notably from E Line.” around 3000 daily riders dropped, though honestly I was kinda skeptical rapidride E riders would transfer early even in original station location.
Page 30 shows how the bus routes would be shown.
No changes: route 3/4 would stay the same on 5th avenue. Rapidride E will continue to use sr 99 and 7th avenue.
Changes (same with both alternatives):
* new 8/11 route “Interbay-Capitol Hill-Madison Park” aka reroute 8 to harrison street.
* In both the original and new alternative route 5 would run on dexter avenue instead of i-5.
different between alternatives :
* Route 62 with the original alternative will continue to be on dexter with the connection to the station. However in the new alternative route 62 would be moved to westlake avenue; I guess without the dexter and 5th/harrison street station for transfers they will just opt to add frequency to westlake and have route 5 maintain frequency on dexter avenue.
Extra notes:
interestingly the diagram shows in downtown seattle and further south connecting with the original 5th avenue alignment rather than current 4th ave preferred.
https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/WASOUND/bulletins/39880eb
https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/ActiveDocuments/Presentation%20-%20BLE%20SLU%20Feasibility%20Study%20results%2004-25-24.pdf
It’s not clear to me how many riders are lost with the CID-N alternative. It seems that this would affect systems ridership lots more than moving the SLU station entrance across SR 99 would.
“There’s a new south lake union station feasibility study.”
And most of the tweets about it are about the short-term street closures rather than the long-term benefit to transit riders. The same as the CID controversies, 3rd Avenue controversies, etc. Short-term concerns crowd out long-term strategic planning. But I did see one amusing long-term claim, that the SLU station is no longer in SLU.
I was kinda skeptical rapidride E riders would transfer early even in original station location.
I agree, but this is another example of planning that seems to forget the reason they went there. Early on there was some debate as to whether the train to Ballard should go via South Lake Union or Belltown. Belltown is the logical route. The path doesn’t involve major turns, which means that each stop increases coverage. But the South Lake Union route was chosen in part because it could connect sooner to the SR 99 buses. Thus riders going from Aurora to Rainier Valley (or the stadiums or SeaTac) save some time. But as it turns out, this proposal doesn’t connect to SR 99 buses, and it doesn’t really serve South Lake Union. It serves Denny & Westlake, a stop that is remarkably close to Westlake as well as Denny Park. This is a dense area, but the train offers little versus a surface connection. But the station after this is the real problem. This suggests 5th & Harrison, an area even more desolate than the original station (Dexter & Harrison). I’ve heard officials lauding the station as it “serves” that side of Seattle Center. Not only is this a bad idea (the center doesn’t have that much potential ridership) but this ignores the fact that the monorail station is nearby, and serves it better. Thus the new station’s main value is as a
cheappoor substitute for something we’ve had for half a century. These may be the only two stations between Westlake and Uptown; one is OK and the other is in a really bad location. This would be fine if the project was cheap or there were no good alternatives, but that definitely isn’t the case here. It is quite likely that a Belltown alignment would result in much better stations (for far less money). We are paying a premium price for stations that should be outstanding but aren’t because of previous goals that are being ignored.“the South Lake Union route was chosen in part because it could connect sooner to the SR 99 buses”
I doubt it. The South Lake Union route was chosen because the new highrises. Those are apparently more important to serve than old highrises, especially when current tech billionaires are there.
I wrote “in part”. Obviously it wasn’t the only reason. Just to back up here, Belltown and South Lake Union are largely a wash in terms of density. But South Lake Union has Amazon, and the company wanted light rail close to their buildings. That was enough to tip the balance that direction. But now Amazon is basically complaining about the eggs that have to be broken to make the omelet. Meanwhile, the default “South Lake Union” station itself is most definitely designed to connect to Aurora. The two stations barely skirt SLU. In contrast, if you really want to serve South Lake Union you would head east (to Terry or Boren) then curve around putting the second station somewhere around 8th & Harrison. This Denny station would be farther away from the Westlake Station (thus increasing coverage) while the South Lake Union station would be closer to the heart of the neighborhood.
But they haven’t even considered that. This is just another example of basing the planning on initial estimates that turn out to be wrong. If your previous assumptions are wrong then you should reexamine the project. In this case the basic goal is to have two good stations. Connectivity is a consideration, but so too is the number of walk-up riders. The default SLU station connected well to Aurora, but was poor for walk-up riders. This new station is bad at both. Given that, we should consider other options like going to Belltown, or moving the Denny station to the east.
I have a question that no one here will answer. When most private sector companies that do something to wrong a customer, most do try and make it right. Who us it that when a government agency, like Metro does something wrong to a customer, their attitude is, sorry but you are just out of, why?
bummer that no one can answer your question. maybe if you phrased it less rhetorically, you might get a more enlightening answer.
Profit Margin
Cable companies are government entities? Customer-service phone numbers make it easy to talk to a human? What about closing your account? Fred Meyer and QFC aren’t increasingly treating their customers like criminals with gates in front and closing pedestrian-friendly entrances?
When most private sector companies do something to wrong a customer, most try and make it right.
Ha! You’ve never spent the day stuck on the phone trying to straighten out a health insurance issue. Or ask why your bank is charging you a fee for something that seems quite normal. Think about it — there are government agencies specifically designed to make sure that businesses don’t screw over customers or make people sick. There are lawyers who spend their entire career suing companies knowing full well that the company has no interest in “making it right”. Holy Cow, it is fairly well known that Trump ripped off contractors and employees. Not some random guy you’ve never heard of — but the freakin’ president!