The second video could be subtitled, “Cities Mike would be comfortable living in”, or “Where to move if you’re priced out of Seattle.”
That doesn’t mean I fully agree with every item; e.g., I’ve heard Dayton’s downtown is completely suburban, and a resident said her suburban county has no public transit at all. But it gives a general picture of the kind of combination a lower-income non-driver could live in without undue hardship.
What drives me up the wall is 90% of American cities don’t have this, so they’re hostile places for lower-income non-drivers to be in. In Europe if you can’t afford one of the top-10 cities or a provincial capital, there are many smaller or secondary cities you can move to. In the US if you move to an average smaller or secondary city, your life will be very difficult, something you wouldn’t wish on your enemies. And doesn’t have to that way. It’s just as easy to make a city walkable as non-walkable, or to have at least minimally usable transit rather than refusing to. The cities are just refusing to.
Dayton just got ravaged by deindustrialization and suburbanization. There is nothing Downtown anymore, and of course now post COVID even the office workers are barely Downtown now. Much of the inner core has been demolished and since there is little economic activity it stays undeveloped (see old NCR campus just south of Downtown- once millions of sq ft in multistory buildings, now athletic fields). Everyone drives and so all commerce is done in auto-oriented forms from chains on the outskirts which is also where the middle class live. This is Dayton but this exact story is the same in every smaller Midwest city. At least Dayton still has trolley buses but doesn’t seem like they use them much even with a new fleet judging by a recent visit.
I wonder if they’d sell some to Seattle cheap? Could be a VERY good way to get ZE buses at a low enough cost to pay for hanging the missing wire sections.
Ditto San Francisco.
I actually met Ray (CityNerd) last year when he did an event in Seattle. I spoke to him about lists like this that go viral on his channel, and that he should advocate more for the High COL cities. I shared with him that I have never been high income yet I have always lived in HCOL cities like Seattle, SF, and San Jose. My argument was the higher cost of living in a city like Seattle or SF is worth it for so many reasons.
What Ray doesn’t mention in his video is that several of these cities on his list have the federal minimum wage of $7.25 because they are in red states. Not to mention how backwards their state governments are on the social issues. Even if the cities themselves are progressive, marginalized groups aren’t going to have the same protections as folks who live in CA, WA, NY etc. Young women aren’t going to have the same reproductive rights. You see where I’m going with this.
For me it just takes some small adjustments to make living in Seattle viable without a massive income: Live a minimalist lifestyle, don’t have a car payment, take transit as much as possible, be childfree, live in a walkable neighborhood, don’t eat out very often, exercise and stay healthy, don’t worry about keeping up with the Joneses. It’s definitely do-able. So while my wife and I don’t have high incomes we get to live in this wonderful city Seattle, and have money to travel domestically and internationally as well. Just being frugal is a game changer. Life is too short to settle for less.
In keeping with the “Housing Theory of Everything”, the reason HCOL cities are HCOL cities is due to high demand for social/economic reason (interesting culture, interesting jobs) clashing with a lack of interest in building new housing. When housing is expensive, wages need to go up to match housing costs; increasing labor costs inflates basically all other local costs.
Yes, exactly. Your tacos will be more expensive if the person selling them pays a lot for rent. The cook can always move. Same goes for a lot of service jobs.
I find Ray (CityNerd) entertaining. I will say that he appears to want to chase an idealized version of Portland in 2000. Certainly several Midwest cities can come closest. And having spent time in several of them, I know that the quality of life isn’t radically different in any city above a 1M metro population if you figure out what you want and can find a part of town that suits you. Ray even realizes that and increasingly looks for ways to identify neighborhoods rather than mere cities.
Our biggest blessing here is the weather, as it is for most other West Coast cities. St Louis is charming but much of summer is like living in a sauna to me while much of winter is like living in a freezer. Tornado warnings happen several times a year as do heavy flash flood events. The flora there makes my nose run for many weeks every year and that doesn’t happen to me here. Further, energy costs with housing in other parts of the country can wipe out the cheaper rental or home prices.
Quality of life means different things. Square footage is not the only consideration. The great thing about Ray is the amount of effort he puts into methodology and admitting his biases. That tells me more about him probably more than the cities he’s visiting — and makes him come across as smart and likable rather than narrow-minded and judgmental.
His rankings are based on a specific few metrics, and subjective reviews by a few specific sources. Unlike most of us, he has all the data and the expertise to fully analyze it. The benefit of his analysis is where he shows how two things relate or don’t relate, like walkability and cost. Usually these rise together, but he’s looking for exceptions where they don’t.
Christopher Leinberger cited a study that 33% of Americans want to live in walkable urbanism, 33% want to live in driveable sub-urbanism, and 33% would be satisfied either way. But the built environment is 10-20% walkable urbanism. That’s what causes the artificial demand in urban areas that drives the prices up. Some 13% of Americans want to live in a walkable, transit-rich neighborhood but can’t. A full 66% supermajority would be satisfied if walkable urbanism were their only choice. But instead public policy is highly tilted toward sub-urbanists and nimbys, so they get what they want, and people who want walkability suffer unless they can afford a supercity or could live in one of these few exceptions.
Yes, not needing a car can help offset higher housing costs. Being a fan of minimalism or tiny houses/apartments can help too. I’m basically both. When I first encountered the tiny-house movement I was intrigued, then I realized my ordinary apartment was the same size. Some people can put their tiny house in a friend’s yard in a Portland neighborhood and have access to walkable stores, a frequent bus route, and good bike access. But those are the few lucky ones.
Having a roommate/SO to share costs and not having kids can help too. But we need something that can work for families with kids. Especially in a country where births are now below the replacement rate. Part of the problem is the families themselves demanding more space than their parents/grandparents had in the 50s or 70s, but part of it also is that many apartments now are less than 700 square feet or even 300 square feet and have hardly any counter space.
There’s some truth to this- I make around 50% of AMI, and through a combination of factors (fairly cheap rent, don’t drive, don’t have kids, don’t eat out/go out much, general frugality), I’m able to afford a studio apartment in Seattle.
I’ve sometimes taken a look at what my financial situation would be if I moved to be closer to my family in Texas, and while housing costs are cheaper than Seattle, the gap seems to have shrunk post-pandemic, and the pay for similar jobs is less than Seattle, and there would be fewer jobs in my field, plus there would be all the costs of having to buy and maintain a car- at best it would be a wash, but I’d probably be financially worse off in Texas.
On the other hand, if I wanted to start a family in Seattle, it seems like it would be difficult unless my partner had a far higher income than I do, or they had local family willing to provide free childcare. If I married somebody in my same income range and we both kept working, we might be able to afford a 2 or 3 bedroom apartment, but the child-care costs look like they would be brutal until the kids were able to get into the city’s preschool program. In comparison, paying for a larger apartment and daycare in Texas might leave a low-to-moderate income couple on a shoestring budget, but it appears more viable than doing it Seattle.
I’m old enough now the odds that I’ll ever start a family are rapidly approaching zero, but it seems like we need to do more to make the city affordable for families with young children.
I think it all boils down to housing. Yes, child care is extremely expensive in this city. Part of the reason is that housing is very expensive in this city. Workers can’t afford to live in the city unless they charge a lot to take care of kids, and that means it costs a lot.
Up until 2023, property taxes in Texas made up some half of the state revenue, to make up for lower taxes in everything else. In late 2023 they had a huge property tax cut bill signed, but that means a bunch of stuff isn’t going to get paid for, and there’ll be an overall decline in everything from pothole repair to big transportation projects,
“I think it all boils down to housing.”
I think it’s a component, but not all. We have long relied on women in our country to provide massive amounts of unpaid labor around child-rearing and home making. That era has come to and end, and it particularly has come to an end in cities with a high cost of living. There are now far fewer households that can afford to have only 1 bread-winner, and there are far fewer extended relatives that have the excess capacity to watch little Johnny for the afternoon.
And less wealthy cities, that capacity is more fluid.
Also, Seattle is a city of transplants, with 2/3rd of the populace born somewhere other than Seattle. So you no longer have those extended family networks to rely on. In less wealthy cities, there are more locals who have those networks intact.
I wasn’t going to bother with this, but because there is a little bit of discussion down below about it, something along the lines of “I guess maybe we should think about families too huh guys?” I’m going to indulge myself and point out this part of the ‘simple things to do to live in Seattle! it’s easy guys!!’ list:
“be childfree”
If living in a city requires forgoing children, cities will become black holes,where the population – and their culture along with them – heads to in order to die out as entertainingly as possible. I’m sure most posters here think this is a good and right thing for the Earth and all that, and I’m not here to start that fight, but I’m going to draw attention to a situation closer to home.
American values – love ’em or hate ’em! – get passed on chiefly by and through families. That’s not just imperialism, mind you (and I believe we’ve got a shorter timeline on that than is assumed) but such trifles as democracy, LGBT rights, anti-racism, religious freedom, environmentalism, and so on. If we follow the demographic path of the Roman empire as closely as we seem determined to do, we can expect to see peoples from the outer fringe of the empire flood in to replace the collapsing native birth rate – they will adapt some of the habits of their adopted homeland, of course, but others they might not.
The point is that wherever the families are, there the future lies also. What can we observe from this? It seems that the future of America is largely in immigrants and their descendants, most from more conservative cultures, and in the American South, which is also known for conservatism, with the chaser of the majority of the rest of the population’s paltry contribution being located – *decisively* – in the suburbs. So what does that suggest about the relevance of… well… *anything* modern urban Seattleites choose to occupy their intellectual time with?
The past’s another country, but so is the future. I love downtowns and urbanism with all my heart but I threw in the towel on trying to parent in Seattle years ago. Portland is not much better, to be honest. After seeing how much stress the local families were under during and after COVID, I quite literally believe that the cultures of both places are already dead. Not a single thing they care about or find important is going to exist in 50 years. The only people with children who are enjoying their lives in any way in the larger metropolitan PNW areas in 2024 (2024!!) are the recent Hispanic immigrants. It’s so dramatic, I’ve been learning Spanish for a year now, because I see the writing on the wall. They are our successors, and I wish them the best in this beautiful land.
As my own children and family ties are not Hispanic, though, I have moved my family out of the region entirely as of 2 weeks ago. I am now enjoying stunningly good urbanism at an affordable price point in… Spokane. I doubt any other parents read this blog, not even for memories (as I do), but if there are any questions about this move I made, I would be more than happy to answer them here, just let me know.
Is there some reference to transit here? Seattle transit actions have made it easier for families to use transit — including free fares for children. Many teens rely on transit in some neighborhoods in our region and are able to postpone a car purchase. All of our major colleges and universities have reasonable transit and many are now or soon will be reachable via Link or a rapid frequent bus.
The CityNerd videos increasingly find that it’s the neighborhood and not the region that makes a place suitable for adults – and more so children. He finds gems in places that few here know..
I was angry that my older brother and sister could grow up in a walkable neighborhood with about 20 kids and a playground and two markets — while I was stranded on the edge of town with 2 kids my age and nowhere to walk where I could buy a mere candy bar or play in a public space. They could walk to every school from the earlier house while I had to be driven everywhere.
Good for you wanting a better life in Spokane. Did you relocate to a walkable neighborhood with bus transit and a nearby market or are your kids stranded in a sea of suburban or rural housing?
Several STB editors have children… all the way from month-old babies to old enough to have their own children. One former editor coached little league every year. I don’t have children, but I may be an exception.
“The only people with children who are enjoying their lives in any way in the larger metropolitan PNW areas in 2024 (2024!!) are the recent Hispanic immigrants.”
What does that mean?
Seattle is much different than it was 50 years ago, and it will be different again 50 years in the future. People come and go, the economy goes up and down, politics change, but the physical places remain, although some of them may be rebuilt differently in the meantime.
We’d like to hear about your experiences in Spokane. What good urbanism are you finding? In which neighborhoods? Have you had a chance to try the City Line BRT that opened recently from Browne’s Addition to Spokane Communtiy College? We’ve been following that.
RossB says Spokane has set a minimum zoning level that’s higher than Seattle. Ross, what is the level? We’re looking to see how much that gets built out, and whether it gives people more housing choices and more types of housing, and slows down price increases.
@Mike Orr,
Before you get too excited about Spokane, you should check the latest population growth numbers from the OFM.
Apparently Spokane only added 300 people last year. As in 300 total people. That’s it.
The county is growing fast, and a fast growing county with a stagnant main city just means car centric sprawl. It’s a shame. Spokane already had enough of that.
I’m actually a bit surprised. I thought Spokane was doing better.
I doubt any other parents read this blog
I’m a parent and I not only read the blog, but edit it. I also grew up in Seattle. Some of my kids live in Seattle, some have gone to live in other places (including Spokane). Affordability is the main reason. Spokane is a nice city. I visited there when I was in college (about forty years ago). I also visited there when my son went to Eastern (he commuted from Spokane rather than live in Cheney). I like what Spokane is doing with the zoning — they are leading the state if not the nation. From what I can tell they are doing other good things as well.
This was the only comment with a Reply button, so I am addressing all comments to my post here.
Al S.: In Spokane, I now live in a 3-bedroom house in a mixed-income neighborhood a ten-minute walk from the downtown core, with a Rapid Ride (it’s a different name, I’ll need to learn it soon) bus one block away that comes every 10 minutes and traverses the entire downtown. Plenty of kids come to play in the local park 4 blocks away, with a splash pad and a farmer’s market twice a week in season. The public library is 5 blocks away and the YMCA, 10. The elementary school is a bit farther, sadly, but that means we get doorside bus service. Two grocery stores are w/in 3 blocks and I just got back from the laundromat which is around the corner. All this on one middle-class income – I stay home with the kids for now. Don’t worry for my kids – they’re going to be well-socialized and independent. My point was more, is there *anywhere* this is possible in Seattle? And are the type of transit conversations that take place on this blog going to change that? I fully grant that discussing this may be beyond the scope of this blog, but I rest my parent’s perspective at that.
Mike Orr: Where I lived until just a few weeks ago in greater Portland, there were many family-related amenities in a fairly walkable core neighborhood – parks, pools, library, etc. – but I very rarely saw a native-born family use them. I knew from my son’s school that there were many native-born families in the area, but I never ran across them outside of the school bus stop. Upon all but battle-axing my way into some of their lives (so that my son could have playdates, and myself, conversations) I found that they were sickly, stressed, and rarely found a reason to leave the safety of their homes. Of the people who took the time to smile at my kids on the street–I walked outside almost daily with them–I calculated that at least 80% were recent Hispanic immigrants. I presume this was partly because they were the ones actually out and about, and partly because they culturally just like children more (and hadn’t been taught that you stay as far away from other people’s children as possible… an unfortunate part of my own culture). I hope this explains my statement.
We are living in Browne’s Addition – it’s amazing!! See my comment to Al S. above. City Line, that’s what it’s called! I have not yet gotten on it, but happily, that’s because I’ve been too busy walking to what’s nearby :) It’s going to be an exciting day trip with both kids later this week! But this afternoon, we’re going to walk to the children’s museum instead, because that’s what my eldest voted to do first :)
We toured several neighborhoods, mostly north of the river, when we visited the city for the first time last March – I can’t remember all of them off the top of my head, but there were 6 or 7 that seemed fairly walkable. The biggest issue was that the services were mainly clustered around some central stroads, which were not pleasant pedestrian experiences. However the houses were big, nice, and cheap, and the sidewalks were in pretty good condition. Buses ran fairly frequently, again mostly on those stroads. The elementary schools seemed easy to walk to and there were parks EVERYWHERE. We are really not sure whether we want to buy a house or not, but if we did, it would be in one of those northern neighborhoods and we would keep a pretty good quality of life. But now that I’m in Browne’s Addition – I really don’t want to move!!
I will address the next questions in another comment for length reasons.
Lazarus: I’m not surprised by that statistic. There’s a rather stupidly wide road near where I live that’s ostensibly a feeder road from downtown, but it isn’t much of a problem, because it only gets one car every 30 seconds. My mom couldn’t get over how few cars went by around here! I can tell that it’s economically stressful, to say the least, but I can’t complain about how nice and quiet it makes this downtown neighborhood :)
My best guess right now is the observation my family members made when they first visited – that visiting Spokane feels like going back in time 10 to 15 years. Which means that most people in the area still think downtown is a low-class and dirty place to be, and not good for families. So they stay away. It’s true that Spokane has a visible homeless issue – just like everywhere else nowadays. But after dealing with it in both Seattle and Portland for going on 15 years now – as you just have to, if you want to leave your damn house and go anywhere – there’s nothing here I’m not used to.
Ross Bleakney: My follow-up question to you: are any of your kids raising their own kids in Seattle right now? I’ve got a 6 year old and a 1 year old. I remember my own childhood neighborhood in greater Portland, though miserably suburban, still had things like the Girl Scouts and school activities etc. available to us then. In the same neighborhood in late 2023, we signed my son up for Boy Scouts, but he was the only one to join, so we didn’t get a den. I could just go on and on about this – you’ll see some more commentary above. In honesty, witnessing what’s happened to many/most young families in the region I grew up in has been one of the greatest shocks of my life. Are you seeing similar? Do you have any counter-examples, and if so, what do you think is the factor making them more resilient?
@ AParentPerspective:
It sounds great!
The Seattle area suffers from many areas that are both expensive and not walkable like Newcastle and Sammamish. And nothing here compares to the awful residential sunbelt development seas in Texas, Arizona and Florida.
I think it’s the regional housing demand that drives prices up more than walkability does. Before Covid, too many people were rushing to our biggest metros rather than to smaller metros, frankly. Now that the national population growth is slowing, I think that big metro trend will let up. (Not “dying” like the big metro haters say, but merely easing up.) The US has many metros where a family can enjoy a walkable neighborhood and most even have a transit system too.
Ross Bleakney: My follow-up question to you: are any of your kids raising their own kids in Seattle right now?
Yes. Two daughters live in Seattle and they each have two kids. I have a son who lives in Lake Forest Park. Even he would rather live in Seattle and did until his wife convinced him to move (she really likes the suburbs). In some ways it wasn’t fair, since they met (or became reacquainted) during COVID. Many of the advantages of living in a city went away. The ability to take your kid to a nearby pizza place — gone. Walk to the community center on a rainy day — gone. There were parks nearby, but even those were closed for a while. Likewise the ability to hop on a bus and get to places like the UW or downtown just went away.
Anyway, one set of grandkids are involved in a ton of activities. A lot of them school related, but also music (they can walk to the music teacher) sports and camp (in the summer). They walk to school and know the neighbors really well. The other grandkids are too young to do much (although they are in day care). I think the main problem in Seattle is the cost of housing — everything else is tiny in comparison. I also think the main reason housing is so damn expensive is because of zoning. Amazon hired a ton of people and the city didn’t allow developers to build enough places to live. My kids were lucky — they bought during the recession. Except the one in Bellingham (he graduated into it).
The kid that moved to Spokane has kids but they are all grown up. The one in Bellingham doesn’t have any kids. When I say “kids” this is from previous marriages, etc.
Al S.: Yes, cost of housing is the main issue. I agree that it would have helped to build a lot more family housing Asian-style in towers during the Amazon years… ah well. The region doubled down on single people who could work longer hours for corporations instead, so I presume that’s going to be (and is) the majority of walkable Seattle’s population for the indefinite future. G’bye Seattle, I had a nice time living in you once.
As someone who has now chosen a smaller metro for the next phase of their life, I can only endorse your prediction! :)
Ross Bleakney: Congrats on having four grandkids who all live nearby – that’s kind of rare nowadays, no? My two kids are the only grandkids born to all of their grandparents, and we haven’t been able to live in the same metro since my eldest was 1. I’m glad to hear your one daughter has managed the same sort of lifestyle I remember family friends having in Wallingford when I first moved to the Seattle area in 2010. But yeah… if you didn’t buy during the recession, that was the end of any possibility of a similar lifestyle. I was too young to recognize it at the time. Zoning definitely played a role, but perhaps culture as well – it was probably inconceivable at the time for city bureaucrats to allow family apartments in towers.
On that note the baby is crying – parenting does not leave a lot of time for contemplation! Thanks for your responses.
Rode down Madison yesterday on the 12. It’s an interesting temporary set up right now with Madison BRT/RapidRide G not in operation but much of the infrastructure set up and open including bus only signage in effect. 12 bus was using the bus lanes to get past all the automobile congestion but then having to cut over to the curb lane to the #12 stops. Its a real shame this busway wasn’t designed for conventional right side door buses so it didnt need a custom fleet and could be shared with non-Rapid Ride routes. Granted the 12 via Madison is going away but the 60 uses a good portion of the route where the center busway is and will still have to use the curb lanes (also not a great optic of a bus stopped in a curb lane with an open bus lane adjacent). Also on this point noticed significant backups from automobile congestion in the general travel lanes so there were definitely some raging motorists fuming about the busway (could tell by the way they were driving extra aggressive and overtaking the curb-stopped bus via bus lane). Then again it was a Saturday with lots of big events on Capitol Hill this weekend so everything was clogged.
San Francisco has the great Van Ness busway, its a fantastic design and designed for regular fleet right door buses, has overhead wire and is shared with the frequent #49 Van Ness Mission Muni trolley line and a handful of Golden Gate Transit suburban commuter runs (a couple that are all-day). Its actually a busway and not a BRT line as its only used for a small (but key) portion of the routes that run on it. Certainly Madison didn’t have the space for something like the Van Ness busway.
I’ll be watching to see how the large spaces inside the new buses are received. I’m concerned about objects and people sliding through the bus as they go up and down the hill Downtown. How many riders will get injured by getting his by a bicycle, luggage or package? Spring won’t be as bad as Marion but it’s still steep.
I’m concerned about objects and people sliding through the bus as they go up and down the hill Downtown. How many riders will get injured by getting his by a bicycle, luggage or package? Spring won’t be as bad as Marion but it’s still steep.
You do realize we have buses that go on those streets right now, right?
I think his concern is that the bike racks will be inside the bus, then combined with the steep hills. Hopefully there is some restraint on the bikes on the racks.
I wouldn’t allow bikes at all. I can see the bike rack thing, especially for long distance buses. It doesn’t scale (only a few people can use them) and delays everyone else, but it is a reasonable trade-off. But in this case it seems kind of nuts to roll a bike onto a bus just to go up the hill. Get an electric bike or use bike share (that is what bike share is good at). (And yeah, I know our bike share system sucks, but still.)
Or go up Pike-Pine, which is much flatter, just a few blocks away, has new protected bike lanes, and is in the middle of a complete-street renovation so there will be even more.
Poncho has provided half of my answer.
The other half is the large space because of having doors on both sides. A Metro 12 buses have seats with grab bars on them on the left side. The new buses will have open spaces on both sides of the bus. Riders with anything bulky will slide unless they are held.
Riding Metro 12 isn’t easy to ride up or down a hill if a rider is standing. These buses will be harder because they will be so open inside.
Its a real shame this busway wasn’t designed for conventional right side door buses so it didn’t need a custom fleet and could be shared with non-Rapid Ride routes.
I think a lot of the stops would have been difficult. The approach that they used in Van Ness made sense because it is a very wide street. They are able to carve out room for the buses and the bus stops (going both directions) at the same place (https://maps.app.goo.gl/oWAZoes83Qa3Fiba7). This is great but it uses a lot of width. The other option is to stagger the bus stops. In the case of Aurora, they show the northbound bus stop being apart from the southbound bus stop (https://i0.wp.com/seattletransitblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/segment1_busway-1.png?w=986&ssl=1). In the case of Madison I think the biggest problem was the width of the street and accommodating general purpose traffic. For example there will be a RapidRide G bus stop between Terry and Boren in the middle of the street. Both east and westbound buses will use it. But it doesn’t go the full width of the block. It doesn’t reach Boren because they reserved some space for cars turning left. Likewise if you split the stop and put the westbound bus stop between Boren and Minor you would have to get rid of at least part of the turn lane (going the other directions). This also explains why the stop is not closer to Broadway.
It goes back to width. It is basically a five-lane road (at its widest). If you have one general purpose lane going one way, another general purpose lane going the other way and a general purpose turn lane, you don’t have room for the bus stops (and two bus lanes). They manage to squeeze in the stops where they can, and that often means stops serving buses going both directions.
Although there is an air of permanence with this route, I don’t see it that way. I think that is one of the big advantages of surface transit in general and especially bus service. It really doesn’t cost that much to make changes. If we decide that we want to get rid of a left turn (for general purpose traffic) then it wouldn’t be that hard to change the bus stops accordingly.
As for the 60, it would be nice to share those stops. In the long run though, I’m not sure if I would have the 60 doing that back and forth thing. I think it makes sense to have a bus go on Boren (between First Hill and South Lake Union) and another bus go on Broadway (timed to run opposite the streetcar to double frequency). For example you could send the 49 to Beacon Hill (via Broadway) and the 106 to South Lake Union (via Boren).
It will be interesting to see how this line works out in design but also the 6 min headway. I have some skepticism but also am hopeful. Not a fan of the service reductions in the neighborhood on other routes for this line.
I agree the ability to make changes is a nice potential feature here given the simple design. That Broadway missing stop I think was a big mistake… a big point is to transfer to major intersecting lines like the Broadway corridor and once again we’ve made a terrible time consuming dangerous transfer point for the convenience of speeding motorists.
Maybe the 60 should avoid Madison and cross perpendicular? Run on Seneca (and take that Seneca segment of the 2) then turn south, crossing the G near a station? Perhaps Boren?
Not a fan of the service reductions in the neighborhood on other routes for this line.
The poor service levels are simply the result of very bad routing. It is not like service is being shifted to this route — they are just wasting it. The same thing is happening with the Lynnwood Link restructure, but to a lesser degree.
I would say the transfer at 23rd is the biggest mistake when it comes to the stops. It wouldn’t have taken much work to improve the transfer at 23rd. In contrast there are all sorts of issues with Broadway. To be begin with, buses and streetcar don’t actually stop on Broadway! So not only do you have to put this bus stop close to the intersection, but you would have to do the same with the other stops as well. The work would be similar and you have the same issues. You really can’t make it ideal unless you are willing to cause traffic problems*. As it is, the stop they choose (between Boylston and Summit) is a shorter transfer than any alternative (unless they moved the streetcar/bus stops). It is also just a really good bus stop. Madison & Boylston has a lot more nearby than Madison & Broadway (surprisingly enough).
1) Move the bus stop (which is what they did).
2) Get rid of left turns there. I’m generally a fan of this approach but it would be very messy (https://maps.app.goo.gl/1dR7E7bf7Fb657QN9).
3) Have cars turn left, but without a left-turn arrow. This is fundamentally dangerous, and would also screw up traffic.
4) Widen the road. This would cost money, and make the pedestrian experience worse (for those crossing the street).
In this case I could see widening the road, but it would be expensive. You could take part of the parking lot at Swedish, but that is a split level lot (https://maps.app.goo.gl/aZR3qePY6PNJEPqs6). That means buying the land, moving the utility poles and regrading the land there before you do the actual paving. It might be cheaper to buy land from Seattle U, but I’m pretty sure you have the same grading issues and no one wants to get rid of pretty trees (https://maps.app.goo.gl/JZd8FEpREjYfo92LA). Oh, and as I mentioned, do all that and you are only half way done. You still have to move the streetcar/bus stop. I can see why they punted, and in this case I think it is a very good punt (down to the 1 yard line).
In contrast they shanked the punt for 23rd.
Maybe the 60 should avoid Madison and cross perpendicular? Run on Seneca (and take that Seneca segment of the 2) then turn south, crossing the G near a station? Perhaps Boren?
I think that would be an improvement in general. Right now the 60 deviates from Broadway, but not that much. If you are going to try and cover some other area, you might as well keep going as far as you can, and Seneca is the last place to turn. If the 2 is moved to Pike/Pine (as it should be) this covers part of Seneca. The transfer still wouldn’t be great unless the 60 is moved to Boren, in which case you lose one of the advantages of moving the 60 (serving more of Seneca).
While this would be an improvement, I wouldn’t do any of that. Too much of our system is built around this idea that we need to get to this particular stop a block away from that particular stop. We have all these buses going this way and that. As a result they are slow and infrequent. People just give up and walk (or call a cab).
In contrast imagine if the 60 just goes on Broadway, while the 2 is shifted to Pike/Pine. To get to Virginia Mason you take the G and walk a level block to the emergency entrance (https://maps.app.goo.gl/5Gd12x2RGnvnvArr7). Some places might be a bit farther, but nothing terrible. Pike and Madison are 550 meters apart (at their widest). You don’t need a bus in between.
Now imagine taking the G and then trying to go north on Broadway again. That transfer isn’t ideal, but it really isn’t that bad. It is one level block on a fairly pleasant, quiet block. With the current routing you have the streetcar, 9 and 43 that can take you north. But the 9 and 43 hardly ever run. That leaves just the streetcar. If the 60 is added it would make a big difference. You could easily get a combined 6 minute frequency (instead of the 12 minute streetcar). All for no money at all. In fact you would save money! You just increased frequency on Broadway dramatically and saved money. Wow.
Of course if it was me I wouldn’t end there. I would combine the 49 with the 60. Basically split the existing 60 at Beacon Hill. The southern half retains the 60 label. Then take the 49 and send it to Beacon Hill (via Broadway then the path of the 60 minus the 9th Avenue detour). With the savings you can run the 49 every twelve minutes. This means that you can get to the north end of Broadway every twelve minutes and everything between Denny and Yesler every six minutes. Never mind the transfer itself — this kind of frequency is worth transferring for.
Because here is the thing: even if you had the stops perfectly set up at Broadway and Madison, very few people would actually transfer. It doesn’t make sense for a hairpin turn (e. g. downtown to Broadway then south). From downtown to the north end of Broadway makes sense, but you are entirely dependent on the streetcar for that trip. The streetcar is not that frequent, and ends after a couple stops. People will just walk. If you are coming from Madison Valley it is similar. You can take the streetcar south, but it never gets that far away from the bus, and again, is not that frequent. The 60 is a little bit better going north, but not that much better (it goes a bit farther, but not a lot). It is only the Madison Valley to Beacon Hill type trip that makes much sense. In contrast, if you restructured as I suggested there would be a lot more people making the transfer. There would be more trips to the north, and the shorter trips (both directions) would have much higher frequency. If I’m headed to Broadway & John I would go to the bus stop and hope to catch the 60, as it would get me right there. But I’m not turning down the streetcar — I’ll walk a block and a half. Either way it is worth the transfer (as clunky as it is). In contrast, right now, at noon, it is faster to walk (13 minutes) https://maps.app.goo.gl/4jH1oQbgvxAPbf3h7. Frequency matters. A lot.
Sharing stops with other routes is one fundamental problem with RapidRide G median stations and generally its entire stop design.
Routes 2 and 12 shared stops near 12th and Madison. RR-G and Route 2 can’t share stops.
And of course Third Ave transfers are pretty crappy for RR-G as well as Link, especially for wheelchairs.
I predict a list of dont’s will emerge from the project within a few years. Everyone this year will gush over it — but eventually the mistakes will be quite obvious.
If I recall the 60 was created in the 80s, and First Hill argued for it to come down to 9th Avenue instead of going straight down Broadway. Since then there has been a question about whether that was a good idea, and the long-range plans a Broadway route instead of a Broadway-Madison-9th route. I used to live at Terry & Jefferson or took the 60 from Broadway to Beacon Hill, so I noticed that the Madison routing and turns slows down the bus noticeably.
Good point about Broadway/Madison transfer… much bigger than just Madison station. Also agree 23rd transfer is bad and should have been much better and perhaps more critical… 8 and 48 major routes of which neither go downtown, with 6 min headway, this is the route to use.
Like the thought to keep the 60 on Broadway and avoid the time consuming deviation while building up a trunk line in Broadway paired with the streetcar.
“What Ray doesn’t mention in his video is that several of these cities on his list have the federal minimum wage of $7.25 because they are in red states. Not to mention how backwards their state governments are on the social issues.”
He was comparing the physical environment, as I was. We need to have a list of cities that are physically livable and affordable. The availability of jobs, wage levels, and whether states respect/suppress residents’ rights, get to be too much for an urbanism review, and some factors affect some individuals more than others. The states didn’t seem like the most extreme ones. Somebody needs to move to red or swing states and make them less extreme. Politics can change over the decades while the physical environment remains the same. Red states can get into complete streets, housing the homeless, and avoiding ethnic scapegoating, as Utah is doing.
We’d also have to check whether McDonald’s, Walmart, and grocery stores are actually paying only $7.25 or if they have to pay more to get enough workers. The post-2020 labor shortage is national. Or you may work remotely for an out-of-state employer or be something like a writer, or have some Seattle money saved up to pay for extras or retain as a cushion.
Over time the fortunes of cities sometimes change. Until around 2000 Seattle was not particularly vibrant or wealthy. San Francisco is a rare example of a city declining in fortune. Demographics and tastes change too. The younger generations are not as big city oriented and I would argue Seattle is not a “big city” because it has too few residents spread out over a very large area. The entire city lacks any real density.
When cities create high paying jobs or attract wealthy residents everything, not just housing, increases in cost. In Seattle this inflation has really occurred over the last 8 years or so as incomes soared for around half the residents. Before that housing and other prices were more reasonable, in large part because the wealth gap wasn’t as large.
Food, gas, entertainment, construction, services, education, all increase in cost as incomes rise.
Housing is a little different because there are so many options, and so many variables other than density that determine price like public safety and schools. A condo or apartment on Capitol Hill costs more than one in Kent for many different reasons, but mainly because the segment that wants to live in a condo on Capitol Hill has higher incomes.
There is plenty of housing affordable to someone earning 80% and up of the specific area’s average median income, even if living alone, although not in the most popular areas . When incomes rise and a greater income gap exists it is those earning 60% AMI and below who struggle to afford everything because their income didn’t increase as fast as the cost of everything else did.
Just because housing is multi–family or smaller doesn’t automatically make it cheaper, especially if new. Seattle has been on a building craze over the last decade but very little of that new construction is affordable for someone earning less than 80% AMI.
This creates a lot of resentment among those who are native to a region and feel priced out by people moving there who earn more. Or who feel those who bought when prices were lower lucked out. Not many want to pull out a map and choose somewhere else less expensive to move when they know no one there and don’t have a job lined up.
The person who posted about living a frugal life to afford living in Seattle is no different than every other lower income person in any expensive city, many of whom have no choice. They can’t move.
One point Al raises about St. Louis that applies to many of the cities in the video is they are either too hot or cold — or both — over 6 months/year to be out on the streets or waiting for a bus. 90% heat and 90% humidity is dangerous to be out. Weather plays a huge role in whether an area can be walkable. Unless you can walk or wait for transit 12 months/year you need a car. So does safety. There are areas in St. Louis that are too dangerous to walk around.
Finally I don’t understand this fascination among urbanists with suburbia. Who cares what they do in suburbia? It is never going to become urban or walkable. This whole idea about urban villages or endless 15 minute cities is ok I guess to cut down commuting but will never be real urbanism. East King Co. has maybe 750,000 total residents in an area well over 1000 sq miles.
I think we urbanists need to work harder on creating more density and vibrancy and real urbanism in the few areas that can be urban, which for me is downtown Seattle which IMO is way to spread out with way too little retail vibrancy. Basically there is zero retail vibrancy from Yesler to to Union. It is a wasteland of office lobbies for anyone walking, and third avenue bisects the east and west part of Seattle and ruins some of the most important intersections like at Pike. . If anything Seattle needs to CONDENSE its retail.
I don’t care what happens in suburbia or single family zones. If they want that lifestyle good for them, but really vibrant urbanism needs their money too, but we are failing to provide a good urban experience in Seattle to attract them. So they go to U Village which is just suburbia in the U. District.
Just because someone lives in suburbia or a house doesn’t mean they don’t enjoy a good urban experience. Since Seattle isn’t providing that these days they opt for a suburban retail experience, but not because they don’t like good and real urbanism. When those people travel they don’t go to Dayton (or San Francisco either today).
Suburbia is not the reason downtown Seattle is such disappointing urbanism. The loss of that suburban money being spent in the urban area and the choice many suburbanites make today to not go downtown definitely hurts retail in downtown Seattle. I really don’t care how they want to live in the suburbs, and they don’t care what I think anyway. I just want a safe, dense vibrant urban area I can enjoy, and know that will require suburban shoppers and diners too who don’t have to commute downtown anymore.
I have been in Seattle for around 8 years now and I have seen it continually decline in decent urbanism, to where today there really is no real urbanism, and yet all I ever hear “urbanists” talk about is suburbia. Very frustrating. Seattle has great bones and was definitely better before Covid but there just in no “there” there anymore. At least in suburbia want no “there” there. What is the excuse for downtown Seattle and local urbanists. Don’t they see this? Surely they have been to other cities in and out of the U.S with a vibrant, dense retail urban core. So why not here? If you asked me I think it is because Seattleites just are not urban people, which is why the city is laid out like a huge suburban city with single family neighborhoods with a few multi plexes parading as urbanism, which Seattleites like. I don’t see this great demand for real urban density Mike writes about in Seattle, and certainly not in the rest of the county or region
I mean am I suppose to be excited about the fact I can take Link from downtown Seattle to Redmond or Federal Way or Lynnwood to get a beer or eat because there is nothing downtown? Talk about the definition of sprawl. .
Lots of stuff to respond to here, but:
I think the reason we don’t see many vibrant urban cores in the USA is there aren’t that many residents. In many countries, there is a mix of housing, commercial, retail, government, and even industrial in a single space. The office building deserts create these dead zones. Sure, before Covid there was more in some of these places, but in the 1980s things were far more dead in these downtown areas than today. Sure, there was stuff to cater to the office crowd, many downtowns were dead except for lunch hour.
The high cost of housing isn’t just happening in Seattle. There are a number of different problems I see happening that aren’t addressed by simply building more housing. Among them is the short term high end rental market (the AirBnB and the like), and big investment firms (Blackrock and the like) buying properties and letting them sit vacant until they are able to sell at a decent profit.
[Ed: Fixed spelling.]
Lower downtown between University Street and Yesler Way is an office-only ghetto. That’s as bad as a residential-only area. It’s part of the reason that area is struggling now, because it has little other than offices to fall back on.
Yeah, I agree with both Glenn and Mike. American cities were often very segregated, and not just racially. When I was growing up (in Seattle) not much would happen downtown. A lot of downtown would just shut down at 5:00. There was some activity on First or Pioneer Square, but it was fairly sleazy and not really safe or welcoming. Capitol Hill didn’t have that much going on either. That all changed of course. I would say Capitol Hill was the first neighborhood with considerable nightlife, followed a few years later by Belltown. That spread north to Uptown. Pioneer Square has had its ups and downs but overall it is less sleazy and more attractive. Same with First. Meanwhile places like Ballard, Fremont and Columbia/Hillman City became a lot more interesting. It isn’t as vibrant as a typical European city (not even close) but it has definitely become a lot more vibrant over the years.
Downtowns have been both declining and improving before COVID. Obviously COVID was one of the most brutal times for American downtowns along with Fentanyl. Generally downtowns were getting better with new development and a greater focus on improving the public realm downtown, certainly better than 70s and 80s. At the same time the downtown retail districts have been declining, most are gone now. The Downtown Seattle retail district was very strong 20 years ago (same with SF, PDX), probably comparable to Bellevue Square then, now its hanging on by a thread. Sidewalks were packed around Westlake Park in the 2000s. But many cities across the US lost all their retail stores downtown in this same time period, whether their last department store or even an entire shopping district (i.e. Cincinnati, San Diego, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, Norfolk, etc.) Downtown shopping really isnt a thing anymore which IMO is a shame. Downtown shopping was one of the things that drove a good piece of transit ridership.
You raise some good points that it would take time to articulate a full response to. But here’s a few things.
Seattle’s urbanism isn’t excellent but it’s above average for the US. It may seem to be less than it was in 2016, but it’s more than it was in the 1970s and 80s when I was growing up. In the 70s downtown Seattle was in a decaying phase, but it turned around in the 80s, and there’s still hope it can stabilize and revive in the next ten or twenty years, and probably evolve into something new. Probably with more emphasis on housing and destinations, and less on offices.
Housing prices follow the vacancy rate. When it’s above around 8% and one owner jacks up the rent or has a high house asking price, people just go to the next owner a few blocks away who doesn’t, and the increase can’t stick or spread. When it’s below 5%, they have a captive market because there are more seekers than units, so there’s nowhere else to go. That’s what’s been happening in Seattle since 2003, and especially between 2012 and 2020. Even if there’s some rate increase due to higher AMI, with a stable/high vacancy rate it would increase more slowly and would be lower now. Seattle fell into emergency-level 1-2% vacancy rate for years and did nothing about it.
That’s what the PSRC growth targets don’t take into account: they look at future growth but don’t compensate for the accumulated backlog.
If we had allowed more housing and mid-level density since 2003, prices wouldn’t be so extreme now, and there wouldn’t be such a premium to live in a walkable area. Since we let it get so far out control, there are now a lot of people who need subsidized housing or are homeless or have been displaced to cities they don’t want to live in. We can’t fill such a large gap with market-rate housing, so we’ll have to build a lot of subsidized housing to make up for the market-rate housing we didn’t build ten or fifteen years earlier.
“in large part because the wealth gap wasn’t as large. ”
We could have addressed the wealth gap directly.
Food is more responsive to high incomes than housing. Seattle has long had high food prices because it’s so far from the rest of the country. It has gotten higher in the past couple decades because so many people are choosing high-quality, organic, chef-prepared food that most of the restaurants and stores cater to them. But notice: they’re choosing different food, not the same items as previously. If they’d stuck with the same crappy food, prices wouldn’t be as high. But with housing it’s the same unit both then and now, or the same kind of unit. It’s not that all the units have doubled in quality or size, they’ve just doubled in price.
“Who cares what they do in suburbia?”
Because there’s a mismatch between the number of people who want walkable urbanism and the amount that exists. Because we’re subsidizing them. Because they’re disproportionately harming the environment we all live in. Detached houses and a car-oriented lifestyle require more infrastructure and supplies per capita, and the cost is spread among everyone, including urban dwellers and those without cars.
“If anything Seattle needs to CONDENSE its retail.”
What does this mean? Somebody else said this earlier. They said urban neighborhoods and retail need to be consolidated into a smaller area. What exactly should be moved where? Should Greenwood be moved to the Central District, U Village to downtown, Lake City to North Rainier? And then we fill up their old space with houses, forests, what?
I think Seattle needs all its urban villages and to prepare them for growth. Seattle doesn’t have too many villages, and they aren’t too far away. It’s no big deal to go to Lake City for something unique, the transit just needs to be reasonable so it doesn’t take an hour. That’s a perfectly typical trip in a city like Seattle in a metro like Pugetopolis.
The problem is the unusually large sea of low-density, residential-only between the villages. (Large compared to Vancouver, San Francisco, or Chicago.) The solution there is infill, and allowing businesses and corner stores. Let both the villages and areas in between grow gradually more like each other. That may mean our villages won’t be as dense as Chicago. That’s OK.
“I mean am I suppose to be excited about the fact I can take Link from downtown Seattle to Redmond or Federal Way or Lynnwood to get a beer or eat because there is nothing downtown?”
Urbanists aren’t responsible for the Everett, Tacoma, or Federal Way extensions: the suburban subareas insisted on those. The moderate urbanist position is that Lynnwood-Redmond-KDM is the right extent for Pugetopolis. That’s for the millions people beyond it, and the destinations beyond it some people have to get to, and to give non-drivers some suburban choices where to live (e.g., Lynnwood, Shoreline, Bellevue, Redmond, Des Moines).
You don’t have to go to Lynnwood or Redmond or Federal Way to get a beer or eat. Seattle has all that in Capitol Hill, the U-District, Roosevelt, Rainier Valley, the 45th corridor, Greenwood, the West Seattle Junction, etc.
You could honestly probably point to a place like Albuquerque as to what 1970s/1980s Seattle looked like in terms of growth and economics.
I see similarities and differences.
They both had their downtown hollowed out by the opening of non-downtown malls (Northgate/Coronado), and Albuquerque downtown never really recovered like Seattle has.
Albuquerque has much, much bigger problems, however. Beyond the standard schools and hospital employment, It doesn’t really have a major employer except the federal labs, who’s funding is capricious, and the base, that pays the majority of their employers poverty-level wages.
Seattle had Boeing.
Also, the street-grid is horrific. Seattle’s history of a streetcar network, and the urban villages that sprouted pockets of density and a central hub of employment in downtown is missing entirely in Albuquerque. What they have instead is a city bisected north-south AND east-west by two incredibly destructive highways, mostly destroying what little walkable communities existed prior to their construction. On top of that, they built massive, incredibly fast, 7 lane urban highways every 5 to 10 blocks east-west and north-south, just decimating any possibility of walkability or bikeability in all directions throughout the city. The exception is small pockets downtown, near UNM/Nob Hill and near old-town. The lack of zoning for nearly everything except Single Family severely limits the potential of those last 2.
Albuquerque simply doesn’t have Seattle’s “good bones” and lacks employment centers that would give it the impetus and tax-base to make wholesale changes necessary to improve it’s lot.
San Francisco is a rare example of a city declining in fortune.
Is it? I think San Fransisco is in excellent shape overall. Like many cities (Seattle included) they should build more housing, but it isn’t like Detroit — it won’t collapse.
The younger generations are not as big city oriented
Wait, what? I don’t think that is true at all. I think it is more about affordability. There was a time when young people flocked to San Fransisco and New York. Then there was a time when not as many wanted to go there (as people got in their head there was too much crime). Then the cities became more attractive and it became too expensive to live there. But people still go there and put up with very high costs to live (or cramped living quarters) just to live there.
A condo or apartment on Capitol Hill costs more than one in Kent for many different reasons, but mainly because the segment that wants to live in a condo on Capitol Hill has higher incomes.
No, you have it wrong. The reason the condo in Capitol Hill is more expensive is because it is more popular. The reason higher income people live there is because they are the only ones that can afford to. This is also why very small apartments and sharing apartments is a lot more popular in Capitol Hill than in Kent. In other words their are low income people on Capitol Hill, they just put up with a lot less housing.
Suburbia is not the reason downtown Seattle is such disappointing urbanism.
Agreed. The main reason is because they outlawed it in most of the city. Townhouses, rowhouses, small apartments: outlawed. Corner shops: outlawed. Places remarkably close to downtown are not urban because they aren’t allowed to be.
I have been in Seattle for around 8 years now and I have seen it continually decline in decent urbanism, to where today there really is no real urbanism, and yet all I ever hear “urbanists” talk about is suburbia.
OK, now I have no idea what you are talking about. Seattle should have become a lot more urban over the last 8 years (15 really). We had a big boom in employment and didn’t build enough places to live (or shop). But how on earth is it becoming less urban? I think it is just your perspective. I grew up here (then left, then came back) and this is quite common. People often think that the time they arrived was some golden time in the city’s history. I don’t buy that at all. We have gone backwards in some ways, and we never dealt with the housing problem, but in terms of urbanism we have been going forward for quite some time. The idea that there was some “golden period” for Seattle is just BS. In terms of affordability — definitely. In terms of urbanism and affordability (basically what was in the video) we probably peaked in the 90s. But in terms of urbanism in general — no way. It wasn’t that long ago that Seattle was a podunk town (as my wife put it). Now my daughter (who has lived in Brooklyn) said Ballard reminded her of Brooklyn. Ballard! This Ballard: https://youtu.be/hGlDVmBLibg. That is a dramatic transformation, and it has happened in various parts of the city.
San Francisco lost a huge number of residents between 2020 and 2022. However, they actually gained over 1,000 residents in the 2023 Census estimates.
Keep in mind that most of San Francisco is notoriously frozen with zoning height limits so there isn’t a marketplace for building new housing like Seattle has. It still has 3,000 more people than it did in 2010 and 32,000 more than 2000. It’s not declining. It’s just that the growth oven was so hot (people packed into housing) between 2010 and 2020 that the oven door opened and heat escaped reducing the temperature. It still is pretty warm in the long run.
Population declines are one of those things that really isn’t that good an indicator of economic prosperity right now.
Supposedly, Portland lost population over the past several years.
Know what the biggest reason given was?
Housing prices.
Except, if housing is vacant, then why are prices so high that people are moving away?
This is a symptom of large investment firms, the short term rental market, and other factors that isn’t going to be solved by any of the proposals I’ve seen so far. Build more housing? Sure, but that just means more for the investment groups to grab and put out of reach of the majority of people.
“The younger generations are not as big city oriented”
In the 1950s and 60s the WWII generation, Silents, and Boomers flocked to the suburbs. People think from TV shows that most people lived like “Leave It to Beaver” and “Bewitched”, but that’s just what they aspired to. The majority didn’t live in the suburbs until the 1970s, because it takes a couple decades for tens of millions of people to move en masse.
GenX, my generation, was the first where more than half grew up in the suburbs. That created a backlash because the suburbs suck, so the “back to the city” movement started. It first became visible in the 1990s. That’s when condos like the Elektra started appearing and areas like Broadway and Ballad went above two stories, and urban villages started to consolidate. In the 2000s it was in full swing.
Covid destabilized everything, made work-from-home more feasible, and made people take a second look at the suburbs. During the lockdowns people wanted more space and a home office, since they weren’t allowed to gather in third places. Now some of them have decided they like the space, they don’t mind driving to things or can tolerate it, and they have real or exaggerated fears of crime in inner cities. But that’s not a complete reversal. Many people still want to live in the city, in GenY and Z as well as others. Or they want their suburbs to have more walking, biking, and transit options.
There’s been talk of people leaving California or San Francisco or Seattle for other states with smaller cities and lower housing costs or taxes. But that’s just a trickle compared to the population that didn’t move. And some people have started to move back, or are moving the other way. It’s not like a quarter or half the population is vacating San Francisco or Seattle, or that most of the rich people are leaving. Office-intensive real estate has been hit particularly hard, but that doesn’t mean all the owners are leaving.
If Seattle’s population growth remains slow, that will allow it to catch up and digest the recent growth, and prices won’t increase as quickly.
Millennials are a generation that has recognized that the older generation housing ideal (renting > starter home > bigger house > etc) was actually unrealistically unattainable for them based on the hand given to them economically.
I find Millennials have multiple different housing outlooks from my experience with talking about it amongst my generation who wanna find housing and stay in the same metro they grew up in instead of leaving for elsewher.
1. Buy later (late 30s/early 40s+)
2. Buy farther out into an outlying suburb or exurbs
3. Buy smaller urban dwellings like condos and townhouses rather than a typical starter home like a cottage or bungalow.
4. Return to multi generational housing to share costs amongst multiple people (i.e. the kid, the parents, and grandparents)
5. Living in a communal house of people unrelated by blood but one person is the primary homeowner and everyone chips in to pay the mortgage
6. Waiting to inherit their parents house after they die and sell it to buy their own home
7. Accept they’ll be renters till they die
The millennials that I talk with prioritize online time and gaming time more — and find driving time as undesirable. It’s different than a boomer that didn’t make gaming or social media connectivity a high priority.
A bus ride lost time is much less aggravating if you have a smart phone. No one had that 25 years ago.
Some millennials also gre up feeling isolated in big suburban homes far from everything. They craved connectivity over loneliness . That contrasts from many boomers, who often were raised in smaller homes with more siblings — and wanted cars and suburbia to escape their home life.
The decreases in average household sizes were remarkable between 1970 and 2000. That rate of decline is no longer the case.
Love ’em or hate ’em, suburbs appeared because people wanted them at the time. And thanks to the Baby Boom, they exploded. There seems to be a movement back to the cities or a denser suburban area (e.g. Downtown Bellevue), but suburban life still attracts a lot of people. Two of my siblings live in suburban houses on the Eastside, for example.
This brings up one of my favorite what-ifs: Had World War II and the resulting Baby Boom never happened, would Americans still be living in dense cities, and suburban cities would seem more like what we consider today’s small towns? (And to avoid “We’d be speaking German and Japanese” rabbit holes, let’s say the reasons for World War II never happened.)
> Love ’em or hate ’em, suburbs appeared because people wanted them at the time.
To clarify do you mean the us-style autocentric suburbs?
Don’t forget, that even in the 50s/60s/70s people also really wanted apartments and townhouses. The entire reason why zoning was implemented back in the 70s was to prevent apartments and townhouses from being built. Even in los angeles, it was parking minimums that banned say bungalows.
> Had World War II and the resulting Baby Boom never happened, would Americans still be living in dense cities
Generally if we hadn’t implemented parking minimums we’d have much dense cities. People really underestimate how devastating parking minimums are for housing density.
Sometimes it’s irresponsible to give people what they want, especially when it has environmental, equity, or mental health externalities. It wasn’t like all lower-density, higher-privacy fans got exactly what they wanted. Freeways could have gone to the edges of inner cities rather than through them. Minorities could have not had their neighborhoods obliterated, and could have been allowed to move into the greenfield suburbs before the courts forced the issue. Walkability could have been incorporated into suburban design, while still giving people a private clean house. There could have been a mixture of attached and detached houses instead of all detached.
Without WWII and the Baby Boom, well… The 1920 — that ideal time of streetcars and streetcar suburbs — was when the first stirring of cars and suburbs began to take hold. Construction was suspended from 1929 to 1945 because of the Great Depression and WWII right after each other. So the 1950s was a time with the first few freeways and white picket fences, but was mostly still the 1920s landscape. It was only in the 1970s that the postwar suburbs had reached half the population.
Without WWII, the Depression would have lasted longer because the government wouldn’t have made as many investments. War-catalyzed technologies like plastic, fertilizer, and digital computers might have appeared later or in a different way. People of different classes, races, and home states wouldn’t have been thrown together on a common war mission far from home and learned some respect for each other.
The 1920s suburban aspiration and 1930s Futurama visions would have presumably continued unabated, and suburbia still would have grown, although probably at a lower pace due to technology and labor limitations.
Could we have avoided some of the mistakes along the way? I don’t know. Some of them were due to specific situations. Eisenhower’s planners ignoring his wish to keep freeways out of city centers. Oh wait, Eisenhower wouldn’t have been president, and he wouldn’t have seen the autobahns in Germany to be inspired by them. Oh, Hitler wouldn’t have consolidated power, so, would the autobahns have been different? The specific highway manuals recommending wide arterials and other pedestrian-hostile features were made by certain people in certain circumstances, so somebody else might have written them a different way.
“I have been in Seattle for around 8 years now and I have seen it continually decline in decent urbanism, to where today there really is no real urbanism, and yet all I ever hear “urbanists” talk about is suburbia.”
“OK, now I have no idea what you are talking about.”
They seem to be talking about the reduction in bus frequency and reliability, the lack of bold restructures and expansion plans like in the 2010s, the empty storefronts downtown and in other neighborhoods, the rise in visible homeless and street crime, and the slight temporary dip in population.
I’ve heard that no city less than 1 million or 3 million and Chicago-like density is “really urban”, but I don’t believe it. All those cities were much smaller when their urban core coalesced. San Francisco had only 200,000 people and was 2-4 stories.
As for “all urbanists talk about is suburbia”, they either don’t know most of what we talk about, or they don’t know how much we’re still happily doing our urban things in our urban neighborhoods,. and still seeing lots of urban neighbors around.
“ I have been in Seattle for around 8 years now and I have seen it continually decline in decent urbanism, to where today there really is no real urbanism, …”
I would disagree with that. First of all, much of NYC like large parts of Brooklyn and even parts of Manhattan have residential densities similar to several of our densest areas. So Seattle has “urban” neighborhoods.
Plus, areas like Columbia City, the Central District, Capitol Hill and West Seattle feel lots more urban than they did 15 years ago — along with having better supermarkets, restaurants and retail stores. The only terrible decline that I see is with downtown retail.
Don’t get me wrong. I loved wandering through 8 floors of Macys Downtown in 2010. I miss it! I’d shop there again in a heartbeat. But that’s just one part of what an urban experience is.
Anyone hoping to take the 44 today should know bus drivers have no idea if they’re on reroute or not. Metro’s website has nothing, but we were skipped by one bus at 43rd& Brooklyn, ran to 45th and just missed it, then missed the next bus because it went on 43rd instead.
Submitted complaints to Metro about both missing service advisories and missing stops.
Great Seattle Times article on Federal Way Link progress:
Sounds like major structural work on the bridge is almost complete, and that systems work both north and south of the bridge are also well advanced. Hopefully it all comes together quickly.
Good news all around. And just 60 days until Lynnwood Link opens!
An interesting note in there is that Sound Transit designs for the strongest possible earthquake within a 2,500-year return period; most structures (including WSDOT’s highways) are built for a 250-year or 1,000-year seismic return period. with our understanding of the seismicity of region only getting good in the past 20-30 years, ST is basically building the only structures guaranteed to be operable after a major quake. DSTT certainly wasn’t built to 2,500-year seismic standards… something to consider when thinking about DSTT2.
Light Rail is considered to be crucial transportation infrastructure. But since it is a long linear system with no redundancy, the higher standard is considered to be appropriate.
The 2500 year MDE event is often used in such circumstances.
What’s wrong with repairing afterwards? By all means build something strong but overbuilding to such an extent seems like a waste. Some of this seismic stuff is becoming a racket for engineers looking to replace good infrastructure with make work projects. The replacement of the Burnside Bridge in Portland is insanity to me and for over $1B.
Maybe I should clarify: I think it’s excellent that ST is designing to the 2,500 return period, especially in an area with such high seismic standards as ours.
When a major earthquake next hits the region, Link will be the only infrastructure built to withstand it. Making sure that Link can be up and running immediately after the shaking stops will be critical. How would repair crews access Link if the roads are broken? The most significant issue Link faces is a potential lack of power if electrical lines are broken, but ST can’t do much about that.
@Poncho,
“ overbuilding to such an extent seems like a waste”
Who says there is any overbuilding occurring? Even after stepping up to the new standard, the odds of encountering the design event is 4% in the 100 year service life of the bridge.
That sounds reasonable to me, and apparently the experts agree. I see no reason to second guess the experts.
Which segment do you think will be more impactful to its communities? The four (then five) station Lynnwood Link Extension, or the three station Federal Way Extension? Not which will get more ridership, but which segment will be the bigger catalyst for future station-area growth and transformation?
@Sam,
That is an easy question to answer—BOTH!!!
Both extensions are going to be hugely consequential to their local communities, and both extensions are going to lead to large amounts of development.
The FWLE is simply too slow to Seattle due mainly to the at-grade routing through Rainier Valley. It also lacks any other substantial destinations, other than the airport (but who is going to choose to live in FW because they get can get to the airport, other than SeaTac staff), and maybe Highline college.
I don’t see it being a major catalyst.
That is not true of Lynnwood. They kept the trip to the north fast, and there are major (*cough* UW *cough*) intermediate destinations.
> The FWLE is simply too slow to Seattle due mainly to the at-grade routing through Rainier Valley.
The “at-grade” routing isn’t the main reason. In general if one travels that far and/or makes multiple stops it’ll just take that long for transit. From downtown Seattle to Seatac (10 miles) takes 30 minutes. If you checkout bart to from downtown sf to their airport it also takes 30 minutes. Same for nyc subway it’s around the same time for 10 mile distance https://maps.app.goo.gl/Fq3YarULb2S82e3P6
However, the detour through rainier valley and the additional stops there is. Unfortunately if it was a mainly freeway alignment there’d be even less destinations along i5 to the south.
Agreed. But.
Lynnwood is 17 miles vs FW’s 22 miles to Westlake.
Lynnwood to Westlake is projected at 28 minutes, whereas FW to Westlake is nearly twice that. I know there are barriers to a quicker trip, an pros and cons. I’m just saying doubling of the time-difference is going to seriously limit the impact of Link on FW communities and potential for TOD development.
But, factors other than travel time to Seattle will go into station area development. One factor is how much of the land that surrounds the stations can be developed. Looking at Lynnwood City Center vs Federal Way Downtown, Federal Way has the advantage. In other words, more development will occur where more development can occur. Just looking at a map, it sure looks like everything immediately southwest, south, and southeast of LCC is off-limits in terms of development. But, maybe north of the station will get so much growth it will make up for the underdeveloped south station area. Federal Way has a bigger canvass to work with.
> Lynnwood to Westlake is projected at 28 minutes, whereas FW to Westlake is nearly twice that.
Yeah I agree the FW is harder for potential. Though honestly even if it was 28 minutes, I don’t think they’ve really succeeded in approving/building as many apartments near their station unlike lynnwood.
Regarding travel times, it is slightly better if you count from CID. Like 30 minutes from CID to Seatac and another 16 minutes to federal way so around 46 minutes.
Lynnwood had seemed more amenable to a more densely developed station area in the past, though I understand they have pulled back from that, now that they don’t need to grease the steel wheels.
Federal Way is saying all the right things in their downtown development plan. It will be interesting to see how their Comp Plan squares.
“Impactful to its communities” is open to broad interpretation. My general responses:
Home prices? It’s about even.
Destination oriented TOD? Federal Way
Total station boardings? Lynnwood
Residential TOD? Lynnwood
New transit riders?
New transit riders per station? Hard to say for me.
I agree with Cam in the sense that the intermediate destinations at the north end of Link are more popular. In both cases the metro is relatively slow compared to an express (or driving) because of the stops along the way. The difference is that a lot of those stops north of downtown are big destinations, even for people from the suburbs. In contrast, Rainier Valley (especially the part of Rainier Valley served by Link) just doesn’t have the destinations.
But it gets more complicated than that — I’m going to put that on a higher thread.
@Cam,
“ The FWLE is simply too slow to Seattle”
You make the common mistake of assuming regional transit is all about getting to Seattle. It isn’t. Regional transit is about just that, “regional” transit. It’s not about just Seattle.
Many riders boarding at FW will be traveling to Highline College, the airport, and other destinations along the line. And Link will be an excellent option for these destinations.
Some riders certainly will be going all the way to DT Seattle, and Link will still be a good option for them. It will be fast and frequent enough to be competitive in total trip time, and none of the other options will be nearly as frequent or reliable.
As per the UW, it is the state’s premier educational institution, and it is a huge transit destination. Serving it directly with Link makes perfect sense.
It should also be noted that within the next 2 years Highline College, Seattle Central College, the University of Washington, and North Seattle College will all be linked with a fast, efficient, 1-seat ride on Link. Call it “The Education Line” if you will, but it will be a major benefit to our student and educational communities..
I didn’t make any mistake. I mentioned all the intermediate destinations you did. I just think the southern destinations are simply weak.
My first thought was similar to Cam’s, but it gets more complicated than that. To begin with, a lot depends on how they restructure the buses after Federal Way Link. We know what is coming with Lynnwood Link, and it is pretty good. I’m not thrilled with what Metro has done, and Snohomish County is clearly chasing the federal funding with their Swift projects (instead of just building a good network) but overall it looks very good, especially for regional transit. There are a lot of long distance trips that will be much better (e. g. Mukilteo to Seattle will be timed with the ferry which means Whidbey Island to Seattle will get a lot better).
But Federal Way Link remains a mystery. What Metro does is not that important, but what ST decides to do will be huge. If they truncate all the buses at Link it will be a degradation, in my opinion. There would be quite a few riders that would be hurt, and they would not get that much in return. On the other hand, if they go with the sort of thing I proposed a while back (https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/02/25/regional-transit-after-federal-way-link/) then they have the best of both worlds. A lot of trips to downtown are more frequent AND you have connections to Link. While these connections are not as big, SeaTac is a significant destination, as is Highline College.
That is what makes the comparison interesting. My guess is Highline College is a bigger destination than anything with Lynnwood Link. Thus Lynnwood Link is about “giving the suburbs the keys to the city” (as d.p. once put it). In contrast, Federal Way Link offers little of that, but actually has a significant destination that likely attracts people from places like Rainier Valley.
SeaTac is also a decent intermediate destination and if I remember right, a fair number of SeaTac workers live to the south. So this should help. In terms of particular stations and how much things will improve:
Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace — These stops have had good transit connecting them to downtown and north-end destinations (now via Link) for quite some time now. Link will be an improvement, but not huge.
185th and 145th — These areas have a fairly slow and infrequent connection to Link (especially 185th). The connecting buses will be more frequent and the trip south will be much faster.
Federal Way — It will become a bigger transit hub, and could be a major regional transit hub if they make the changes I suggest. Too bad there is so little there. The trips to the airport will get a big boost (although the A isn’t too bad).
Star Lake — Things will improve for riders in the area, but I don’t think there will be many riders. It offers little from a connectivity standpoint as well. It has a big parking garage, so there is that.
Kent/Des Moines — For folks getting to the college (from both directions) this is an improvement over the A (if they came from far Seattle or Tacoma). Likewise, two-seat trips from Kent to SeaTac will be a bit better.
Overall it is hard to say which extension will have the bigger impact. Again, a lot depends on how they restructure the ST Express buses after Federal Way Link.
“The FWLE is simply too slow to Seattle due mainly to the at-grade routing through Rainier Valley.”
Go ride the FHSC or Max in Downtown Portland if you want to see slow. Link runs on MLK for 4 miles in about 12 or so minutes. It’s actually also 12 minutes from the ID to UW but no one declares that as too slow.
Why is that? That’s usually because they either feel unsafe riding through the RV or they feel that serving the RV is a wasteful investment. Both perceptions are rooted in white privilège.
I sometimes actually park and hide in the Rainier Valley and then hop link into town. I love RV, and sometimes it is my destination, and when it is, I almost always take link.
For me it’s about time spent in transit, not racism or fear of crime. If I’m transferring to Link, my trip is going to almost always be well over an hour.
Rainier Valley these days feels rich, safe and very white. I think you are off-base in your assessment, Al.
> I didn’t make any mistake. I mentioned all the intermediate destinations you did. I just think the southern destinations are simply weak.
I agree, unfortunately unlike with the north leg/ lynnwood link the southern section misses out on southcenter mall, renton which are not along the path.
> Why is that? That’s usually because they either feel unsafe riding through the RV or they feel that serving the RV is a wasteful investment. Both perceptions are rooted in white privilège.
I think people don’t realize that rainier valley is a 5/6 miles long section. Even if it was elevated it would still take some time to go through it. Secondly people probably are understandably annoyed at the traffic lights but probably don’t realize the frequent station stops in the downtown tunnel effectively slow down the train around the same. (Not saying the downtown tunnel shouldn’t have that many stations just that there’s a hefty travel time penalty there as well)
I think people don’t realize that rainier valley is a 5/6 miles long section. Even if it was elevated it would still take some time to go through it.
Exactly. The trip from Tukwila to downtown is actually quite fast for a subway. There are very few stops along the way. It isn’t as fast as an express bus, but that is typical. For example imagine I’m trying to get to Queenborough Community College to Manhattan. It takes less than a half hour by car (https://maps.app.goo.gl/q46az3Ynjpo1F3am6) but over an hour by transit. Even if you are right by the nearest station it takes longer. There are just a lot of stops along the way.
The same is true for the north end of Seattle. The difference is that those stops in the north end (or in Queens) are a lot more popular than the ones in the south end (as Cam mentioned). Overall the problem is that Link is not quite sure what it is. If your goal is regional transit (e. g. Tacoma to Seattle) your best bet is buses (especially when you have a lot of freeways, like we do) or leveraging existing rail. You can build your own rail, but holy cow that is expensive for regional transit. If your goal is to build a metro, then you want lots of stops in urban areas — ideally areas that are slow to reach via a bus. For example Roosevelt to Capitol Hill. The train makes multiple stops along the way but it is still faster than driving. You also want to integrate your system. The regional system (rail and express bus) should connect well to the metro. Unless you build a thorough metro (which is unlikely in a city this size) it is vital that integrate the urban buses with the metro.
The problem is we built something that is not quite one or the other. It doesn’t work especially well for long trips, and a lot of the short trips (UW to First Hill) were skipped. As a result we have to lean on the buses way more than we would otherwise. To make things worse, in much of the city we don’t connect the buses with Link very well (e. g. there is no station at 23rd & Madison) so it does not work that well in respect either.
Overall it is a mediocre system despite extremely high costs. It could be worse, but it could be a lot better. It does manage to connect to several of the main destinations, just not that many of them (or that well). The bus integration is not especially good, but it could be worse (and almost was, e. g. 130th NE). There are plenty of worse systems, especially in this country. Typically they don’t cost as much though. In terms of overall value we may not be the worst in this country, but we are below every Canadian system, and likely below every system outside North America.
The fact that test trains are actively running makes the Lynnwood Link opening date seem very likely. ST would have flagged any major opening problems by now.
Is kicking off riders at Northgate bus simulating the post-opening schedule yet?
How quickly will ST change out the platform diagrams? Has ST printed them out yet?
Finally, will the new diagrams indicate the name change from University Street to Symphony?
Will some or all of the new diagrams reference the eventual opening of the 2 Line? Many modern system diagrams started showing future extensions many years before opening — and we supposedly less than 18 months away from full East Link and 22 months away from Federal Way Link.
Is kicking off riders at Northgate bus simulating the post-opening schedule yet?
I don’t understand the question.
> Is kicking off riders at Northgate bus simulating the post-opening schedule yet?
Bus restructure is scheduled for September 14, two weeks after Lynnwood Link opens. Pre-revenue testing doesn’t include other transit services.
> How quickly will ST change out the platform diagrams?
Probably same-day as startup, August 30, or that same weekend.
> Has ST printed them out yet?
You’d have to ask a worker at OMF-C and/or ST’s print shop.
> Finally, will the new diagrams indicate the name change from University Street to Symphony?
My understanding is that change is coming with the implementation of 2 Line operations in DSTT (late next year/early 2026).
> Will some or all of the new diagrams reference the eventual opening of the 2 Line?
The current 2 Line maps don’t show the future connection to Seattle, but instead highlight current bus connections. Maybe a concerted advocacy campaign could convince ST to show upcoming extensions on service maps, but it seems they’ve made a decision not to include them on current maps.
“Is kicking off riders at Northgate bus simulating the post-opening schedule yet?”
I mistakenly left ST out of the sentence. And auto correct added “bus”. It ended up embarrassingly confusing.
It should have read:
Is ST kicking off riders
at Northgate, simulating the post-opening schedule yet?
Is ST kicking off riders at Northgate, simulating the post-opening schedule yet?
OK, cool, although I’m still not completely sure what the question is. Are riders on (northbound) Link kicked off the train at Northgate? I think so. I’m pretty sure they do a quick sweep. I’m pretty sure the announcement is the same as well. There is a driver switch, so I don’t think they are going to do anything different until Lynnwood Link opens. Then they will change the announcement and if you space out and forget to get off before the doors close you are going to Shoreline.
As far as the 512 and 513 goes, they remain the same and will likely remain the same until after Lynnwood Link opens.
@Al S,
I was at NGS a few hours ago and they were not running full simulated service. They were still running a single LRV on a periodic, non-revenue headway.
But they will get there. LLE is going to be absolutely transformational. Can’t wait.
And then on to full ELE. The combination of LLE and full interlined ELE is when this region finally gets real mass transit for the first time.
A colleague saw a roped-off section in a Link train containing workers writing things on clipboards.So this may be part of the Lynnwood Link testing.
Thanks for providing the current status, Lazarus.
For those that didn’t under and my question, I can explain:
Before Lynnwood Link trains can run in service, there is a period when they run a simulated service as the last testing phase. Simulated service trains would operate as normal four-car in-service trains between Northgate and Angle Lake. When a train gets to Northgate, ST staff eject all passengers — and the driver drives empty or out-of-service train to Lynnwood. Then the driver reverses that train and drives it back boarding no passengers until Northgate where it continues as an in-service train. The driver would still open and close doors at each station but no one would get on or off the train.
That was what was done for the other three Link extensions now open — a few weeks before their opening days.
Lazarus explained that ST hasn’t started doing this yet.
@Al S,
No problem on the clarification.
To further clarify, today they were just running one LRV bi-directionally on what would normally be the SB track. The LRV also appeared to be operating at track speed. And they weren’t pulling into NGS at all. Just using the pocket track to reverse.
Staff onboard was about 5, and included at least one management looking person. All behaving very business like. I didn’t have an opportunity to chat anyone up.
That said, the full simulated service period should start in the next week or so. This is the part of simulated service testing you are referring to where NB trains will be swept at NGS and then proceed empty to LTC. When this happens LLE will look like it is in normal service, with normal headways, but the trains will be empty.
But things are really beginning to progress. It won’t be much longer before this line opens. Can’t wait.
As of today, there was a single car unit running between Northgate and Lynnwood. So no, they have not begun revenue testing (removing people from the train at Northgate and the train continuing on to Lynnwood.
@Al S,
Update on Lynnwood Link testing schedule:
I was at NGS again today and there didn’t seem to be any management types around. So I took the opportunity to ask a few of the security staff about the schedule for full simulated service testing.
Here was some confusion, but it sounds like it will start “next week”. Details TBD. This aligns with my understanding too, but I can’t find anything official in writing.
Also, several of the security staff I talked to live north of NGS along the future Lynnwood Link extension. They are looking forward to LLE opening so they can come to work at ST without driving. Go figure.
So that is at least a couple of cars off the road.
58 days to go.
Good info, Lazarus. Someone said you live in or near Shoreline. I’m curious, what’s going to be your closest or preferred station?
From highest to lowest, which stations are supposed to get the most ridership? Lynnwood City Center I imagine is 1. Then what’s 2, 3, and 4?
From highest to lowest, which stations are supposed to get the most ridership? Lynnwood City Center I imagine is 1. Then what’s 2, 3, and 4?
Great question. Hard to say. I’m going to go with:
At least initially. When the 522 is rerouted to 148th I expect it to be second. It is really hard to say though. The only one I have a lot of confidence in is Lynnwood. Our stations at the end of the line always do well.
@Sam,
My in-laws live in Shoreline. They don’t drive, so they bought a new construction townhouse in North City in anticipation of the 185th St Station opening.
They are very excited about LLE opening as it will make things a whole lot easier for them. And for me!
And they are also excited about Blue Swift being extended to 185th St Station. Makes Costco runs easier for them.
Yes that’s my ranking too for 2024-5. #2 and #3 will be close.
ST says that 130th will open in 2026, taking riders away from 148th — so Stride 3 riders coming in 2027 possibly won’t do anything more than backfill the 148th totals. So I would guess that 130th will be #5, and 148th will stay #4.
Bonus comment: I predict that Northgate boardings will drop by about half and will be lower than Lynnwood once LLE opens — but still above the others. Northgate gets about 10k weekday average boardings today and Roosevelt gets about 4.5k.
I don’t know which buses will be serving Mountlake Terrace, 185th, and 148th after LLE opens, so I won’t factor that in to my ranking. But I do think Mountlake Terrace has a much bigger parking garage than 185th and 148th. But, 148th seems to be closer to some areas of density than the other two stations. I might also take some points off a station is there is no nearby southbound I-5 offramp to the station area. I don’t think there’s a sb offramp to 185th. So, I might go
1, Lynnwood
2, 148th
3, Mountlake Terrace
4, 185th
Over time, with bus restructures and new residential TOD, I think the ridership list will change.
I don’t know which buses will be serving Mountlake Terrace, 185th, and 148th after LLE opens, so I won’t factor that in to my ranking.
I think it will play a big role though. As I see it, there are several considerations when it comes to station popularity:
1) Proximity to other Link locations: Obviously benefits the stations to the south.
2) Destination within walking distance: All about the same (minor).
3) Housing within walking distance: All about the same (minor).
4) Park and rides: The clear winner is Lynnwood, since it will draw everyone from the north to it. Other than that it looks like a wash.
5) Destination or housing connected via buses: These are related because so much depends on the bus network. In that regard, I would say this about each station:
Lynnwood: Benefits from being the northernmost station. People access it from north, east and west. Biggest nearby destination is Edmonds College (served via a frequent connection) but there are express buses to Everett and Mukilteo.
Mountlake Terrace: Weakest station in terms of buses. Frequency is weak and the connection to Edmonds involves a lot of back and forth.
185th: Connects to Swift as well as the 348. No major destinations, but quite a few mid-level ones.
148th: The 72 should help, as there is a fair amount of density along 145th. A few riders along Lake City Way will backtrack. Main destination is Shoreline Community College.
The proximity factor and connection to Shoreline Community College may tip the balance to 148th, and allow it to get second place, even before the 522 gets sent there. Then again the particulars of park and ride use may determine which gets more riders, and that gets fairly complicated.
For Edmonds and Montlake terrace, does anyone know if they are still planning on building the “Infill Light Rail Station: 220th Street” in the near future?
Yesterday was a busy day for Link. Between the Mariner’s game and the Pride parade, it had many stuffed train runs.
I noticed that families with 3 or 4 kids were using Link to get to the stadium, and the kids seemed to enjoy the train ride. Kids are future transit riders and referendum voters. In the other hand, some parents let their kids think that trains are playgrounds.
What’s the best way to educate both parents and kids about transit etiquette? I favor example video clips over mere obtuse audio declarations.
I noticed that some trains left without boarding everybody waiting because they were too crowded. We need the full 2 Line open to add trains!
It is really too bad that ST doesn’t seem concerned with capacity when it comes to the trains (https://seattletransitblog.com/2016/12/20/will-link-waste-its-capacity-for-the-sake-of-operational-convenience/) but is obsessed with it in the distant future (https://www.soundtransit.org/blog/platform/digging-details-new-downtown-seattle-light-rail-tunnel). Trains with open gangways (the international standard) have the advantage not only in total capacity, but how they handle crowding. With our train cars it is quite likely that one train car is stuffed, while another train car has places to sit down. Every time it is a train car lottery. To be fair, the more crowding there is the more difficult it is to move within the train. But it is still common (around the world) to go to a different car, especially if the one you are in really crowded.
There is a sad, only-in-America argument people make against open gangways: If a lunatic with a machine gun opens fire, he’s got free reign through the rest of the train; while with closed gangways, he’s more or less contained in one car. Here’s the Reddit discussion about NYC’s pursuit of open-gangway trains, for example: https://www.reddit.com/r/nycrail/comments/10tt9c3/are_opengangway_trains_unsafe_for_passengers/
There’s the usual Reddit obnoxiousness here, doubly so since this involves brash New York and even brasher New Yorkers. Still, the fact that shooters on a train is an actual concern for some just saps my soul.
Before the pandemic, I tried taking the bus to the Ace Comic-Con held in the CenturyLink Field Convention Center, and drove to South Kirkland Park-and-Ride. Unbeknown to me, the Pride Parade was also that day. Not only was the P&R more crowded than usual, but the 255 was so jammed it simply drove through without stopping. I ended up driving, but asked the others there banging on their phones for Ubers if they wanted a ride. Four people took me up on it, and hopped into my Hyundai Elantra. I dropped them off at Westlake Center before heading to the “CLink” for the Comic-Con.
Interestingly, I didn’t run into traffic until we got near Westlake, but I was able to avoid the worst of it by staying in the far left lane of southbound 5th. Avenue until I got near Pioneer Square, where it thinned out and I had an easy drive to the Comic-Con.
Thoughts on the highway BRT video?
The video is alright it’s just kinda surface level about freeway buses so there’s not much to talk about for Seattle. It’s probably more geared towards other regions that don’t have any center median freeway buses.
I was kind of hoping more of a debate about right-side (outer lane) bus on shoulder lane buses versus center (inner lane) comparison. And for center lanes the speed and reliability benefits of the inside lane versus high cost of building the center lane bus stations/ direct access ramps. Compared to the bus on shoulder lane having relatively easy ‘flyer stops’ to build but contending with traffic at the off and on ramps.
For i5 we’ve already built a moderate amount of center ramps so continuing with the center lanes makes the most sense. For other freeways though like sr 520 or say even sr 167 I think it’s an acceptable alternative.
I think a lot of our shoulder running is in the inside lane (next to the HOV lane). This is mainly because they don’t have the courage to change HOV-2 to HOV-3.
> I think a lot of our shoulder running is in the inside lane (next to the HOV lane). This is mainly because they don’t have the courage to change HOV-2 to HOV-3.
Sure, I mean originally there was a plan for a lot more shoulder running to be implemented.
Or for example the sr 520 is also right-side hov lanes.
“It would be annoying if a suburban bus were to leave the freeway every couple miles, go through the suburb and then get back on the freeway.”
Not only annoying, but it would defeat the purpose of running a bus on the freeway to begin with. In the time it takes to wait for all those lights to drive between freeway and transit centers, you could just run a regular local bus in a straight line down a street parallel to the freeway; same travel time, but much better coverage, and needing to run as many bus routes allows each route that does run to run more often.
Except in special cases where the freeway is the only reasonable option to connect neighborhoods (e.g. the 241 between South Bellevue and Factoria), a bus that takes the freeway usually has to remain on the freeway for at least several miles in order to be worth it (unless the freeway is equipped with BRT infrastructure). Otherwise, it’s not saving its riders enough time to justify losing coverage by diverting service away from parallel streets.
I think it is excellent. I think he covered or at least alluded to many of the issues. Here are my thoughts (most of which I wrote on YouTube as well):
High quality freeway bus service can complement a metro really well. Subways work well in dense urban areas. Ideally they connect areas where driving is especially slow (all day long). Every metro stop should be a major destination or a major connection point (or both). This means people getting on and off the train at every stop (as opposed to a typical commuter-rail pattern where almost everyone is heading to or away from downtown). Oh, and of course the capacity benefits of a train are needed when you provide a system like that.
Meanwhile, freeway-based bus service is usually the opposite. By their very nature freeways are very fast. Freeways often cover low-density areas that lack major destinations. Travel lends itself to express service. It would be annoying if a suburban bus were to leave the freeway every couple miles, go through the suburb and then get back on the freeway. Not that many people are going suburb to suburb and the delay compared to driving is big (this is the opposite of a subway). This is where freeway stops come in. It doesn’t take long for the bus to stop, and yet it allows riders to go from suburb to suburb without backtracking (the stops themselves don’t have to be destinations). Thus each bus goes covers a part of a suburb, stops at a freeway stop, then connects to the metro (and/or goes right downtown). A lot of riders have very fast one and two-seat rides that way.
Locally I see the potential for this pattern with 520 and 405. ST will run (relatively) frequent all-day buses on 405. Metro and ST will run similar buses on 520. But they won’t connect outside of Downtown Bellevue, which is a big detour. Making matters worse, the freeway buses will mostly stick to the freeway, instead of serving neighborhoods. Thus a rider from the main part of Totem Lake (where the apartments are) has to catch an infrequent bus (or walk) then catch a bus to Downtown Bellevue, then catch a bus to the UW. Or they transfer to the 255, which is not an express. Now imagine that Metro or ST runs a bus from Lake Washington Institute of Technology to the UW. This would run through the main part of Totem Lake, giving them a one-seat ride to the UW. But it would also give them a two-seat ride to Downtown Bellevue (or Lynnwood). Likewise, you have good two-seat rides from Canyon Park to the UW. The more of these buses you have, the better the connections. There is a network effect, even if the number of riders is not that high. Nor does it have to be especially high. Buses don’t have to get that many riders before they are cost effective. The travel time on the freeway is very short. You aren’t picking up any riders a long the way, but you aren’t taking much time either. That is why the 41 (an express) had good ridership per hour numbers back in the day. Meanwhile, in terms of ridership miles per hour it is very high, since these go a long ways. Maybe not that many people benefit, but they benefit a lot from this sort of thing.
The same sort of thing can happen on I-90, east of Mercer Island. It doesn’t work out quite as well because Mercer Island isn’t a big destination. But I could see someone from Sammamish taking the 269 towards Mercer Island, but getting off at Eastgate. From there they could catch the 554 to Downtown Bellevue.
I’d like to see the 520 buses be branded as BRT… 542 (UW-Redmond) and an upgraded 556 (UW-Bellevue) designed to complement and tie into Link. The 520 HOV lanes are practically a rubber tire subway with their in-line stations.
I do wonder if there’s a case for extending regional express buses from UW to Ballard (as a very limited express making literally one stop between in Fremont with like 1 or 2 stops in Ballard) and perhaps another non/limited stop express line continuing from UW to SLU via Eastlake?
“By their very nature freeways are very fast. ”
And incredibly unreliable. If I’m sitting at Tacoma Dome, and I’m heading to Seattle for a game, a d I have the choice of a “45 minute” 594 and an hour Sounder, I take the Sounder every time.
You know why? 6 times out of 10 that 594 loses the race.
> You know why? 6 times out of 10 that 594 loses the race.
And the other times Sounder doesn’t run because it’s blocked by freight traffic…
In the 2 dozen times I’ve been lucky enough to have taken it, it has been never more than 2 minutes off schedule.
Sounder woops every mode, except, not surprisingly, T-link.
And when the ST Expresses are bad, they are very, very bad. Nice to see they’ve dragged themselves up from 80%. Must be some other expresses making up for the 5XXs.
@Cam
I am not arguing that Sounder is faster when it runs… The point is that Sounder only runs at peak times, the other times outside of that window it is effectively 0% reliability. “and I have the choice” When you don’t have the choice and choose ST express than effectively ST express is more reliable than Sounder.
Cam does have a point though, reliability on Pierce ST Express routes has been awful and inconsistent for years. It was bad even when I started riding STX regularly in 2013/2014 where 15-30 min waits weren’t uncommon.
Being pedantic about “Sounder doesn’t run off-peak so it doesn’t count” is missing the forest for the trees here in what Cam is saying. The express bus is just plain unreliable at times and we both know it from actually riding it. And that puts a negative perception in people as to whether they’ll consider riding again or choose an alternative to avoid dealing with the same problem again.
I mean I can pull up Transit App and it shows people’s opinions on reliability (if it came early, late, or on-time) of their route in relation to the posted schedule on the app
574: 64%
577: 80%
578: 65%
586: 70%
592: 57%
594: 75%
595: 82%
It’s not the most scientific as STs own internal statistics but does give a good barometer for how people perceive delays where they’re going.
@Cam,
Ya, Sounder is super reliable. I don’t know why this is even an issue of debate. And I have never known them to be “blocked by freight traffic”. That just doesn’t happen.
And when the 5xx’s from Pierce County are late, they are really late. Aggravatingly late.
Reliability matters. It matters a lot. And Sounder is very reliable. Given the choice, I’ll take Sounder every time.
A lot of the 594’s problems come from getting stuck in traffic on the Lakewood->Tacoma section, causing it to begin Tacoma->Seattle very late. My experience is also that almost all of the 594’s ridership is Tacoma->Seattle, so the Lakewood extension is effectively just a coverage run, but the fact that it’s there ruins reliability for the high ridership portion of the route.
The obvious solution is to have the 594 end in downtown Tacoma, leaving only the 574 going to Lakewood.
(Disclaimer: this comment is made based on my experience riding the 594 during the middle of the day; I don’t know what Lakewood ridership is like during rush hour, but even if a one seat ride from Lakewood to Seattle is needed during rush hour, I don’t think it’s needed all day long, certainly not at the expense of reliability and/or frequency of Tacoma->Seattle.
@Zach B,
And it’s not just how often a bus is late, it is also how late it is.
A couple of weeks ago I tried to do a Link-bus transfer. Theoretically I was right on time to transfer to the bus, but it was 2 minutes early so I just missed it.
The headways at that time of day were 12 minutes, but OBA said the next bus was running 28 minutes late. So I just started walking.
Note: This is a Metro example, not a STExpress example. But you get the idea.
I already said “I am not arguing that Sounder is faster when it runs” but perhaps let’s use a different term.
My point is Sounder is impacted by “traffic” as well.
Let’s use a different example. Let’s say we had two bus lines. One that ran all day and another that only ran when there is no traffic. Would you call the latter bus line better solely because it’s individual trips are more reliable? No, you still get on the former bus line because it is actually running.
You don’t see when the latter bus trips are impacted by traffic because it literally just doesn’t run at all. That is effectively what Sounder is outside of peak hours. Like yes I understand what y’all are saying the individual trip is more ‘reliable’ but it’s kinda misleading to not consider the overall frequency as well and span of service as well.
> A couple of weeks ago I tried to do a Link-bus transfer. Theoretically I was right on time to transfer to the bus, but it was 2 minutes early so I just missed it.
And what about the opposite, if you are 2 minutes late to Sounder you might need to wait 6 hours or practically then next day for the next train. Or what does one actually do — get on the st express bus.
“By their very nature freeways are very fast. ”
And incredibly unreliable.
A bus running in the HOV-3 lanes of 520 is quite reliable. There are only a few other options that are close:
1) A gondola or ferry.
2) A grade-separated busway or railway owned by the transit agency.
3) A railway owned by a freight company.
These are probably all in the same ballpark. Gondolas and ferries break down. Not often, but they do. So do buses and trains. Trains have “weak links”. Much of Link is grade-separated, but if there is an accident in Rainier Valley then it effects the rest of the line. Amtrak is notoriously unreliable because it is shared by the freight companies.
Regardless, a bus running on the freeway in a bus lane (or HOV lane that is limited enough) is about as reliable as you can possible get, while being much more reliable than a typical bus or streetcar.
“And when the 5xx’s from Pierce County are late, they are really late.”
“The express bus is just plain unreliable at time”
So Tacoma Dome Link will be popular?
This unreliability issue needs more attention. Almost every day there are traffic reports of a collision or closed lane or or a bottleneck somewhere. Moderate ones come to your highway once or twice a week, and major ones with a half-hour or more delay a few times a month. If you ride five days a week you get caught in a lot of them, as I’ve had.
It might just be.
High frequency and reliability go a long way. Even if the trip to significant destinations is well over an hour, it might be a reasonable choice for a decent percentage of folks.
I mean, we mostly agree it’s the wrong transit mode for intercity trips, but it might still be better than the other options, if we don’t make a significant push to fix the ST5XX reliability by changing HOV to HOT3, or fixing Sounder’s frequency and span by throwing TDLE money into track upgrades and slot payments.
@WL,
The reason Sounder doesn’t run mid-day is because ST didn’t negotiate any mid-day time slots.
Why? Because Sounder was intended as a commuter oriented service. At the time ST don’t think mid-day ridership would justify the costs of obtaining mid-day slots and operating the trains.
But a wise decision based on the economics and commute patterns of the day is not the same thing as being “impacted by freight traffic”.
Now if the commute patterns have changed sufficiently to justify the expense of mid-day trains, then I would highly encourage ST to go back to BNSF and negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement to do that.
@Mike Orr,
“ So Tacoma Dome Link will be popular?”
Yes. Almost as popular as Federal Way Link.
And of course an operating Tacoma Dome Link will increase ridership on Federal Way Link and make it even more successful.
A rising tide lifts all boats.
> Now if the commute patterns have changed sufficiently to justify the expense of mid-day trains, then I would highly encourage ST to go back to BNSF and negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement to do that.
We’ve discussed this many times and I’m sure you’ve already read it before that BNSF is highly unlikely to allow many mid-day trains, short of Sound Transit basically just buying the freight rail track for tens of billions of dollars.
Given the choice, I’ll take Sounder every time.
You are in the minority. More people take the bus from Tacoma to Seattle — even when Sounder is running. I was very surprised about that. I just assumed that folks would take Sounder. It is roomier. It may be a bit slower, but it is consistent. But more people prefer taking the bus.
That was before the pandemic. ST no longer releases detailed information, so maybe things have changed. However I see nothing in the overall numbers that suggests anything different. Hard to say why that is. It may be just that the bus serves more stops. I would think the additional stops in Tacoma would have the biggest influence, but about 75% of the riders board at the Tacoma Dome. In contrast the stops in Downtown Seattle are very spread out (and that may be the difference — people like that one-seat ride).
There was a very big difference between northbound and southbound though. Some of those riders take Sounder back, while some take a bus that runs in the middle of the day. Thus it may be that folks ride the 590 early enough in the morning that they feel like traffic isn’t a big deal. But coming back they avoid rush hour or take Sounder. This is another clear sign that we need HOV-3 lanes. If the bus could avoid the worst of the traffic (and it does in the early morning) then it would be a lot more popular.
@WL,
“ BNSF is highly unlikely to allow many mid-day trains”.
There is a lot of speculation on this blog that gets passed off as fact when it really doesn’t even pass the smell test. BNSF is a business. If ST makes it worthwhile to them, then some mutually acceptable agreement should be possible.
And I don’t believe in giving up before you even try. That is a self defeating attitude that leads to…..wait for it…..defeat.
Defeat is not an option.
The reason Sounder doesn’t run mid-day is because ST didn’t negotiate any mid-day time slots.
Why?
Because it would be extremely expensive and midday ridership on Sounder would likely be very low.
It is really kind of bizarre how transit advocates want to spend billions of dollars on a system that is less effective than simply changing a few road signs from “HOV-2” to “HOV-3”.
BNSF is a business. If ST makes it worthwhile to them, then some mutually acceptable agreement should be possible.
Sure, but the point is it would be extremely expensive. I estimate that it would cost somewhere around $100 per rider. That is for hourly service. In contrast, consider the alternative:
We already know that when the buses are relatively fast (in the morning) the buses (from Tacoma and Lakewood) are more popular than Sounder. It is quite possible that isn’t the case with other locations. But at some point the Sounder solution just can’t compete, unless you are willing to spend a ridiculous amount of money on the trains. Why would we do that? Why would we spend ten times as much for trains than a bus when the vast majority of people in these areas have terrible transit everywhere else?
> There is a lot of speculation on this blog that gets passed off as fact when it really doesn’t even pass the smell test. BNSF is a business. If ST makes it worthwhile to them, then some mutually acceptable agreement should be possible.
BNSF has repeatedly said they don’t want ST to increase the span of service.
“The BNSF tracks are congested by freight trains in off-peak times, limiting the available track time for passenger trains outside morning and afternoon peak travel periods”
The wsdot amtrak cascades study found the same issue. Sound Transit is hoping maybe they can run like 1 train in the middle but that’s about it.
> And I don’t believe in giving up before you even try. That is a self defeating attitude that leads to…..wait for it…..defeat.
Lazarus if it was that cheap we wouldn’t be building link light rail to tacoma, we would just run trains on the bnsf line to Tacoma. Also I don’t understand why y’all keep thinking it’ll be easy to run frequent trains on an active freight line. (like actually used all day not like one freight train every 3 days). I’m not sure why you keep trying to assert ignorance of what is happening as a good thing.
I find it rather academic to discuss adding lots more Sounder trains.
1. The original negotiations and subsequent negotiations both are based on restricted the service hours. I seriously doubt that these negotiations happened without some discussion of other times of day. BNSF has a profit motive to use those tracks for freight. So unless the freight service markets collapse there is likely slim to no chance to get a good deal from BNSF. Is the cost worth getting just a few more runs in?
2. There is midday Cascades service. It doesn’t stop at most Sounder stations. If the midday market is so lucrative, ST should be working with WSDOT to enable midday Cascades to stop at more Sounder platforms. That requires no extra train sets! It still amazes me that the two services are rarely discussed together as serving one corridor.
3. The HOV lane change can help bus reliability, but only if they are really congested. Those times are when Sounder is running. The massive I-5 widening in Tacoma and Fife is finally in place so that stretch doesn’t have HOV congestion like before. So switching to HOV 3 would help within the Seattle city limits but travel times south of 405 wouldn’t help that much in midday. Switching to HOV 3 north of I-405 seems much more productive as Metro buses on I-5 could use it too.
4. The region has agreed to spend billions to get Link as far as Federal Way in less than two years. The region is spending billions more to get to Tacoma Dome in supposedly 11 years (probably at least 15 given ST’s nonchalant commitment to construction schedules). That service will be more reliable than any express bus and will be more frequent at 10 minutes. Yes the trip will be slower between Tacoma Dome and the ID — but riders will have short waits for a train and can travel at almost anytime between 5:30 am and midnight without having to worry about missing a train (no need to build in more time up front to wait for a train). Link is also electric; Sounder and Cascades are diesel. Finally, ST will want to maximize its ridership on Link by truncating ST Express buses. Denying this eventuality is silly. Heck, the South King restructuring discussions are going on now!
5. Sounder ridership has been plateauing since last fall at about 60 percent of 2019. It may never recover back to 2019 levels. ST Express southward isn’t growing either. The pressure to address crowding is no longer there.
The bigger discussion that’s needed is electrification. Battery or catenary? Electrification can enable trains to brake and accelerate faster — making it less consequential to stop. Any train service electrification is better for the environment. That’s the inevitable system change. ST should prioritize the technology switch first, rather than add a diesel train to the schedule at great expense.
“It is really kind of bizarre how transit advocates want to spend billions of dollars on a system that is less effective than simply changing a few road signs from “HOV-2” to “HOV-3”.”
We don’t have control over the road signs. WSDOT would have to decide to change them, and it has refused to. If WSDOT had changed the signs twenty years ago we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
“Link is also electric; Sounder and Cascades are diesel.”
That’s an interesting point. If we weren’t building Link, ST might electrify the entire ST Express fleet now like Metro is doing. So that money would be lost anyway.
I’d like to see the 520 buses be branded as BRT… 542 (UW-Redmond) and an upgraded 556 (UW-Bellevue) designed to complement and tie into Link.
I’m not sure if there is much advantage to converting them to BRT. Not that much time is spent boarding, so off-board payment doesn’t get you as much as it would on a bus like the 7. I would support it, but I wouldn’t prioritize it.
UW-Bellevue will be handled by the future 270. I think this is a big step up from the 271. The biggest problem I see is frequency, not speed. Stephen Fesler mentioned this: https://www.theurbanist.org/2024/06/19/more-cross-lake-service-in-restructure/. I could see an express, but it doesn’t lend itself to an express nearly as well as Downtown Seattle to Bellevue does (or did). There are HOV lanes at the 405/I-90 connection that direction, whereas there are no HOV connections between 520 and 405.
But one of the reasons that the 550 covered Bellevue Way is because a bus needs to cover that road. Same goes for the future 270. You would have to come up with a different bus to cover the road. Again, the biggest weakness is frequency. ST is a different agency, so there is that. Theoretically they could run an express (that stays on the freeways) while Metro just backfills service on Bellevue Way. I suppose that could work, but it would probably make more sense just to have ST take over all of the 270 and run it more often. That would allow Metro to easily run other buses more often (without a restructure).
The 520 HOV lanes are practically a rubber tire subway with their in-line stations.
Agreed. that is why I like leveraging it. It is kind of weird now because every bus (or almost every bus) that runs on 520 will go to the UW. That is probably the best option but it means that there is no point in using the freeway stations as a transfer point. In contrast if some of the buses go to the UW and other buses go downtown (and they go to different East-Side locations) it could work out really well. I feel like we never took full advantage of that.
I do wonder if there’s a case for extending regional express buses from UW to Ballard (as a very limited express making literally one stop between in Fremont with like 1 or 2 stops in Ballard) and perhaps another non/limited stop express line continuing from UW to SLU via Eastlake?
UW to Ballard is problematic because there is no fast way to get there. This is one of the reasons why it makes so much sense for a subway line. In comparison consider Phinney Ridge to downtown. You could run down through Fremont and across the bridge (and there is a case for that). But instead it runs express, and is thus extremely fast (in comparison). UW to Ballard just doesn’t have that. Driving is slow. The fastest route is often to use backroads that the bus can’t possibly use.
UW to SLU via Eastlake is similar. It isn’t the stops, it is the road. Now if you ran an express (using the freeway) it might work. That is basically what the 320 and 64 do (although they don’t serve the UW). They are currently suspended, and it looks like they won’t be coming back. As you suggest, having ST run it as add-on to a bus like the 542 might work. Then again it does take a while to run through the U-District. Since the East Side stops are close to East Link it might be faster to just take East Link and then the bus north. The big time savings would come from continuing the 545, but there is no interest in that.
It is definitely tempting to extend an express into the neighborhoods (on both sides of the lake). To a certain extent this happens now. The 542 runs through the U-District. It overlaps other routes, but gives riders more one-set trips. Ideally you want that neighborhood run to provide unique coverage. The 41 used to do that. No other bus covered that Lake City/Pinehurst/Northgate route. I think the buses could do a better job of that, although it is challenging. For example the bus I have in mind (UW, Totem Lake, Rose Hill) would overlap the 225, but I wouldn’t want it to replace it.
> The bigger discussion that’s needed is electrification. Battery or catenary? Electrification can enable trains to brake and accelerate faster — making it less consequential to stop. Any train service electrification is better for the environment. That’s the inevitable system change. ST should prioritize the technology switch first, rather than add a diesel train to the schedule at great expense.
What? ST should definitely not prioritize electrification on Sounder South if it can only run hourly trains. Freight companies don’t like electrification because it’s harder to double/triple stack cargo. Also it’d cost probably 2, 3 billion dollars to electrify such a long route looking at how much it cost caltrain to electrify.
We don’t have control over the road signs.
We have just as much control over the road signs as we do anything else. Folks want to lobby ST to get them to spend billions of dollars running Sounder more often. I want to lobby the state to change HOV-2 to HOV-3. It seems to me that getting them to change the signs should be a lot easier.
@WL:
“ST should definitely not prioritize electrification on Sounder South if it can only run hourly trains. ”
What about battery electric (as I mentioned)?
Yes the trip will be slower between Tacoma Dome and the ID — but riders will have short waits for a train and can travel at almost anytime between 5:30 am and midnight without having to worry about missing a train (no need to build in more time up front to wait for a train).
Right, but if the buses run every 15 minutes and the buses are 20 minutes faster than Link then it doesn’t matter how frequent the train is. The train could run every minute — it is always worth waiting for the bus. That is the problem. The train is not a little bit slower — it is a lot slower.
The only time Link can compete is during rush hour, and that is because they haven’t changed HOV-2 to HOV-3. Do that and the bus is faster all day long.
Until then, the best approach is to depend on Link and Sounder during rush hour. The rest of the day we should run express buses every 15 minutes along with Link. That means some overlap — people in Federal Way would have both Link and 15-minute express bus service to Seattle. So be it. Lucky them.
It’s really unfortunate there’s no transfer point between the 405 and 520. That would open up much better connections to Seattle/UW from north of Bellevue
> We don’t have control over the road signs. WSDOT would have to decide to change them, and it has refused to. If WSDOT had changed the signs twenty years ago we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Perhaps, but even for ST express there were a lot of improvement projects dropped after the everett link and tacoma link were added. The industrial way hov lane direct access ramps would have allowed buses to skip the last 3 miles of traffic into Seattle.
Or for instance:
> A lot of the 594’s problems come from getting stuck in traffic on the Lakewood->Tacoma section
ST 594 originally this was going to be fixed. The project “HOV direct access I-5 Direct access to Lakewood Park-and-Ride Pierce” would have added some direct access ramps. Or to and from tacoma with “HOV I-5 Direct access to Tacoma Dome Station Pierce”. I think there was another one nearby the mall?
Practically all i-5 ST express capital projects were dropped for light rail projects along the corridor — and I agree it’s a bit of duplicate effort to build hov direct access ramps next to the freeway light rail stations.
Anyways my main point is st express doesn’t have to necessarily ‘stay’ bad we just decided to fund tacoma dome link instead.
“If WSDOT had changed the signs twenty years ago we wouldn’t be having this discussion.”
Oh, and regular riders would have saved hundreds of hours of time and aggregation. That’s equivalent to months of full-time work.
@WL,
“ if it was that cheap we wouldn’t be building link light rail to tacoma, we would just run trains on the bnsf line to Tacoma. ”
Ah, no. TDLE is not about building some lower cost substitute to Sounder. TDLE has nothing to do with Sounder.
TDLE is about extending the LR system to Tacoma and giving the citizens of Tacoma their first real access to high capacity, high reliability mass transit. And it is about giving the citizens of Tacoma reliable and fast access to destinations along the LR line, including places like FW, Highline College, and the airport. In addition to all the other destinations along the line.
It is important to note that Sounder does not provide service to any of these destinations, and Sounder certainly does not provide the bidirectional service that Link will provide.
And, again, one shouldn’t assume that regional transit is only about getting into and out of DT Seattle. Tacoma is a worthy destination in its own right, and the world does not revolve around just Seattle.
As per negotiations with BNSF, they have never completely shut the door. And that sends a message.
And I don’t beleive in quitting before even trying.
@Mike Orr,
“ We don’t have control over the road sign”
Nope, and if it was that easy to change them it would have been done decades ago. The fact is it isn’t that easy, and won’t get any easier in the future.
Maybe a monorail? LOL.
> As per negotiations with BNSF, they have never completely shut the door. And that sends a message
Uhhhh they never shut the door because they’ll just keep negotiating on and on. They are sending the message and have done so consistently that they don’t want sound transit to use more time outside of peak hours.
Why do you think sound transit was resorting to station capacity expansion rather than just running other peak train — literally bnsf told them they didn’t want sound transit to run more trains.
And then at best sounder south can run a couple trains midday — there’s no world where bnsf allows 15/30 or even hourly service all day while still using it as an active freight line.
And again by active freight line I mean like actually being used not those almost dead freight lines one coal car every half week.
The reason Sounder was created is it was seen as an early deliverable: it could get started up quickly at relatively low cost since the track already exists. ST felt it would be a mistake to not take advantage of that low-hanging fruit. The initial impetus was for peak hours because that’s what most politicians and constituents say they’re concerned about: getting out of peak-hour freeway congestion. ST didn’t pursue off-peak service then because it was focused on a big Link investment.
ST recently negotiated with BNSF a price for a few off-peak timeslots, and had a public survey asking whether users want more off-peak service, more peak service, or longer trains. The majority said more off-peak service. ST3 includes money for another run or two. ST has been coy about the exact number because it didn’t want to reveal to BNSF during negotiations the maximum it could pay, because then BNSF would have asked for exactly that amount. But those negotiations are apparently done or ST wouldn’t have sent out the survey.
Half-hourly Sounder full time would be a giant step beyond that. I don’t know whether BNSF’s agreed rate would apply to that. And I assume there’s too much freight traffic for that without adding tracks. BNSF prefers freight because it’s more lucrative, and all the governments would line up behind freight because of jobs and the products we export and import. Washington is the state that’s most dependent on international trade.
Adding a passenger-priority track would doubtless cost a ton. That’s something WSDOT would have more resources and clout to do, and it could be used by Cascades. But WSDOT has been dragging its feet on doing anything of the kind.
Sounder South at its maximum in the 2010s had almost-hourly service weekdays. There was just a 2-3 hour gap in the late morning one way, and in the early afternoon the other way. So if it reaches that maximum again it wouldn’t have that much further to go. It has enough trains; it just needs timeslots and personnel. Of course, that was without evenings or weekends.
Eastside Transit has some new videos up regarding Lynnwood Link testing. Here is a sample:
In general the changes look pretty nice speeding up the rapidride D and should make crossing 15th Ave NW much easier as well rather than having to go up to 53rd street or the underpass.
The Initial Graham Street Station online open house is posted:
There will be a field open house on Tuesday, July 16, 4:30 – 7 p.m. at the Van Asselt Community Center, 2820 S Myrtle St, Seattle.
I was surprised that the early diagram suggests platforms on either side of Graham Street (north and south). I think it would be safer for all station users to cross midblock north of Graham away from that turning traffic (with both platforms beginning at least a a few hundred feet north of the station).
PS. To the site team, this should probably be a separate post for STB.
Yeah, good idea. I’m not sure when we can get to it.
Interesting, both suggested locations are a bit farther north than I expected.
I’m fine with either station location listed in the survey. Regarding reallocating road space it looks like with just removing one left turn lane it should be enough space. That is one minor advantage of the south of graham st option is that removing the left turn lane going west bound drivers can just turn right before s graham street and turn left onto it. (informal jersey left). The traffic on graham street is low enough it’ll probably be fine.
Lots of drivers turn at Graham Street to get to a corner convenience store or MacDonalds, or make a U-turn to get to other nearby places. That includes postal vehicles headed to the facility just north of Graham.
I would ideally like to see ST take out that postal facility (relocate it), and shift the northbound lanes slightly eastward, the shift the northbound track slightly eastward to install a center platform — with pedestrian crossing signals (or maybe just crossing flashers controlled by a push button) to get to that center platform. Because riders would only cross over one half of MLK they could easily get across in a few seconds. They would just have to look one way before crossing. They wouldn’t have to stand for a minute or two waiting for a walk sign to cross at Graham Street.
> I think it would be safer for all station users to cross midblock north of Graham
I mean for either alternative there will be a midblock crossing. North of S graham there will be S Raymond St and South of S graham st there will be S morgan st. The light rail station is 400 feet long so it’ll go from graham street to the next street.
I would center the platform on Raymond Street, and shave off the businesses and postal facility on the east side to move northbound lanes and track, providing more than enough room for a 400 foot center platform. I would replace the Raymond crossing with two new crossings both slightly north and south of Raymond Street at each platform end. There is about 1200 feet between Juneau and Graham.
It may be more expensive than crossing at Graham but it would be much safer.
The light rail station is 400 feet long so it’ll go from graham street to the next street.
Yeah, that is what I was getting at below. Othello is not just Othello — it is Othello and Myrtle. Columbia City is Alaska and Edmunds. Rainier Beach got screwed (they only got one entrance) but that was true in general. Anyway, the point is, it is quite likely they will have a pair of entrances. One on Graham and one to the north or south. Looking at this some more (and doing a better measurement) I think the existing crossing between Morgan and Angel would work to the south (https://maps.app.goo.gl/j7CgPynDBaLd6Fd48). While Raymond would to the north.
Overall I would give the edge to putting the station to the south. To the north you have Aki Kurose. This is a destination, but if you are going to the school then it doesn’t matter — either way you will access via Graham. But the north part of that super block (Juneau/Graham/39th/42nd) is basically a dead zone. There is a park there, but if you are walking to the park then you don’t mind walking a bit farther. In contrast to the south you have lots extending both directions. Mostly single family, but that is still people (and will likely change over time). If we assume the crossings as I suggested earlier, then Morgan/Angel is better. It connects to the neighborhood (each direction) a lot better. This (https://maps.app.goo.gl/j7CgPynDBaLd6Fd48) versus this (https://maps.app.goo.gl/2H3KWJ6MPBdVKtwDA). This could probably be fixed, but it would take some work by the city. Going to the south is basically ready to go.
I was surprised that the early diagram suggests platforms on either side of Graham Street (north and south). I think it would be safer for all station users to cross midblock north of Graham away from that turning traffic (with both platforms beginning at least a a few hundred feet north of the station).
Yeah, but don’t they all work that way? From what I can tell all the surface stations abut a busy street, although Columbia City and Othello also have entrances on the other side (a quieter street). It seems like they could have a second crossing/entrance on Holly or Juneau (to the north or south).
The second video could be subtitled, “Cities Mike would be comfortable living in”, or “Where to move if you’re priced out of Seattle.”
That doesn’t mean I fully agree with every item; e.g., I’ve heard Dayton’s downtown is completely suburban, and a resident said her suburban county has no public transit at all. But it gives a general picture of the kind of combination a lower-income non-driver could live in without undue hardship.
What drives me up the wall is 90% of American cities don’t have this, so they’re hostile places for lower-income non-drivers to be in. In Europe if you can’t afford one of the top-10 cities or a provincial capital, there are many smaller or secondary cities you can move to. In the US if you move to an average smaller or secondary city, your life will be very difficult, something you wouldn’t wish on your enemies. And doesn’t have to that way. It’s just as easy to make a city walkable as non-walkable, or to have at least minimally usable transit rather than refusing to. The cities are just refusing to.
Dayton just got ravaged by deindustrialization and suburbanization. There is nothing Downtown anymore, and of course now post COVID even the office workers are barely Downtown now. Much of the inner core has been demolished and since there is little economic activity it stays undeveloped (see old NCR campus just south of Downtown- once millions of sq ft in multistory buildings, now athletic fields). Everyone drives and so all commerce is done in auto-oriented forms from chains on the outskirts which is also where the middle class live. This is Dayton but this exact story is the same in every smaller Midwest city. At least Dayton still has trolley buses but doesn’t seem like they use them much even with a new fleet judging by a recent visit.
I wonder if they’d sell some to Seattle cheap? Could be a VERY good way to get ZE buses at a low enough cost to pay for hanging the missing wire sections.
Ditto San Francisco.
I actually met Ray (CityNerd) last year when he did an event in Seattle. I spoke to him about lists like this that go viral on his channel, and that he should advocate more for the High COL cities. I shared with him that I have never been high income yet I have always lived in HCOL cities like Seattle, SF, and San Jose. My argument was the higher cost of living in a city like Seattle or SF is worth it for so many reasons.
What Ray doesn’t mention in his video is that several of these cities on his list have the federal minimum wage of $7.25 because they are in red states. Not to mention how backwards their state governments are on the social issues. Even if the cities themselves are progressive, marginalized groups aren’t going to have the same protections as folks who live in CA, WA, NY etc. Young women aren’t going to have the same reproductive rights. You see where I’m going with this.
For me it just takes some small adjustments to make living in Seattle viable without a massive income: Live a minimalist lifestyle, don’t have a car payment, take transit as much as possible, be childfree, live in a walkable neighborhood, don’t eat out very often, exercise and stay healthy, don’t worry about keeping up with the Joneses. It’s definitely do-able. So while my wife and I don’t have high incomes we get to live in this wonderful city Seattle, and have money to travel domestically and internationally as well. Just being frugal is a game changer. Life is too short to settle for less.
In keeping with the “Housing Theory of Everything”, the reason HCOL cities are HCOL cities is due to high demand for social/economic reason (interesting culture, interesting jobs) clashing with a lack of interest in building new housing. When housing is expensive, wages need to go up to match housing costs; increasing labor costs inflates basically all other local costs.
Yes, exactly. Your tacos will be more expensive if the person selling them pays a lot for rent. The cook can always move. Same goes for a lot of service jobs.
I find Ray (CityNerd) entertaining. I will say that he appears to want to chase an idealized version of Portland in 2000. Certainly several Midwest cities can come closest. And having spent time in several of them, I know that the quality of life isn’t radically different in any city above a 1M metro population if you figure out what you want and can find a part of town that suits you. Ray even realizes that and increasingly looks for ways to identify neighborhoods rather than mere cities.
Our biggest blessing here is the weather, as it is for most other West Coast cities. St Louis is charming but much of summer is like living in a sauna to me while much of winter is like living in a freezer. Tornado warnings happen several times a year as do heavy flash flood events. The flora there makes my nose run for many weeks every year and that doesn’t happen to me here. Further, energy costs with housing in other parts of the country can wipe out the cheaper rental or home prices.
Quality of life means different things. Square footage is not the only consideration. The great thing about Ray is the amount of effort he puts into methodology and admitting his biases. That tells me more about him probably more than the cities he’s visiting — and makes him come across as smart and likable rather than narrow-minded and judgmental.
His rankings are based on a specific few metrics, and subjective reviews by a few specific sources. Unlike most of us, he has all the data and the expertise to fully analyze it. The benefit of his analysis is where he shows how two things relate or don’t relate, like walkability and cost. Usually these rise together, but he’s looking for exceptions where they don’t.
Christopher Leinberger cited a study that 33% of Americans want to live in walkable urbanism, 33% want to live in driveable sub-urbanism, and 33% would be satisfied either way. But the built environment is 10-20% walkable urbanism. That’s what causes the artificial demand in urban areas that drives the prices up. Some 13% of Americans want to live in a walkable, transit-rich neighborhood but can’t. A full 66% supermajority would be satisfied if walkable urbanism were their only choice. But instead public policy is highly tilted toward sub-urbanists and nimbys, so they get what they want, and people who want walkability suffer unless they can afford a supercity or could live in one of these few exceptions.
Yes, not needing a car can help offset higher housing costs. Being a fan of minimalism or tiny houses/apartments can help too. I’m basically both. When I first encountered the tiny-house movement I was intrigued, then I realized my ordinary apartment was the same size. Some people can put their tiny house in a friend’s yard in a Portland neighborhood and have access to walkable stores, a frequent bus route, and good bike access. But those are the few lucky ones.
Having a roommate/SO to share costs and not having kids can help too. But we need something that can work for families with kids. Especially in a country where births are now below the replacement rate. Part of the problem is the families themselves demanding more space than their parents/grandparents had in the 50s or 70s, but part of it also is that many apartments now are less than 700 square feet or even 300 square feet and have hardly any counter space.
There’s some truth to this- I make around 50% of AMI, and through a combination of factors (fairly cheap rent, don’t drive, don’t have kids, don’t eat out/go out much, general frugality), I’m able to afford a studio apartment in Seattle.
I’ve sometimes taken a look at what my financial situation would be if I moved to be closer to my family in Texas, and while housing costs are cheaper than Seattle, the gap seems to have shrunk post-pandemic, and the pay for similar jobs is less than Seattle, and there would be fewer jobs in my field, plus there would be all the costs of having to buy and maintain a car- at best it would be a wash, but I’d probably be financially worse off in Texas.
On the other hand, if I wanted to start a family in Seattle, it seems like it would be difficult unless my partner had a far higher income than I do, or they had local family willing to provide free childcare. If I married somebody in my same income range and we both kept working, we might be able to afford a 2 or 3 bedroom apartment, but the child-care costs look like they would be brutal until the kids were able to get into the city’s preschool program. In comparison, paying for a larger apartment and daycare in Texas might leave a low-to-moderate income couple on a shoestring budget, but it appears more viable than doing it Seattle.
I’m old enough now the odds that I’ll ever start a family are rapidly approaching zero, but it seems like we need to do more to make the city affordable for families with young children.
I think it all boils down to housing. Yes, child care is extremely expensive in this city. Part of the reason is that housing is very expensive in this city. Workers can’t afford to live in the city unless they charge a lot to take care of kids, and that means it costs a lot.
Up until 2023, property taxes in Texas made up some half of the state revenue, to make up for lower taxes in everything else. In late 2023 they had a huge property tax cut bill signed, but that means a bunch of stuff isn’t going to get paid for, and there’ll be an overall decline in everything from pothole repair to big transportation projects,
“I think it all boils down to housing.”
I think it’s a component, but not all. We have long relied on women in our country to provide massive amounts of unpaid labor around child-rearing and home making. That era has come to and end, and it particularly has come to an end in cities with a high cost of living. There are now far fewer households that can afford to have only 1 bread-winner, and there are far fewer extended relatives that have the excess capacity to watch little Johnny for the afternoon.
And less wealthy cities, that capacity is more fluid.
Also, Seattle is a city of transplants, with 2/3rd of the populace born somewhere other than Seattle. So you no longer have those extended family networks to rely on. In less wealthy cities, there are more locals who have those networks intact.
I wasn’t going to bother with this, but because there is a little bit of discussion down below about it, something along the lines of “I guess maybe we should think about families too huh guys?” I’m going to indulge myself and point out this part of the ‘simple things to do to live in Seattle! it’s easy guys!!’ list:
“be childfree”
If living in a city requires forgoing children, cities will become black holes,where the population – and their culture along with them – heads to in order to die out as entertainingly as possible. I’m sure most posters here think this is a good and right thing for the Earth and all that, and I’m not here to start that fight, but I’m going to draw attention to a situation closer to home.
American values – love ’em or hate ’em! – get passed on chiefly by and through families. That’s not just imperialism, mind you (and I believe we’ve got a shorter timeline on that than is assumed) but such trifles as democracy, LGBT rights, anti-racism, religious freedom, environmentalism, and so on. If we follow the demographic path of the Roman empire as closely as we seem determined to do, we can expect to see peoples from the outer fringe of the empire flood in to replace the collapsing native birth rate – they will adapt some of the habits of their adopted homeland, of course, but others they might not.
The point is that wherever the families are, there the future lies also. What can we observe from this? It seems that the future of America is largely in immigrants and their descendants, most from more conservative cultures, and in the American South, which is also known for conservatism, with the chaser of the majority of the rest of the population’s paltry contribution being located – *decisively* – in the suburbs. So what does that suggest about the relevance of… well… *anything* modern urban Seattleites choose to occupy their intellectual time with?
The past’s another country, but so is the future. I love downtowns and urbanism with all my heart but I threw in the towel on trying to parent in Seattle years ago. Portland is not much better, to be honest. After seeing how much stress the local families were under during and after COVID, I quite literally believe that the cultures of both places are already dead. Not a single thing they care about or find important is going to exist in 50 years. The only people with children who are enjoying their lives in any way in the larger metropolitan PNW areas in 2024 (2024!!) are the recent Hispanic immigrants. It’s so dramatic, I’ve been learning Spanish for a year now, because I see the writing on the wall. They are our successors, and I wish them the best in this beautiful land.
As my own children and family ties are not Hispanic, though, I have moved my family out of the region entirely as of 2 weeks ago. I am now enjoying stunningly good urbanism at an affordable price point in… Spokane. I doubt any other parents read this blog, not even for memories (as I do), but if there are any questions about this move I made, I would be more than happy to answer them here, just let me know.
Is there some reference to transit here? Seattle transit actions have made it easier for families to use transit — including free fares for children. Many teens rely on transit in some neighborhoods in our region and are able to postpone a car purchase. All of our major colleges and universities have reasonable transit and many are now or soon will be reachable via Link or a rapid frequent bus.
The CityNerd videos increasingly find that it’s the neighborhood and not the region that makes a place suitable for adults – and more so children. He finds gems in places that few here know..
I was angry that my older brother and sister could grow up in a walkable neighborhood with about 20 kids and a playground and two markets — while I was stranded on the edge of town with 2 kids my age and nowhere to walk where I could buy a mere candy bar or play in a public space. They could walk to every school from the earlier house while I had to be driven everywhere.
Good for you wanting a better life in Spokane. Did you relocate to a walkable neighborhood with bus transit and a nearby market or are your kids stranded in a sea of suburban or rural housing?
Several STB editors have children… all the way from month-old babies to old enough to have their own children. One former editor coached little league every year. I don’t have children, but I may be an exception.
“The only people with children who are enjoying their lives in any way in the larger metropolitan PNW areas in 2024 (2024!!) are the recent Hispanic immigrants.”
What does that mean?
Seattle is much different than it was 50 years ago, and it will be different again 50 years in the future. People come and go, the economy goes up and down, politics change, but the physical places remain, although some of them may be rebuilt differently in the meantime.
We’d like to hear about your experiences in Spokane. What good urbanism are you finding? In which neighborhoods? Have you had a chance to try the City Line BRT that opened recently from Browne’s Addition to Spokane Communtiy College? We’ve been following that.
RossB says Spokane has set a minimum zoning level that’s higher than Seattle. Ross, what is the level? We’re looking to see how much that gets built out, and whether it gives people more housing choices and more types of housing, and slows down price increases.
@Mike Orr,
Before you get too excited about Spokane, you should check the latest population growth numbers from the OFM.
Apparently Spokane only added 300 people last year. As in 300 total people. That’s it.
The county is growing fast, and a fast growing county with a stagnant main city just means car centric sprawl. It’s a shame. Spokane already had enough of that.
I’m actually a bit surprised. I thought Spokane was doing better.
I doubt any other parents read this blog
I’m a parent and I not only read the blog, but edit it. I also grew up in Seattle. Some of my kids live in Seattle, some have gone to live in other places (including Spokane). Affordability is the main reason. Spokane is a nice city. I visited there when I was in college (about forty years ago). I also visited there when my son went to Eastern (he commuted from Spokane rather than live in Cheney). I like what Spokane is doing with the zoning — they are leading the state if not the nation. From what I can tell they are doing other good things as well.
This was the only comment with a Reply button, so I am addressing all comments to my post here.
Al S.: In Spokane, I now live in a 3-bedroom house in a mixed-income neighborhood a ten-minute walk from the downtown core, with a Rapid Ride (it’s a different name, I’ll need to learn it soon) bus one block away that comes every 10 minutes and traverses the entire downtown. Plenty of kids come to play in the local park 4 blocks away, with a splash pad and a farmer’s market twice a week in season. The public library is 5 blocks away and the YMCA, 10. The elementary school is a bit farther, sadly, but that means we get doorside bus service. Two grocery stores are w/in 3 blocks and I just got back from the laundromat which is around the corner. All this on one middle-class income – I stay home with the kids for now. Don’t worry for my kids – they’re going to be well-socialized and independent. My point was more, is there *anywhere* this is possible in Seattle? And are the type of transit conversations that take place on this blog going to change that? I fully grant that discussing this may be beyond the scope of this blog, but I rest my parent’s perspective at that.
Mike Orr: Where I lived until just a few weeks ago in greater Portland, there were many family-related amenities in a fairly walkable core neighborhood – parks, pools, library, etc. – but I very rarely saw a native-born family use them. I knew from my son’s school that there were many native-born families in the area, but I never ran across them outside of the school bus stop. Upon all but battle-axing my way into some of their lives (so that my son could have playdates, and myself, conversations) I found that they were sickly, stressed, and rarely found a reason to leave the safety of their homes. Of the people who took the time to smile at my kids on the street–I walked outside almost daily with them–I calculated that at least 80% were recent Hispanic immigrants. I presume this was partly because they were the ones actually out and about, and partly because they culturally just like children more (and hadn’t been taught that you stay as far away from other people’s children as possible… an unfortunate part of my own culture). I hope this explains my statement.
We are living in Browne’s Addition – it’s amazing!! See my comment to Al S. above. City Line, that’s what it’s called! I have not yet gotten on it, but happily, that’s because I’ve been too busy walking to what’s nearby :) It’s going to be an exciting day trip with both kids later this week! But this afternoon, we’re going to walk to the children’s museum instead, because that’s what my eldest voted to do first :)
We toured several neighborhoods, mostly north of the river, when we visited the city for the first time last March – I can’t remember all of them off the top of my head, but there were 6 or 7 that seemed fairly walkable. The biggest issue was that the services were mainly clustered around some central stroads, which were not pleasant pedestrian experiences. However the houses were big, nice, and cheap, and the sidewalks were in pretty good condition. Buses ran fairly frequently, again mostly on those stroads. The elementary schools seemed easy to walk to and there were parks EVERYWHERE. We are really not sure whether we want to buy a house or not, but if we did, it would be in one of those northern neighborhoods and we would keep a pretty good quality of life. But now that I’m in Browne’s Addition – I really don’t want to move!!
I will address the next questions in another comment for length reasons.
Lazarus: I’m not surprised by that statistic. There’s a rather stupidly wide road near where I live that’s ostensibly a feeder road from downtown, but it isn’t much of a problem, because it only gets one car every 30 seconds. My mom couldn’t get over how few cars went by around here! I can tell that it’s economically stressful, to say the least, but I can’t complain about how nice and quiet it makes this downtown neighborhood :)
My best guess right now is the observation my family members made when they first visited – that visiting Spokane feels like going back in time 10 to 15 years. Which means that most people in the area still think downtown is a low-class and dirty place to be, and not good for families. So they stay away. It’s true that Spokane has a visible homeless issue – just like everywhere else nowadays. But after dealing with it in both Seattle and Portland for going on 15 years now – as you just have to, if you want to leave your damn house and go anywhere – there’s nothing here I’m not used to.
Ross Bleakney: My follow-up question to you: are any of your kids raising their own kids in Seattle right now? I’ve got a 6 year old and a 1 year old. I remember my own childhood neighborhood in greater Portland, though miserably suburban, still had things like the Girl Scouts and school activities etc. available to us then. In the same neighborhood in late 2023, we signed my son up for Boy Scouts, but he was the only one to join, so we didn’t get a den. I could just go on and on about this – you’ll see some more commentary above. In honesty, witnessing what’s happened to many/most young families in the region I grew up in has been one of the greatest shocks of my life. Are you seeing similar? Do you have any counter-examples, and if so, what do you think is the factor making them more resilient?
@ AParentPerspective:
It sounds great!
The Seattle area suffers from many areas that are both expensive and not walkable like Newcastle and Sammamish. And nothing here compares to the awful residential sunbelt development seas in Texas, Arizona and Florida.
I think it’s the regional housing demand that drives prices up more than walkability does. Before Covid, too many people were rushing to our biggest metros rather than to smaller metros, frankly. Now that the national population growth is slowing, I think that big metro trend will let up. (Not “dying” like the big metro haters say, but merely easing up.) The US has many metros where a family can enjoy a walkable neighborhood and most even have a transit system too.
Ross Bleakney: My follow-up question to you: are any of your kids raising their own kids in Seattle right now?
Yes. Two daughters live in Seattle and they each have two kids. I have a son who lives in Lake Forest Park. Even he would rather live in Seattle and did until his wife convinced him to move (she really likes the suburbs). In some ways it wasn’t fair, since they met (or became reacquainted) during COVID. Many of the advantages of living in a city went away. The ability to take your kid to a nearby pizza place — gone. Walk to the community center on a rainy day — gone. There were parks nearby, but even those were closed for a while. Likewise the ability to hop on a bus and get to places like the UW or downtown just went away.
Anyway, one set of grandkids are involved in a ton of activities. A lot of them school related, but also music (they can walk to the music teacher) sports and camp (in the summer). They walk to school and know the neighbors really well. The other grandkids are too young to do much (although they are in day care). I think the main problem in Seattle is the cost of housing — everything else is tiny in comparison. I also think the main reason housing is so damn expensive is because of zoning. Amazon hired a ton of people and the city didn’t allow developers to build enough places to live. My kids were lucky — they bought during the recession. Except the one in Bellingham (he graduated into it).
The kid that moved to Spokane has kids but they are all grown up. The one in Bellingham doesn’t have any kids. When I say “kids” this is from previous marriages, etc.
Al S.: Yes, cost of housing is the main issue. I agree that it would have helped to build a lot more family housing Asian-style in towers during the Amazon years… ah well. The region doubled down on single people who could work longer hours for corporations instead, so I presume that’s going to be (and is) the majority of walkable Seattle’s population for the indefinite future. G’bye Seattle, I had a nice time living in you once.
As someone who has now chosen a smaller metro for the next phase of their life, I can only endorse your prediction! :)
Ross Bleakney: Congrats on having four grandkids who all live nearby – that’s kind of rare nowadays, no? My two kids are the only grandkids born to all of their grandparents, and we haven’t been able to live in the same metro since my eldest was 1. I’m glad to hear your one daughter has managed the same sort of lifestyle I remember family friends having in Wallingford when I first moved to the Seattle area in 2010. But yeah… if you didn’t buy during the recession, that was the end of any possibility of a similar lifestyle. I was too young to recognize it at the time. Zoning definitely played a role, but perhaps culture as well – it was probably inconceivable at the time for city bureaucrats to allow family apartments in towers.
On that note the baby is crying – parenting does not leave a lot of time for contemplation! Thanks for your responses.
Rode down Madison yesterday on the 12. It’s an interesting temporary set up right now with Madison BRT/RapidRide G not in operation but much of the infrastructure set up and open including bus only signage in effect. 12 bus was using the bus lanes to get past all the automobile congestion but then having to cut over to the curb lane to the #12 stops. Its a real shame this busway wasn’t designed for conventional right side door buses so it didnt need a custom fleet and could be shared with non-Rapid Ride routes. Granted the 12 via Madison is going away but the 60 uses a good portion of the route where the center busway is and will still have to use the curb lanes (also not a great optic of a bus stopped in a curb lane with an open bus lane adjacent). Also on this point noticed significant backups from automobile congestion in the general travel lanes so there were definitely some raging motorists fuming about the busway (could tell by the way they were driving extra aggressive and overtaking the curb-stopped bus via bus lane). Then again it was a Saturday with lots of big events on Capitol Hill this weekend so everything was clogged.
San Francisco has the great Van Ness busway, its a fantastic design and designed for regular fleet right door buses, has overhead wire and is shared with the frequent #49 Van Ness Mission Muni trolley line and a handful of Golden Gate Transit suburban commuter runs (a couple that are all-day). Its actually a busway and not a BRT line as its only used for a small (but key) portion of the routes that run on it. Certainly Madison didn’t have the space for something like the Van Ness busway.
I’ll be watching to see how the large spaces inside the new buses are received. I’m concerned about objects and people sliding through the bus as they go up and down the hill Downtown. How many riders will get injured by getting his by a bicycle, luggage or package? Spring won’t be as bad as Marion but it’s still steep.
I’m concerned about objects and people sliding through the bus as they go up and down the hill Downtown. How many riders will get injured by getting his by a bicycle, luggage or package? Spring won’t be as bad as Marion but it’s still steep.
You do realize we have buses that go on those streets right now, right?
I think his concern is that the bike racks will be inside the bus, then combined with the steep hills. Hopefully there is some restraint on the bikes on the racks.
I wouldn’t allow bikes at all. I can see the bike rack thing, especially for long distance buses. It doesn’t scale (only a few people can use them) and delays everyone else, but it is a reasonable trade-off. But in this case it seems kind of nuts to roll a bike onto a bus just to go up the hill. Get an electric bike or use bike share (that is what bike share is good at). (And yeah, I know our bike share system sucks, but still.)
Or go up Pike-Pine, which is much flatter, just a few blocks away, has new protected bike lanes, and is in the middle of a complete-street renovation so there will be even more.
Poncho has provided half of my answer.
The other half is the large space because of having doors on both sides. A Metro 12 buses have seats with grab bars on them on the left side. The new buses will have open spaces on both sides of the bus. Riders with anything bulky will slide unless they are held.
Riding Metro 12 isn’t easy to ride up or down a hill if a rider is standing. These buses will be harder because they will be so open inside.
Its a real shame this busway wasn’t designed for conventional right side door buses so it didn’t need a custom fleet and could be shared with non-Rapid Ride routes.
I think a lot of the stops would have been difficult. The approach that they used in Van Ness made sense because it is a very wide street. They are able to carve out room for the buses and the bus stops (going both directions) at the same place (https://maps.app.goo.gl/oWAZoes83Qa3Fiba7). This is great but it uses a lot of width. The other option is to stagger the bus stops. In the case of Aurora, they show the northbound bus stop being apart from the southbound bus stop (https://i0.wp.com/seattletransitblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/segment1_busway-1.png?w=986&ssl=1). In the case of Madison I think the biggest problem was the width of the street and accommodating general purpose traffic. For example there will be a RapidRide G bus stop between Terry and Boren in the middle of the street. Both east and westbound buses will use it. But it doesn’t go the full width of the block. It doesn’t reach Boren because they reserved some space for cars turning left. Likewise if you split the stop and put the westbound bus stop between Boren and Minor you would have to get rid of at least part of the turn lane (going the other directions). This also explains why the stop is not closer to Broadway.
It goes back to width. It is basically a five-lane road (at its widest). If you have one general purpose lane going one way, another general purpose lane going the other way and a general purpose turn lane, you don’t have room for the bus stops (and two bus lanes). They manage to squeeze in the stops where they can, and that often means stops serving buses going both directions.
Although there is an air of permanence with this route, I don’t see it that way. I think that is one of the big advantages of surface transit in general and especially bus service. It really doesn’t cost that much to make changes. If we decide that we want to get rid of a left turn (for general purpose traffic) then it wouldn’t be that hard to change the bus stops accordingly.
As for the 60, it would be nice to share those stops. In the long run though, I’m not sure if I would have the 60 doing that back and forth thing. I think it makes sense to have a bus go on Boren (between First Hill and South Lake Union) and another bus go on Broadway (timed to run opposite the streetcar to double frequency). For example you could send the 49 to Beacon Hill (via Broadway) and the 106 to South Lake Union (via Boren).
It will be interesting to see how this line works out in design but also the 6 min headway. I have some skepticism but also am hopeful. Not a fan of the service reductions in the neighborhood on other routes for this line.
I agree the ability to make changes is a nice potential feature here given the simple design. That Broadway missing stop I think was a big mistake… a big point is to transfer to major intersecting lines like the Broadway corridor and once again we’ve made a terrible time consuming dangerous transfer point for the convenience of speeding motorists.
Maybe the 60 should avoid Madison and cross perpendicular? Run on Seneca (and take that Seneca segment of the 2) then turn south, crossing the G near a station? Perhaps Boren?
Not a fan of the service reductions in the neighborhood on other routes for this line.
The poor service levels are simply the result of very bad routing. It is not like service is being shifted to this route — they are just wasting it. The same thing is happening with the Lynnwood Link restructure, but to a lesser degree.
I would say the transfer at 23rd is the biggest mistake when it comes to the stops. It wouldn’t have taken much work to improve the transfer at 23rd. In contrast there are all sorts of issues with Broadway. To be begin with, buses and streetcar don’t actually stop on Broadway! So not only do you have to put this bus stop close to the intersection, but you would have to do the same with the other stops as well. The work would be similar and you have the same issues. You really can’t make it ideal unless you are willing to cause traffic problems*. As it is, the stop they choose (between Boylston and Summit) is a shorter transfer than any alternative (unless they moved the streetcar/bus stops). It is also just a really good bus stop. Madison & Boylston has a lot more nearby than Madison & Broadway (surprisingly enough).
* Here are the slides surrounding Broadway: https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/SDOT/TransitProgram/RapidRide/Madison/2021_BorenToBroadway.pdf and https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/SDOT/TransitProgram/RapidRide/Madison/Final%20Public%20Outreach-ROLL%20PLOT%20-%202b%20%2836×80%29.pdf. Notice that approaching Broadway from the west there is one general purpose lane that splits into two so that cars have their own lane for turning left. You can see that the opposite occurs going the other way. That gave them a few options:
1) Move the bus stop (which is what they did).
2) Get rid of left turns there. I’m generally a fan of this approach but it would be very messy (https://maps.app.goo.gl/1dR7E7bf7Fb657QN9).
3) Have cars turn left, but without a left-turn arrow. This is fundamentally dangerous, and would also screw up traffic.
4) Widen the road. This would cost money, and make the pedestrian experience worse (for those crossing the street).
In this case I could see widening the road, but it would be expensive. You could take part of the parking lot at Swedish, but that is a split level lot (https://maps.app.goo.gl/aZR3qePY6PNJEPqs6). That means buying the land, moving the utility poles and regrading the land there before you do the actual paving. It might be cheaper to buy land from Seattle U, but I’m pretty sure you have the same grading issues and no one wants to get rid of pretty trees (https://maps.app.goo.gl/JZd8FEpREjYfo92LA). Oh, and as I mentioned, do all that and you are only half way done. You still have to move the streetcar/bus stop. I can see why they punted, and in this case I think it is a very good punt (down to the 1 yard line).
In contrast they shanked the punt for 23rd.
Maybe the 60 should avoid Madison and cross perpendicular? Run on Seneca (and take that Seneca segment of the 2) then turn south, crossing the G near a station? Perhaps Boren?
I think that would be an improvement in general. Right now the 60 deviates from Broadway, but not that much. If you are going to try and cover some other area, you might as well keep going as far as you can, and Seneca is the last place to turn. If the 2 is moved to Pike/Pine (as it should be) this covers part of Seneca. The transfer still wouldn’t be great unless the 60 is moved to Boren, in which case you lose one of the advantages of moving the 60 (serving more of Seneca).
While this would be an improvement, I wouldn’t do any of that. Too much of our system is built around this idea that we need to get to this particular stop a block away from that particular stop. We have all these buses going this way and that. As a result they are slow and infrequent. People just give up and walk (or call a cab).
In contrast imagine if the 60 just goes on Broadway, while the 2 is shifted to Pike/Pine. To get to Virginia Mason you take the G and walk a level block to the emergency entrance (https://maps.app.goo.gl/5Gd12x2RGnvnvArr7). Some places might be a bit farther, but nothing terrible. Pike and Madison are 550 meters apart (at their widest). You don’t need a bus in between.
Now imagine taking the G and then trying to go north on Broadway again. That transfer isn’t ideal, but it really isn’t that bad. It is one level block on a fairly pleasant, quiet block. With the current routing you have the streetcar, 9 and 43 that can take you north. But the 9 and 43 hardly ever run. That leaves just the streetcar. If the 60 is added it would make a big difference. You could easily get a combined 6 minute frequency (instead of the 12 minute streetcar). All for no money at all. In fact you would save money! You just increased frequency on Broadway dramatically and saved money. Wow.
Of course if it was me I wouldn’t end there. I would combine the 49 with the 60. Basically split the existing 60 at Beacon Hill. The southern half retains the 60 label. Then take the 49 and send it to Beacon Hill (via Broadway then the path of the 60 minus the 9th Avenue detour). With the savings you can run the 49 every twelve minutes. This means that you can get to the north end of Broadway every twelve minutes and everything between Denny and Yesler every six minutes. Never mind the transfer itself — this kind of frequency is worth transferring for.
Because here is the thing: even if you had the stops perfectly set up at Broadway and Madison, very few people would actually transfer. It doesn’t make sense for a hairpin turn (e. g. downtown to Broadway then south). From downtown to the north end of Broadway makes sense, but you are entirely dependent on the streetcar for that trip. The streetcar is not that frequent, and ends after a couple stops. People will just walk. If you are coming from Madison Valley it is similar. You can take the streetcar south, but it never gets that far away from the bus, and again, is not that frequent. The 60 is a little bit better going north, but not that much better (it goes a bit farther, but not a lot). It is only the Madison Valley to Beacon Hill type trip that makes much sense. In contrast, if you restructured as I suggested there would be a lot more people making the transfer. There would be more trips to the north, and the shorter trips (both directions) would have much higher frequency. If I’m headed to Broadway & John I would go to the bus stop and hope to catch the 60, as it would get me right there. But I’m not turning down the streetcar — I’ll walk a block and a half. Either way it is worth the transfer (as clunky as it is). In contrast, right now, at noon, it is faster to walk (13 minutes) https://maps.app.goo.gl/4jH1oQbgvxAPbf3h7. Frequency matters. A lot.
Sharing stops with other routes is one fundamental problem with RapidRide G median stations and generally its entire stop design.
Routes 2 and 12 shared stops near 12th and Madison. RR-G and Route 2 can’t share stops.
And of course Third Ave transfers are pretty crappy for RR-G as well as Link, especially for wheelchairs.
I predict a list of dont’s will emerge from the project within a few years. Everyone this year will gush over it — but eventually the mistakes will be quite obvious.
If I recall the 60 was created in the 80s, and First Hill argued for it to come down to 9th Avenue instead of going straight down Broadway. Since then there has been a question about whether that was a good idea, and the long-range plans a Broadway route instead of a Broadway-Madison-9th route. I used to live at Terry & Jefferson or took the 60 from Broadway to Beacon Hill, so I noticed that the Madison routing and turns slows down the bus noticeably.
Good point about Broadway/Madison transfer… much bigger than just Madison station. Also agree 23rd transfer is bad and should have been much better and perhaps more critical… 8 and 48 major routes of which neither go downtown, with 6 min headway, this is the route to use.
Like the thought to keep the 60 on Broadway and avoid the time consuming deviation while building up a trunk line in Broadway paired with the streetcar.
“What Ray doesn’t mention in his video is that several of these cities on his list have the federal minimum wage of $7.25 because they are in red states. Not to mention how backwards their state governments are on the social issues.”
He was comparing the physical environment, as I was. We need to have a list of cities that are physically livable and affordable. The availability of jobs, wage levels, and whether states respect/suppress residents’ rights, get to be too much for an urbanism review, and some factors affect some individuals more than others. The states didn’t seem like the most extreme ones. Somebody needs to move to red or swing states and make them less extreme. Politics can change over the decades while the physical environment remains the same. Red states can get into complete streets, housing the homeless, and avoiding ethnic scapegoating, as Utah is doing.
We’d also have to check whether McDonald’s, Walmart, and grocery stores are actually paying only $7.25 or if they have to pay more to get enough workers. The post-2020 labor shortage is national. Or you may work remotely for an out-of-state employer or be something like a writer, or have some Seattle money saved up to pay for extras or retain as a cushion.
Over time the fortunes of cities sometimes change. Until around 2000 Seattle was not particularly vibrant or wealthy. San Francisco is a rare example of a city declining in fortune. Demographics and tastes change too. The younger generations are not as big city oriented and I would argue Seattle is not a “big city” because it has too few residents spread out over a very large area. The entire city lacks any real density.
When cities create high paying jobs or attract wealthy residents everything, not just housing, increases in cost. In Seattle this inflation has really occurred over the last 8 years or so as incomes soared for around half the residents. Before that housing and other prices were more reasonable, in large part because the wealth gap wasn’t as large.
Food, gas, entertainment, construction, services, education, all increase in cost as incomes rise.
Housing is a little different because there are so many options, and so many variables other than density that determine price like public safety and schools. A condo or apartment on Capitol Hill costs more than one in Kent for many different reasons, but mainly because the segment that wants to live in a condo on Capitol Hill has higher incomes.
There is plenty of housing affordable to someone earning 80% and up of the specific area’s average median income, even if living alone, although not in the most popular areas . When incomes rise and a greater income gap exists it is those earning 60% AMI and below who struggle to afford everything because their income didn’t increase as fast as the cost of everything else did.
Just because housing is multi–family or smaller doesn’t automatically make it cheaper, especially if new. Seattle has been on a building craze over the last decade but very little of that new construction is affordable for someone earning less than 80% AMI.
This creates a lot of resentment among those who are native to a region and feel priced out by people moving there who earn more. Or who feel those who bought when prices were lower lucked out. Not many want to pull out a map and choose somewhere else less expensive to move when they know no one there and don’t have a job lined up.
The person who posted about living a frugal life to afford living in Seattle is no different than every other lower income person in any expensive city, many of whom have no choice. They can’t move.
One point Al raises about St. Louis that applies to many of the cities in the video is they are either too hot or cold — or both — over 6 months/year to be out on the streets or waiting for a bus. 90% heat and 90% humidity is dangerous to be out. Weather plays a huge role in whether an area can be walkable. Unless you can walk or wait for transit 12 months/year you need a car. So does safety. There are areas in St. Louis that are too dangerous to walk around.
Finally I don’t understand this fascination among urbanists with suburbia. Who cares what they do in suburbia? It is never going to become urban or walkable. This whole idea about urban villages or endless 15 minute cities is ok I guess to cut down commuting but will never be real urbanism. East King Co. has maybe 750,000 total residents in an area well over 1000 sq miles.
I think we urbanists need to work harder on creating more density and vibrancy and real urbanism in the few areas that can be urban, which for me is downtown Seattle which IMO is way to spread out with way too little retail vibrancy. Basically there is zero retail vibrancy from Yesler to to Union. It is a wasteland of office lobbies for anyone walking, and third avenue bisects the east and west part of Seattle and ruins some of the most important intersections like at Pike. . If anything Seattle needs to CONDENSE its retail.
I don’t care what happens in suburbia or single family zones. If they want that lifestyle good for them, but really vibrant urbanism needs their money too, but we are failing to provide a good urban experience in Seattle to attract them. So they go to U Village which is just suburbia in the U. District.
Just because someone lives in suburbia or a house doesn’t mean they don’t enjoy a good urban experience. Since Seattle isn’t providing that these days they opt for a suburban retail experience, but not because they don’t like good and real urbanism. When those people travel they don’t go to Dayton (or San Francisco either today).
Suburbia is not the reason downtown Seattle is such disappointing urbanism. The loss of that suburban money being spent in the urban area and the choice many suburbanites make today to not go downtown definitely hurts retail in downtown Seattle. I really don’t care how they want to live in the suburbs, and they don’t care what I think anyway. I just want a safe, dense vibrant urban area I can enjoy, and know that will require suburban shoppers and diners too who don’t have to commute downtown anymore.
I have been in Seattle for around 8 years now and I have seen it continually decline in decent urbanism, to where today there really is no real urbanism, and yet all I ever hear “urbanists” talk about is suburbia. Very frustrating. Seattle has great bones and was definitely better before Covid but there just in no “there” there anymore. At least in suburbia want no “there” there. What is the excuse for downtown Seattle and local urbanists. Don’t they see this? Surely they have been to other cities in and out of the U.S with a vibrant, dense retail urban core. So why not here? If you asked me I think it is because Seattleites just are not urban people, which is why the city is laid out like a huge suburban city with single family neighborhoods with a few multi plexes parading as urbanism, which Seattleites like. I don’t see this great demand for real urban density Mike writes about in Seattle, and certainly not in the rest of the county or region
I mean am I suppose to be excited about the fact I can take Link from downtown Seattle to Redmond or Federal Way or Lynnwood to get a beer or eat because there is nothing downtown? Talk about the definition of sprawl. .
Lots of stuff to respond to here, but:
I think the reason we don’t see many vibrant urban cores in the USA is there aren’t that many residents. In many countries, there is a mix of housing, commercial, retail, government, and even industrial in a single space. The office building deserts create these dead zones. Sure, before Covid there was more in some of these places, but in the 1980s things were far more dead in these downtown areas than today. Sure, there was stuff to cater to the office crowd, many downtowns were dead except for lunch hour.
The high cost of housing isn’t just happening in Seattle. There are a number of different problems I see happening that aren’t addressed by simply building more housing. Among them is the short term high end rental market (the AirBnB and the like), and big investment firms (Blackrock and the like) buying properties and letting them sit vacant until they are able to sell at a decent profit.
[Ed: Fixed spelling.]
Lower downtown between University Street and Yesler Way is an office-only ghetto. That’s as bad as a residential-only area. It’s part of the reason that area is struggling now, because it has little other than offices to fall back on.
Yeah, I agree with both Glenn and Mike. American cities were often very segregated, and not just racially. When I was growing up (in Seattle) not much would happen downtown. A lot of downtown would just shut down at 5:00. There was some activity on First or Pioneer Square, but it was fairly sleazy and not really safe or welcoming. Capitol Hill didn’t have that much going on either. That all changed of course. I would say Capitol Hill was the first neighborhood with considerable nightlife, followed a few years later by Belltown. That spread north to Uptown. Pioneer Square has had its ups and downs but overall it is less sleazy and more attractive. Same with First. Meanwhile places like Ballard, Fremont and Columbia/Hillman City became a lot more interesting. It isn’t as vibrant as a typical European city (not even close) but it has definitely become a lot more vibrant over the years.
Downtowns have been both declining and improving before COVID. Obviously COVID was one of the most brutal times for American downtowns along with Fentanyl. Generally downtowns were getting better with new development and a greater focus on improving the public realm downtown, certainly better than 70s and 80s. At the same time the downtown retail districts have been declining, most are gone now. The Downtown Seattle retail district was very strong 20 years ago (same with SF, PDX), probably comparable to Bellevue Square then, now its hanging on by a thread. Sidewalks were packed around Westlake Park in the 2000s. But many cities across the US lost all their retail stores downtown in this same time period, whether their last department store or even an entire shopping district (i.e. Cincinnati, San Diego, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, Norfolk, etc.) Downtown shopping really isnt a thing anymore which IMO is a shame. Downtown shopping was one of the things that drove a good piece of transit ridership.
You raise some good points that it would take time to articulate a full response to. But here’s a few things.
Seattle’s urbanism isn’t excellent but it’s above average for the US. It may seem to be less than it was in 2016, but it’s more than it was in the 1970s and 80s when I was growing up. In the 70s downtown Seattle was in a decaying phase, but it turned around in the 80s, and there’s still hope it can stabilize and revive in the next ten or twenty years, and probably evolve into something new. Probably with more emphasis on housing and destinations, and less on offices.
Housing prices follow the vacancy rate. When it’s above around 8% and one owner jacks up the rent or has a high house asking price, people just go to the next owner a few blocks away who doesn’t, and the increase can’t stick or spread. When it’s below 5%, they have a captive market because there are more seekers than units, so there’s nowhere else to go. That’s what’s been happening in Seattle since 2003, and especially between 2012 and 2020. Even if there’s some rate increase due to higher AMI, with a stable/high vacancy rate it would increase more slowly and would be lower now. Seattle fell into emergency-level 1-2% vacancy rate for years and did nothing about it.
That’s what the PSRC growth targets don’t take into account: they look at future growth but don’t compensate for the accumulated backlog.
If we had allowed more housing and mid-level density since 2003, prices wouldn’t be so extreme now, and there wouldn’t be such a premium to live in a walkable area. Since we let it get so far out control, there are now a lot of people who need subsidized housing or are homeless or have been displaced to cities they don’t want to live in. We can’t fill such a large gap with market-rate housing, so we’ll have to build a lot of subsidized housing to make up for the market-rate housing we didn’t build ten or fifteen years earlier.
“in large part because the wealth gap wasn’t as large. ”
We could have addressed the wealth gap directly.
Food is more responsive to high incomes than housing. Seattle has long had high food prices because it’s so far from the rest of the country. It has gotten higher in the past couple decades because so many people are choosing high-quality, organic, chef-prepared food that most of the restaurants and stores cater to them. But notice: they’re choosing different food, not the same items as previously. If they’d stuck with the same crappy food, prices wouldn’t be as high. But with housing it’s the same unit both then and now, or the same kind of unit. It’s not that all the units have doubled in quality or size, they’ve just doubled in price.
“Who cares what they do in suburbia?”
Because there’s a mismatch between the number of people who want walkable urbanism and the amount that exists. Because we’re subsidizing them. Because they’re disproportionately harming the environment we all live in. Detached houses and a car-oriented lifestyle require more infrastructure and supplies per capita, and the cost is spread among everyone, including urban dwellers and those without cars.
“If anything Seattle needs to CONDENSE its retail.”
What does this mean? Somebody else said this earlier. They said urban neighborhoods and retail need to be consolidated into a smaller area. What exactly should be moved where? Should Greenwood be moved to the Central District, U Village to downtown, Lake City to North Rainier? And then we fill up their old space with houses, forests, what?
I think Seattle needs all its urban villages and to prepare them for growth. Seattle doesn’t have too many villages, and they aren’t too far away. It’s no big deal to go to Lake City for something unique, the transit just needs to be reasonable so it doesn’t take an hour. That’s a perfectly typical trip in a city like Seattle in a metro like Pugetopolis.
The problem is the unusually large sea of low-density, residential-only between the villages. (Large compared to Vancouver, San Francisco, or Chicago.) The solution there is infill, and allowing businesses and corner stores. Let both the villages and areas in between grow gradually more like each other. That may mean our villages won’t be as dense as Chicago. That’s OK.
“I mean am I suppose to be excited about the fact I can take Link from downtown Seattle to Redmond or Federal Way or Lynnwood to get a beer or eat because there is nothing downtown?”
Urbanists aren’t responsible for the Everett, Tacoma, or Federal Way extensions: the suburban subareas insisted on those. The moderate urbanist position is that Lynnwood-Redmond-KDM is the right extent for Pugetopolis. That’s for the millions people beyond it, and the destinations beyond it some people have to get to, and to give non-drivers some suburban choices where to live (e.g., Lynnwood, Shoreline, Bellevue, Redmond, Des Moines).
You don’t have to go to Lynnwood or Redmond or Federal Way to get a beer or eat. Seattle has all that in Capitol Hill, the U-District, Roosevelt, Rainier Valley, the 45th corridor, Greenwood, the West Seattle Junction, etc.
You could honestly probably point to a place like Albuquerque as to what 1970s/1980s Seattle looked like in terms of growth and economics.
I see similarities and differences.
They both had their downtown hollowed out by the opening of non-downtown malls (Northgate/Coronado), and Albuquerque downtown never really recovered like Seattle has.
Albuquerque has much, much bigger problems, however. Beyond the standard schools and hospital employment, It doesn’t really have a major employer except the federal labs, who’s funding is capricious, and the base, that pays the majority of their employers poverty-level wages.
Seattle had Boeing.
Also, the street-grid is horrific. Seattle’s history of a streetcar network, and the urban villages that sprouted pockets of density and a central hub of employment in downtown is missing entirely in Albuquerque. What they have instead is a city bisected north-south AND east-west by two incredibly destructive highways, mostly destroying what little walkable communities existed prior to their construction. On top of that, they built massive, incredibly fast, 7 lane urban highways every 5 to 10 blocks east-west and north-south, just decimating any possibility of walkability or bikeability in all directions throughout the city. The exception is small pockets downtown, near UNM/Nob Hill and near old-town. The lack of zoning for nearly everything except Single Family severely limits the potential of those last 2.
Albuquerque simply doesn’t have Seattle’s “good bones” and lacks employment centers that would give it the impetus and tax-base to make wholesale changes necessary to improve it’s lot.
San Francisco is a rare example of a city declining in fortune.
Is it? I think San Fransisco is in excellent shape overall. Like many cities (Seattle included) they should build more housing, but it isn’t like Detroit — it won’t collapse.
The younger generations are not as big city oriented
Wait, what? I don’t think that is true at all. I think it is more about affordability. There was a time when young people flocked to San Fransisco and New York. Then there was a time when not as many wanted to go there (as people got in their head there was too much crime). Then the cities became more attractive and it became too expensive to live there. But people still go there and put up with very high costs to live (or cramped living quarters) just to live there.
A condo or apartment on Capitol Hill costs more than one in Kent for many different reasons, but mainly because the segment that wants to live in a condo on Capitol Hill has higher incomes.
No, you have it wrong. The reason the condo in Capitol Hill is more expensive is because it is more popular. The reason higher income people live there is because they are the only ones that can afford to. This is also why very small apartments and sharing apartments is a lot more popular in Capitol Hill than in Kent. In other words their are low income people on Capitol Hill, they just put up with a lot less housing.
Suburbia is not the reason downtown Seattle is such disappointing urbanism.
Agreed. The main reason is because they outlawed it in most of the city. Townhouses, rowhouses, small apartments: outlawed. Corner shops: outlawed. Places remarkably close to downtown are not urban because they aren’t allowed to be.
I have been in Seattle for around 8 years now and I have seen it continually decline in decent urbanism, to where today there really is no real urbanism, and yet all I ever hear “urbanists” talk about is suburbia.
OK, now I have no idea what you are talking about. Seattle should have become a lot more urban over the last 8 years (15 really). We had a big boom in employment and didn’t build enough places to live (or shop). But how on earth is it becoming less urban? I think it is just your perspective. I grew up here (then left, then came back) and this is quite common. People often think that the time they arrived was some golden time in the city’s history. I don’t buy that at all. We have gone backwards in some ways, and we never dealt with the housing problem, but in terms of urbanism we have been going forward for quite some time. The idea that there was some “golden period” for Seattle is just BS. In terms of affordability — definitely. In terms of urbanism and affordability (basically what was in the video) we probably peaked in the 90s. But in terms of urbanism in general — no way. It wasn’t that long ago that Seattle was a podunk town (as my wife put it). Now my daughter (who has lived in Brooklyn) said Ballard reminded her of Brooklyn. Ballard! This Ballard: https://youtu.be/hGlDVmBLibg. That is a dramatic transformation, and it has happened in various parts of the city.
San Francisco lost a huge number of residents between 2020 and 2022. However, they actually gained over 1,000 residents in the 2023 Census estimates.
Keep in mind that most of San Francisco is notoriously frozen with zoning height limits so there isn’t a marketplace for building new housing like Seattle has. It still has 3,000 more people than it did in 2010 and 32,000 more than 2000. It’s not declining. It’s just that the growth oven was so hot (people packed into housing) between 2010 and 2020 that the oven door opened and heat escaped reducing the temperature. It still is pretty warm in the long run.
Population declines are one of those things that really isn’t that good an indicator of economic prosperity right now.
Supposedly, Portland lost population over the past several years.
Know what the biggest reason given was?
Housing prices.
Except, if housing is vacant, then why are prices so high that people are moving away?
This is a symptom of large investment firms, the short term rental market, and other factors that isn’t going to be solved by any of the proposals I’ve seen so far. Build more housing? Sure, but that just means more for the investment groups to grab and put out of reach of the majority of people.
“The younger generations are not as big city oriented”
In the 1950s and 60s the WWII generation, Silents, and Boomers flocked to the suburbs. People think from TV shows that most people lived like “Leave It to Beaver” and “Bewitched”, but that’s just what they aspired to. The majority didn’t live in the suburbs until the 1970s, because it takes a couple decades for tens of millions of people to move en masse.
GenX, my generation, was the first where more than half grew up in the suburbs. That created a backlash because the suburbs suck, so the “back to the city” movement started. It first became visible in the 1990s. That’s when condos like the Elektra started appearing and areas like Broadway and Ballad went above two stories, and urban villages started to consolidate. In the 2000s it was in full swing.
Covid destabilized everything, made work-from-home more feasible, and made people take a second look at the suburbs. During the lockdowns people wanted more space and a home office, since they weren’t allowed to gather in third places. Now some of them have decided they like the space, they don’t mind driving to things or can tolerate it, and they have real or exaggerated fears of crime in inner cities. But that’s not a complete reversal. Many people still want to live in the city, in GenY and Z as well as others. Or they want their suburbs to have more walking, biking, and transit options.
There’s been talk of people leaving California or San Francisco or Seattle for other states with smaller cities and lower housing costs or taxes. But that’s just a trickle compared to the population that didn’t move. And some people have started to move back, or are moving the other way. It’s not like a quarter or half the population is vacating San Francisco or Seattle, or that most of the rich people are leaving. Office-intensive real estate has been hit particularly hard, but that doesn’t mean all the owners are leaving.
If Seattle’s population growth remains slow, that will allow it to catch up and digest the recent growth, and prices won’t increase as quickly.
Millennials are a generation that has recognized that the older generation housing ideal (renting > starter home > bigger house > etc) was actually unrealistically unattainable for them based on the hand given to them economically.
I find Millennials have multiple different housing outlooks from my experience with talking about it amongst my generation who wanna find housing and stay in the same metro they grew up in instead of leaving for elsewher.
1. Buy later (late 30s/early 40s+)
2. Buy farther out into an outlying suburb or exurbs
3. Buy smaller urban dwellings like condos and townhouses rather than a typical starter home like a cottage or bungalow.
4. Return to multi generational housing to share costs amongst multiple people (i.e. the kid, the parents, and grandparents)
5. Living in a communal house of people unrelated by blood but one person is the primary homeowner and everyone chips in to pay the mortgage
6. Waiting to inherit their parents house after they die and sell it to buy their own home
7. Accept they’ll be renters till they die
The millennials that I talk with prioritize online time and gaming time more — and find driving time as undesirable. It’s different than a boomer that didn’t make gaming or social media connectivity a high priority.
A bus ride lost time is much less aggravating if you have a smart phone. No one had that 25 years ago.
Some millennials also gre up feeling isolated in big suburban homes far from everything. They craved connectivity over loneliness . That contrasts from many boomers, who often were raised in smaller homes with more siblings — and wanted cars and suburbia to escape their home life.
The decreases in average household sizes were remarkable between 1970 and 2000. That rate of decline is no longer the case.
Love ’em or hate ’em, suburbs appeared because people wanted them at the time. And thanks to the Baby Boom, they exploded. There seems to be a movement back to the cities or a denser suburban area (e.g. Downtown Bellevue), but suburban life still attracts a lot of people. Two of my siblings live in suburban houses on the Eastside, for example.
This brings up one of my favorite what-ifs: Had World War II and the resulting Baby Boom never happened, would Americans still be living in dense cities, and suburban cities would seem more like what we consider today’s small towns? (And to avoid “We’d be speaking German and Japanese” rabbit holes, let’s say the reasons for World War II never happened.)
> Love ’em or hate ’em, suburbs appeared because people wanted them at the time.
To clarify do you mean the us-style autocentric suburbs?
Don’t forget, that even in the 50s/60s/70s people also really wanted apartments and townhouses. The entire reason why zoning was implemented back in the 70s was to prevent apartments and townhouses from being built. Even in los angeles, it was parking minimums that banned say bungalows.
https://la.urbanize.city/post/forbidden-city-how-los-angeles-banned-some-its-most-popular-buildings
> Had World War II and the resulting Baby Boom never happened, would Americans still be living in dense cities
Generally if we hadn’t implemented parking minimums we’d have much dense cities. People really underestimate how devastating parking minimums are for housing density.
Sometimes it’s irresponsible to give people what they want, especially when it has environmental, equity, or mental health externalities. It wasn’t like all lower-density, higher-privacy fans got exactly what they wanted. Freeways could have gone to the edges of inner cities rather than through them. Minorities could have not had their neighborhoods obliterated, and could have been allowed to move into the greenfield suburbs before the courts forced the issue. Walkability could have been incorporated into suburban design, while still giving people a private clean house. There could have been a mixture of attached and detached houses instead of all detached.
Without WWII and the Baby Boom, well… The 1920 — that ideal time of streetcars and streetcar suburbs — was when the first stirring of cars and suburbs began to take hold. Construction was suspended from 1929 to 1945 because of the Great Depression and WWII right after each other. So the 1950s was a time with the first few freeways and white picket fences, but was mostly still the 1920s landscape. It was only in the 1970s that the postwar suburbs had reached half the population.
Without WWII, the Depression would have lasted longer because the government wouldn’t have made as many investments. War-catalyzed technologies like plastic, fertilizer, and digital computers might have appeared later or in a different way. People of different classes, races, and home states wouldn’t have been thrown together on a common war mission far from home and learned some respect for each other.
The 1920s suburban aspiration and 1930s Futurama visions would have presumably continued unabated, and suburbia still would have grown, although probably at a lower pace due to technology and labor limitations.
Could we have avoided some of the mistakes along the way? I don’t know. Some of them were due to specific situations. Eisenhower’s planners ignoring his wish to keep freeways out of city centers. Oh wait, Eisenhower wouldn’t have been president, and he wouldn’t have seen the autobahns in Germany to be inspired by them. Oh, Hitler wouldn’t have consolidated power, so, would the autobahns have been different? The specific highway manuals recommending wide arterials and other pedestrian-hostile features were made by certain people in certain circumstances, so somebody else might have written them a different way.
“I have been in Seattle for around 8 years now and I have seen it continually decline in decent urbanism, to where today there really is no real urbanism, and yet all I ever hear “urbanists” talk about is suburbia.”
“OK, now I have no idea what you are talking about.”
They seem to be talking about the reduction in bus frequency and reliability, the lack of bold restructures and expansion plans like in the 2010s, the empty storefronts downtown and in other neighborhoods, the rise in visible homeless and street crime, and the slight temporary dip in population.
I’ve heard that no city less than 1 million or 3 million and Chicago-like density is “really urban”, but I don’t believe it. All those cities were much smaller when their urban core coalesced. San Francisco had only 200,000 people and was 2-4 stories.
As for “all urbanists talk about is suburbia”, they either don’t know most of what we talk about, or they don’t know how much we’re still happily doing our urban things in our urban neighborhoods,. and still seeing lots of urban neighbors around.
“ I have been in Seattle for around 8 years now and I have seen it continually decline in decent urbanism, to where today there really is no real urbanism, …”
I would disagree with that. First of all, much of NYC like large parts of Brooklyn and even parts of Manhattan have residential densities similar to several of our densest areas. So Seattle has “urban” neighborhoods.
Plus, areas like Columbia City, the Central District, Capitol Hill and West Seattle feel lots more urban than they did 15 years ago — along with having better supermarkets, restaurants and retail stores. The only terrible decline that I see is with downtown retail.
Don’t get me wrong. I loved wandering through 8 floors of Macys Downtown in 2010. I miss it! I’d shop there again in a heartbeat. But that’s just one part of what an urban experience is.
Anyone hoping to take the 44 today should know bus drivers have no idea if they’re on reroute or not. Metro’s website has nothing, but we were skipped by one bus at 43rd& Brooklyn, ran to 45th and just missed it, then missed the next bus because it went on 43rd instead.
Submitted complaints to Metro about both missing service advisories and missing stops.
Great Seattle Times article on Federal Way Link progress:
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/the-light-rail-bridge-spectacle-youve-eyeballed-for-so-long-nears-the-finish-line/
Sounds like major structural work on the bridge is almost complete, and that systems work both north and south of the bridge are also well advanced. Hopefully it all comes together quickly.
Good news all around. And just 60 days until Lynnwood Link opens!
An interesting note in there is that Sound Transit designs for the strongest possible earthquake within a 2,500-year return period; most structures (including WSDOT’s highways) are built for a 250-year or 1,000-year seismic return period. with our understanding of the seismicity of region only getting good in the past 20-30 years, ST is basically building the only structures guaranteed to be operable after a major quake. DSTT certainly wasn’t built to 2,500-year seismic standards… something to consider when thinking about DSTT2.
Light Rail is considered to be crucial transportation infrastructure. But since it is a long linear system with no redundancy, the higher standard is considered to be appropriate.
The 2500 year MDE event is often used in such circumstances.
What’s wrong with repairing afterwards? By all means build something strong but overbuilding to such an extent seems like a waste. Some of this seismic stuff is becoming a racket for engineers looking to replace good infrastructure with make work projects. The replacement of the Burnside Bridge in Portland is insanity to me and for over $1B.
Maybe I should clarify: I think it’s excellent that ST is designing to the 2,500 return period, especially in an area with such high seismic standards as ours.
When a major earthquake next hits the region, Link will be the only infrastructure built to withstand it. Making sure that Link can be up and running immediately after the shaking stops will be critical. How would repair crews access Link if the roads are broken? The most significant issue Link faces is a potential lack of power if electrical lines are broken, but ST can’t do much about that.
@Poncho,
“ overbuilding to such an extent seems like a waste”
Who says there is any overbuilding occurring? Even after stepping up to the new standard, the odds of encountering the design event is 4% in the 100 year service life of the bridge.
That sounds reasonable to me, and apparently the experts agree. I see no reason to second guess the experts.
Which segment do you think will be more impactful to its communities? The four (then five) station Lynnwood Link Extension, or the three station Federal Way Extension? Not which will get more ridership, but which segment will be the bigger catalyst for future station-area growth and transformation?
@Sam,
That is an easy question to answer—BOTH!!!
Both extensions are going to be hugely consequential to their local communities, and both extensions are going to lead to large amounts of development.
The FWLE is simply too slow to Seattle due mainly to the at-grade routing through Rainier Valley. It also lacks any other substantial destinations, other than the airport (but who is going to choose to live in FW because they get can get to the airport, other than SeaTac staff), and maybe Highline college.
I don’t see it being a major catalyst.
That is not true of Lynnwood. They kept the trip to the north fast, and there are major (*cough* UW *cough*) intermediate destinations.
> The FWLE is simply too slow to Seattle due mainly to the at-grade routing through Rainier Valley.
The “at-grade” routing isn’t the main reason. In general if one travels that far and/or makes multiple stops it’ll just take that long for transit. From downtown Seattle to Seatac (10 miles) takes 30 minutes. If you checkout bart to from downtown sf to their airport it also takes 30 minutes. Same for nyc subway it’s around the same time for 10 mile distance https://maps.app.goo.gl/Fq3YarULb2S82e3P6
However, the detour through rainier valley and the additional stops there is. Unfortunately if it was a mainly freeway alignment there’d be even less destinations along i5 to the south.
Agreed. But.
Lynnwood is 17 miles vs FW’s 22 miles to Westlake.
Lynnwood to Westlake is projected at 28 minutes, whereas FW to Westlake is nearly twice that. I know there are barriers to a quicker trip, an pros and cons. I’m just saying doubling of the time-difference is going to seriously limit the impact of Link on FW communities and potential for TOD development.
But, factors other than travel time to Seattle will go into station area development. One factor is how much of the land that surrounds the stations can be developed. Looking at Lynnwood City Center vs Federal Way Downtown, Federal Way has the advantage. In other words, more development will occur where more development can occur. Just looking at a map, it sure looks like everything immediately southwest, south, and southeast of LCC is off-limits in terms of development. But, maybe north of the station will get so much growth it will make up for the underdeveloped south station area. Federal Way has a bigger canvass to work with.
> Lynnwood to Westlake is projected at 28 minutes, whereas FW to Westlake is nearly twice that.
Yeah I agree the FW is harder for potential. Though honestly even if it was 28 minutes, I don’t think they’ve really succeeded in approving/building as many apartments near their station unlike lynnwood.
Regarding travel times, it is slightly better if you count from CID. Like 30 minutes from CID to Seatac and another 16 minutes to federal way so around 46 minutes.
Lynnwood had seemed more amenable to a more densely developed station area in the past, though I understand they have pulled back from that, now that they don’t need to grease the steel wheels.
Federal Way is saying all the right things in their downtown development plan. It will be interesting to see how their Comp Plan squares.
https://engagefw.com/downtown
“Impactful to its communities” is open to broad interpretation. My general responses:
Home prices? It’s about even.
Destination oriented TOD? Federal Way
Total station boardings? Lynnwood
Residential TOD? Lynnwood
New transit riders?
New transit riders per station? Hard to say for me.
I agree with Cam in the sense that the intermediate destinations at the north end of Link are more popular. In both cases the metro is relatively slow compared to an express (or driving) because of the stops along the way. The difference is that a lot of those stops north of downtown are big destinations, even for people from the suburbs. In contrast, Rainier Valley (especially the part of Rainier Valley served by Link) just doesn’t have the destinations.
But it gets more complicated than that — I’m going to put that on a higher thread.
@Cam,
“ The FWLE is simply too slow to Seattle”
You make the common mistake of assuming regional transit is all about getting to Seattle. It isn’t. Regional transit is about just that, “regional” transit. It’s not about just Seattle.
Many riders boarding at FW will be traveling to Highline College, the airport, and other destinations along the line. And Link will be an excellent option for these destinations.
Some riders certainly will be going all the way to DT Seattle, and Link will still be a good option for them. It will be fast and frequent enough to be competitive in total trip time, and none of the other options will be nearly as frequent or reliable.
As per the UW, it is the state’s premier educational institution, and it is a huge transit destination. Serving it directly with Link makes perfect sense.
It should also be noted that within the next 2 years Highline College, Seattle Central College, the University of Washington, and North Seattle College will all be linked with a fast, efficient, 1-seat ride on Link. Call it “The Education Line” if you will, but it will be a major benefit to our student and educational communities..
I didn’t make any mistake. I mentioned all the intermediate destinations you did. I just think the southern destinations are simply weak.
My first thought was similar to Cam’s, but it gets more complicated than that. To begin with, a lot depends on how they restructure the buses after Federal Way Link. We know what is coming with Lynnwood Link, and it is pretty good. I’m not thrilled with what Metro has done, and Snohomish County is clearly chasing the federal funding with their Swift projects (instead of just building a good network) but overall it looks very good, especially for regional transit. There are a lot of long distance trips that will be much better (e. g. Mukilteo to Seattle will be timed with the ferry which means Whidbey Island to Seattle will get a lot better).
But Federal Way Link remains a mystery. What Metro does is not that important, but what ST decides to do will be huge. If they truncate all the buses at Link it will be a degradation, in my opinion. There would be quite a few riders that would be hurt, and they would not get that much in return. On the other hand, if they go with the sort of thing I proposed a while back (https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/02/25/regional-transit-after-federal-way-link/) then they have the best of both worlds. A lot of trips to downtown are more frequent AND you have connections to Link. While these connections are not as big, SeaTac is a significant destination, as is Highline College.
That is what makes the comparison interesting. My guess is Highline College is a bigger destination than anything with Lynnwood Link. Thus Lynnwood Link is about “giving the suburbs the keys to the city” (as d.p. once put it). In contrast, Federal Way Link offers little of that, but actually has a significant destination that likely attracts people from places like Rainier Valley.
SeaTac is also a decent intermediate destination and if I remember right, a fair number of SeaTac workers live to the south. So this should help. In terms of particular stations and how much things will improve:
Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace — These stops have had good transit connecting them to downtown and north-end destinations (now via Link) for quite some time now. Link will be an improvement, but not huge.
185th and 145th — These areas have a fairly slow and infrequent connection to Link (especially 185th). The connecting buses will be more frequent and the trip south will be much faster.
Federal Way — It will become a bigger transit hub, and could be a major regional transit hub if they make the changes I suggest. Too bad there is so little there. The trips to the airport will get a big boost (although the A isn’t too bad).
Star Lake — Things will improve for riders in the area, but I don’t think there will be many riders. It offers little from a connectivity standpoint as well. It has a big parking garage, so there is that.
Kent/Des Moines — For folks getting to the college (from both directions) this is an improvement over the A (if they came from far Seattle or Tacoma). Likewise, two-seat trips from Kent to SeaTac will be a bit better.
Overall it is hard to say which extension will have the bigger impact. Again, a lot depends on how they restructure the ST Express buses after Federal Way Link.
“The FWLE is simply too slow to Seattle due mainly to the at-grade routing through Rainier Valley.”
Go ride the FHSC or Max in Downtown Portland if you want to see slow. Link runs on MLK for 4 miles in about 12 or so minutes. It’s actually also 12 minutes from the ID to UW but no one declares that as too slow.
Why is that? That’s usually because they either feel unsafe riding through the RV or they feel that serving the RV is a wasteful investment. Both perceptions are rooted in white privilège.
I sometimes actually park and hide in the Rainier Valley and then hop link into town. I love RV, and sometimes it is my destination, and when it is, I almost always take link.
For me it’s about time spent in transit, not racism or fear of crime. If I’m transferring to Link, my trip is going to almost always be well over an hour.
Rainier Valley these days feels rich, safe and very white. I think you are off-base in your assessment, Al.
> I didn’t make any mistake. I mentioned all the intermediate destinations you did. I just think the southern destinations are simply weak.
I agree, unfortunately unlike with the north leg/ lynnwood link the southern section misses out on southcenter mall, renton which are not along the path.
> Why is that? That’s usually because they either feel unsafe riding through the RV or they feel that serving the RV is a wasteful investment. Both perceptions are rooted in white privilège.
I think people don’t realize that rainier valley is a 5/6 miles long section. Even if it was elevated it would still take some time to go through it. Secondly people probably are understandably annoyed at the traffic lights but probably don’t realize the frequent station stops in the downtown tunnel effectively slow down the train around the same. (Not saying the downtown tunnel shouldn’t have that many stations just that there’s a hefty travel time penalty there as well)
I think people don’t realize that rainier valley is a 5/6 miles long section. Even if it was elevated it would still take some time to go through it.
Exactly. The trip from Tukwila to downtown is actually quite fast for a subway. There are very few stops along the way. It isn’t as fast as an express bus, but that is typical. For example imagine I’m trying to get to Queenborough Community College to Manhattan. It takes less than a half hour by car (https://maps.app.goo.gl/q46az3Ynjpo1F3am6) but over an hour by transit. Even if you are right by the nearest station it takes longer. There are just a lot of stops along the way.
The same is true for the north end of Seattle. The difference is that those stops in the north end (or in Queens) are a lot more popular than the ones in the south end (as Cam mentioned). Overall the problem is that Link is not quite sure what it is. If your goal is regional transit (e. g. Tacoma to Seattle) your best bet is buses (especially when you have a lot of freeways, like we do) or leveraging existing rail. You can build your own rail, but holy cow that is expensive for regional transit. If your goal is to build a metro, then you want lots of stops in urban areas — ideally areas that are slow to reach via a bus. For example Roosevelt to Capitol Hill. The train makes multiple stops along the way but it is still faster than driving. You also want to integrate your system. The regional system (rail and express bus) should connect well to the metro. Unless you build a thorough metro (which is unlikely in a city this size) it is vital that integrate the urban buses with the metro.
The problem is we built something that is not quite one or the other. It doesn’t work especially well for long trips, and a lot of the short trips (UW to First Hill) were skipped. As a result we have to lean on the buses way more than we would otherwise. To make things worse, in much of the city we don’t connect the buses with Link very well (e. g. there is no station at 23rd & Madison) so it does not work that well in respect either.
Overall it is a mediocre system despite extremely high costs. It could be worse, but it could be a lot better. It does manage to connect to several of the main destinations, just not that many of them (or that well). The bus integration is not especially good, but it could be worse (and almost was, e. g. 130th NE). There are plenty of worse systems, especially in this country. Typically they don’t cost as much though. In terms of overall value we may not be the worst in this country, but we are below every Canadian system, and likely below every system outside North America.
The fact that test trains are actively running makes the Lynnwood Link opening date seem very likely. ST would have flagged any major opening problems by now.
Is kicking off riders at Northgate bus simulating the post-opening schedule yet?
How quickly will ST change out the platform diagrams? Has ST printed them out yet?
Finally, will the new diagrams indicate the name change from University Street to Symphony?
Will some or all of the new diagrams reference the eventual opening of the 2 Line? Many modern system diagrams started showing future extensions many years before opening — and we supposedly less than 18 months away from full East Link and 22 months away from Federal Way Link.
Is kicking off riders at Northgate bus simulating the post-opening schedule yet?
I don’t understand the question.
> Is kicking off riders at Northgate bus simulating the post-opening schedule yet?
Bus restructure is scheduled for September 14, two weeks after Lynnwood Link opens. Pre-revenue testing doesn’t include other transit services.
> How quickly will ST change out the platform diagrams?
Probably same-day as startup, August 30, or that same weekend.
> Has ST printed them out yet?
You’d have to ask a worker at OMF-C and/or ST’s print shop.
> Finally, will the new diagrams indicate the name change from University Street to Symphony?
My understanding is that change is coming with the implementation of 2 Line operations in DSTT (late next year/early 2026).
> Will some or all of the new diagrams reference the eventual opening of the 2 Line?
The current 2 Line maps don’t show the future connection to Seattle, but instead highlight current bus connections. Maybe a concerted advocacy campaign could convince ST to show upcoming extensions on service maps, but it seems they’ve made a decision not to include them on current maps.
“Is kicking off riders at Northgate bus simulating the post-opening schedule yet?”
I mistakenly left ST out of the sentence. And auto correct added “bus”. It ended up embarrassingly confusing.
It should have read:
Is ST kicking off riders
at Northgate, simulating the post-opening schedule yet?
Is ST kicking off riders at Northgate, simulating the post-opening schedule yet?
OK, cool, although I’m still not completely sure what the question is. Are riders on (northbound) Link kicked off the train at Northgate? I think so. I’m pretty sure they do a quick sweep. I’m pretty sure the announcement is the same as well. There is a driver switch, so I don’t think they are going to do anything different until Lynnwood Link opens. Then they will change the announcement and if you space out and forget to get off before the doors close you are going to Shoreline.
As far as the 512 and 513 goes, they remain the same and will likely remain the same until after Lynnwood Link opens.
@Al S,
I was at NGS a few hours ago and they were not running full simulated service. They were still running a single LRV on a periodic, non-revenue headway.
But they will get there. LLE is going to be absolutely transformational. Can’t wait.
And then on to full ELE. The combination of LLE and full interlined ELE is when this region finally gets real mass transit for the first time.
A colleague saw a roped-off section in a Link train containing workers writing things on clipboards.So this may be part of the Lynnwood Link testing.
Thanks for providing the current status, Lazarus.
For those that didn’t under and my question, I can explain:
Before Lynnwood Link trains can run in service, there is a period when they run a simulated service as the last testing phase. Simulated service trains would operate as normal four-car in-service trains between Northgate and Angle Lake. When a train gets to Northgate, ST staff eject all passengers — and the driver drives empty or out-of-service train to Lynnwood. Then the driver reverses that train and drives it back boarding no passengers until Northgate where it continues as an in-service train. The driver would still open and close doors at each station but no one would get on or off the train.
That was what was done for the other three Link extensions now open — a few weeks before their opening days.
Lazarus explained that ST hasn’t started doing this yet.
@Al S,
No problem on the clarification.
To further clarify, today they were just running one LRV bi-directionally on what would normally be the SB track. The LRV also appeared to be operating at track speed. And they weren’t pulling into NGS at all. Just using the pocket track to reverse.
Staff onboard was about 5, and included at least one management looking person. All behaving very business like. I didn’t have an opportunity to chat anyone up.
That said, the full simulated service period should start in the next week or so. This is the part of simulated service testing you are referring to where NB trains will be swept at NGS and then proceed empty to LTC. When this happens LLE will look like it is in normal service, with normal headways, but the trains will be empty.
But things are really beginning to progress. It won’t be much longer before this line opens. Can’t wait.
As of today, there was a single car unit running between Northgate and Lynnwood. So no, they have not begun revenue testing (removing people from the train at Northgate and the train continuing on to Lynnwood.
@Al S,
Update on Lynnwood Link testing schedule:
I was at NGS again today and there didn’t seem to be any management types around. So I took the opportunity to ask a few of the security staff about the schedule for full simulated service testing.
Here was some confusion, but it sounds like it will start “next week”. Details TBD. This aligns with my understanding too, but I can’t find anything official in writing.
Also, several of the security staff I talked to live north of NGS along the future Lynnwood Link extension. They are looking forward to LLE opening so they can come to work at ST without driving. Go figure.
So that is at least a couple of cars off the road.
58 days to go.
Good info, Lazarus. Someone said you live in or near Shoreline. I’m curious, what’s going to be your closest or preferred station?
From highest to lowest, which stations are supposed to get the most ridership? Lynnwood City Center I imagine is 1. Then what’s 2, 3, and 4?
From highest to lowest, which stations are supposed to get the most ridership? Lynnwood City Center I imagine is 1. Then what’s 2, 3, and 4?
Great question. Hard to say. I’m going to go with:
1) Lynnwood
2) 185th
3) Mountlake Terrace
4) 148th
At least initially. When the 522 is rerouted to 148th I expect it to be second. It is really hard to say though. The only one I have a lot of confidence in is Lynnwood. Our stations at the end of the line always do well.
@Sam,
My in-laws live in Shoreline. They don’t drive, so they bought a new construction townhouse in North City in anticipation of the 185th St Station opening.
They are very excited about LLE opening as it will make things a whole lot easier for them. And for me!
And they are also excited about Blue Swift being extended to 185th St Station. Makes Costco runs easier for them.
@ Ross:
“ I’m going to go with:
1) Lynnwood
2) 185th
3) Mountlake Terrace
4) 148th”
Yes that’s my ranking too for 2024-5. #2 and #3 will be close.
ST says that 130th will open in 2026, taking riders away from 148th — so Stride 3 riders coming in 2027 possibly won’t do anything more than backfill the 148th totals. So I would guess that 130th will be #5, and 148th will stay #4.
Bonus comment: I predict that Northgate boardings will drop by about half and will be lower than Lynnwood once LLE opens — but still above the others. Northgate gets about 10k weekday average boardings today and Roosevelt gets about 4.5k.
I don’t know which buses will be serving Mountlake Terrace, 185th, and 148th after LLE opens, so I won’t factor that in to my ranking. But I do think Mountlake Terrace has a much bigger parking garage than 185th and 148th. But, 148th seems to be closer to some areas of density than the other two stations. I might also take some points off a station is there is no nearby southbound I-5 offramp to the station area. I don’t think there’s a sb offramp to 185th. So, I might go
1, Lynnwood
2, 148th
3, Mountlake Terrace
4, 185th
Over time, with bus restructures and new residential TOD, I think the ridership list will change.
I don’t know which buses will be serving Mountlake Terrace, 185th, and 148th after LLE opens, so I won’t factor that in to my ranking.
I think it will play a big role though. As I see it, there are several considerations when it comes to station popularity:
1) Proximity to other Link locations: Obviously benefits the stations to the south.
2) Destination within walking distance: All about the same (minor).
3) Housing within walking distance: All about the same (minor).
4) Park and rides: The clear winner is Lynnwood, since it will draw everyone from the north to it. Other than that it looks like a wash.
5) Destination or housing connected via buses: These are related because so much depends on the bus network. In that regard, I would say this about each station:
Lynnwood: Benefits from being the northernmost station. People access it from north, east and west. Biggest nearby destination is Edmonds College (served via a frequent connection) but there are express buses to Everett and Mukilteo.
Mountlake Terrace: Weakest station in terms of buses. Frequency is weak and the connection to Edmonds involves a lot of back and forth.
185th: Connects to Swift as well as the 348. No major destinations, but quite a few mid-level ones.
148th: The 72 should help, as there is a fair amount of density along 145th. A few riders along Lake City Way will backtrack. Main destination is Shoreline Community College.
The proximity factor and connection to Shoreline Community College may tip the balance to 148th, and allow it to get second place, even before the 522 gets sent there. Then again the particulars of park and ride use may determine which gets more riders, and that gets fairly complicated.
Here are the pages for the buses:
https://www.communitytransit.org/transitchanges
https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/metro/programs-and-projects/lynnwood-link-connections
@Ross
For Edmonds and Montlake terrace, does anyone know if they are still planning on building the “Infill Light Rail Station: 220th Street” in the near future?
https://fp.mysocialpinpoint.com/destination2045-survey
Pierce Long-Range Planning Survey.
Yesterday was a busy day for Link. Between the Mariner’s game and the Pride parade, it had many stuffed train runs.
I noticed that families with 3 or 4 kids were using Link to get to the stadium, and the kids seemed to enjoy the train ride. Kids are future transit riders and referendum voters. In the other hand, some parents let their kids think that trains are playgrounds.
What’s the best way to educate both parents and kids about transit etiquette? I favor example video clips over mere obtuse audio declarations.
I noticed that some trains left without boarding everybody waiting because they were too crowded. We need the full 2 Line open to add trains!
It is really too bad that ST doesn’t seem concerned with capacity when it comes to the trains (https://seattletransitblog.com/2016/12/20/will-link-waste-its-capacity-for-the-sake-of-operational-convenience/) but is obsessed with it in the distant future (https://www.soundtransit.org/blog/platform/digging-details-new-downtown-seattle-light-rail-tunnel). Trains with open gangways (the international standard) have the advantage not only in total capacity, but how they handle crowding. With our train cars it is quite likely that one train car is stuffed, while another train car has places to sit down. Every time it is a train car lottery. To be fair, the more crowding there is the more difficult it is to move within the train. But it is still common (around the world) to go to a different car, especially if the one you are in really crowded.
There is a sad, only-in-America argument people make against open gangways: If a lunatic with a machine gun opens fire, he’s got free reign through the rest of the train; while with closed gangways, he’s more or less contained in one car. Here’s the Reddit discussion about NYC’s pursuit of open-gangway trains, for example: https://www.reddit.com/r/nycrail/comments/10tt9c3/are_opengangway_trains_unsafe_for_passengers/
There’s the usual Reddit obnoxiousness here, doubly so since this involves brash New York and even brasher New Yorkers. Still, the fact that shooters on a train is an actual concern for some just saps my soul.
Before the pandemic, I tried taking the bus to the Ace Comic-Con held in the CenturyLink Field Convention Center, and drove to South Kirkland Park-and-Ride. Unbeknown to me, the Pride Parade was also that day. Not only was the P&R more crowded than usual, but the 255 was so jammed it simply drove through without stopping. I ended up driving, but asked the others there banging on their phones for Ubers if they wanted a ride. Four people took me up on it, and hopped into my Hyundai Elantra. I dropped them off at Westlake Center before heading to the “CLink” for the Comic-Con.
Interestingly, I didn’t run into traffic until we got near Westlake, but I was able to avoid the worst of it by staying in the far left lane of southbound 5th. Avenue until I got near Pioneer Square, where it thinned out and I had an easy drive to the Comic-Con.
Thoughts on the highway BRT video?
The video is alright it’s just kinda surface level about freeway buses so there’s not much to talk about for Seattle. It’s probably more geared towards other regions that don’t have any center median freeway buses.
I was kind of hoping more of a debate about right-side (outer lane) bus on shoulder lane buses versus center (inner lane) comparison. And for center lanes the speed and reliability benefits of the inside lane versus high cost of building the center lane bus stations/ direct access ramps. Compared to the bus on shoulder lane having relatively easy ‘flyer stops’ to build but contending with traffic at the off and on ramps.
For example Minneapolis has a whole slew of bus on shoulder lane miles.
https://www.metrotransit.org/transit-advantages
For i5 we’ve already built a moderate amount of center ramps so continuing with the center lanes makes the most sense. For other freeways though like sr 520 or say even sr 167 I think it’s an acceptable alternative.
I think a lot of our shoulder running is in the inside lane (next to the HOV lane). This is mainly because they don’t have the courage to change HOV-2 to HOV-3.
> I think a lot of our shoulder running is in the inside lane (next to the HOV lane). This is mainly because they don’t have the courage to change HOV-2 to HOV-3.
Sure, I mean originally there was a plan for a lot more shoulder running to be implemented.
There’s also the peak-use shoulders on i-405 north of kirkland https://transops.s3.amazonaws.com/uploaded_files/WsDOT_Hard%20Shoulder%20Running%20Slides.pdf originally for stride 2 they were going to use the outside lanes until they got extra money to fund inside lane freeway stations/direct access ramps.
Or for example the sr 520 is also right-side hov lanes.
“It would be annoying if a suburban bus were to leave the freeway every couple miles, go through the suburb and then get back on the freeway.”
Not only annoying, but it would defeat the purpose of running a bus on the freeway to begin with. In the time it takes to wait for all those lights to drive between freeway and transit centers, you could just run a regular local bus in a straight line down a street parallel to the freeway; same travel time, but much better coverage, and needing to run as many bus routes allows each route that does run to run more often.
Except in special cases where the freeway is the only reasonable option to connect neighborhoods (e.g. the 241 between South Bellevue and Factoria), a bus that takes the freeway usually has to remain on the freeway for at least several miles in order to be worth it (unless the freeway is equipped with BRT infrastructure). Otherwise, it’s not saving its riders enough time to justify losing coverage by diverting service away from parallel streets.
I think it is excellent. I think he covered or at least alluded to many of the issues. Here are my thoughts (most of which I wrote on YouTube as well):
High quality freeway bus service can complement a metro really well. Subways work well in dense urban areas. Ideally they connect areas where driving is especially slow (all day long). Every metro stop should be a major destination or a major connection point (or both). This means people getting on and off the train at every stop (as opposed to a typical commuter-rail pattern where almost everyone is heading to or away from downtown). Oh, and of course the capacity benefits of a train are needed when you provide a system like that.
Meanwhile, freeway-based bus service is usually the opposite. By their very nature freeways are very fast. Freeways often cover low-density areas that lack major destinations. Travel lends itself to express service. It would be annoying if a suburban bus were to leave the freeway every couple miles, go through the suburb and then get back on the freeway. Not that many people are going suburb to suburb and the delay compared to driving is big (this is the opposite of a subway). This is where freeway stops come in. It doesn’t take long for the bus to stop, and yet it allows riders to go from suburb to suburb without backtracking (the stops themselves don’t have to be destinations). Thus each bus goes covers a part of a suburb, stops at a freeway stop, then connects to the metro (and/or goes right downtown). A lot of riders have very fast one and two-seat rides that way.
Locally I see the potential for this pattern with 520 and 405. ST will run (relatively) frequent all-day buses on 405. Metro and ST will run similar buses on 520. But they won’t connect outside of Downtown Bellevue, which is a big detour. Making matters worse, the freeway buses will mostly stick to the freeway, instead of serving neighborhoods. Thus a rider from the main part of Totem Lake (where the apartments are) has to catch an infrequent bus (or walk) then catch a bus to Downtown Bellevue, then catch a bus to the UW. Or they transfer to the 255, which is not an express. Now imagine that Metro or ST runs a bus from Lake Washington Institute of Technology to the UW. This would run through the main part of Totem Lake, giving them a one-seat ride to the UW. But it would also give them a two-seat ride to Downtown Bellevue (or Lynnwood). Likewise, you have good two-seat rides from Canyon Park to the UW. The more of these buses you have, the better the connections. There is a network effect, even if the number of riders is not that high. Nor does it have to be especially high. Buses don’t have to get that many riders before they are cost effective. The travel time on the freeway is very short. You aren’t picking up any riders a long the way, but you aren’t taking much time either. That is why the 41 (an express) had good ridership per hour numbers back in the day. Meanwhile, in terms of ridership miles per hour it is very high, since these go a long ways. Maybe not that many people benefit, but they benefit a lot from this sort of thing.
The same sort of thing can happen on I-90, east of Mercer Island. It doesn’t work out quite as well because Mercer Island isn’t a big destination. But I could see someone from Sammamish taking the 269 towards Mercer Island, but getting off at Eastgate. From there they could catch the 554 to Downtown Bellevue.
I’d like to see the 520 buses be branded as BRT… 542 (UW-Redmond) and an upgraded 556 (UW-Bellevue) designed to complement and tie into Link. The 520 HOV lanes are practically a rubber tire subway with their in-line stations.
I do wonder if there’s a case for extending regional express buses from UW to Ballard (as a very limited express making literally one stop between in Fremont with like 1 or 2 stops in Ballard) and perhaps another non/limited stop express line continuing from UW to SLU via Eastlake?
“By their very nature freeways are very fast. ”
And incredibly unreliable. If I’m sitting at Tacoma Dome, and I’m heading to Seattle for a game, a d I have the choice of a “45 minute” 594 and an hour Sounder, I take the Sounder every time.
You know why? 6 times out of 10 that 594 loses the race.
> You know why? 6 times out of 10 that 594 loses the race.
And the other times Sounder doesn’t run because it’s blocked by freight traffic…
In the 2 dozen times I’ve been lucky enough to have taken it, it has been never more than 2 minutes off schedule.
https://www.soundtransit.org/ride-with-us/system-performance-tracker/dependable
Sounder woops every mode, except, not surprisingly, T-link.
And when the ST Expresses are bad, they are very, very bad. Nice to see they’ve dragged themselves up from 80%. Must be some other expresses making up for the 5XXs.
@Cam
I am not arguing that Sounder is faster when it runs… The point is that Sounder only runs at peak times, the other times outside of that window it is effectively 0% reliability. “and I have the choice” When you don’t have the choice and choose ST express than effectively ST express is more reliable than Sounder.
Cam does have a point though, reliability on Pierce ST Express routes has been awful and inconsistent for years. It was bad even when I started riding STX regularly in 2013/2014 where 15-30 min waits weren’t uncommon.
Being pedantic about “Sounder doesn’t run off-peak so it doesn’t count” is missing the forest for the trees here in what Cam is saying. The express bus is just plain unreliable at times and we both know it from actually riding it. And that puts a negative perception in people as to whether they’ll consider riding again or choose an alternative to avoid dealing with the same problem again.
I mean I can pull up Transit App and it shows people’s opinions on reliability (if it came early, late, or on-time) of their route in relation to the posted schedule on the app
574: 64%
577: 80%
578: 65%
586: 70%
592: 57%
594: 75%
595: 82%
It’s not the most scientific as STs own internal statistics but does give a good barometer for how people perceive delays where they’re going.
@Cam,
Ya, Sounder is super reliable. I don’t know why this is even an issue of debate. And I have never known them to be “blocked by freight traffic”. That just doesn’t happen.
And when the 5xx’s from Pierce County are late, they are really late. Aggravatingly late.
Reliability matters. It matters a lot. And Sounder is very reliable. Given the choice, I’ll take Sounder every time.
A lot of the 594’s problems come from getting stuck in traffic on the Lakewood->Tacoma section, causing it to begin Tacoma->Seattle very late. My experience is also that almost all of the 594’s ridership is Tacoma->Seattle, so the Lakewood extension is effectively just a coverage run, but the fact that it’s there ruins reliability for the high ridership portion of the route.
The obvious solution is to have the 594 end in downtown Tacoma, leaving only the 574 going to Lakewood.
(Disclaimer: this comment is made based on my experience riding the 594 during the middle of the day; I don’t know what Lakewood ridership is like during rush hour, but even if a one seat ride from Lakewood to Seattle is needed during rush hour, I don’t think it’s needed all day long, certainly not at the expense of reliability and/or frequency of Tacoma->Seattle.
@Zach B,
And it’s not just how often a bus is late, it is also how late it is.
A couple of weeks ago I tried to do a Link-bus transfer. Theoretically I was right on time to transfer to the bus, but it was 2 minutes early so I just missed it.
The headways at that time of day were 12 minutes, but OBA said the next bus was running 28 minutes late. So I just started walking.
Note: This is a Metro example, not a STExpress example. But you get the idea.
I already said “I am not arguing that Sounder is faster when it runs” but perhaps let’s use a different term.
My point is Sounder is impacted by “traffic” as well.
Let’s use a different example. Let’s say we had two bus lines. One that ran all day and another that only ran when there is no traffic. Would you call the latter bus line better solely because it’s individual trips are more reliable? No, you still get on the former bus line because it is actually running.
You don’t see when the latter bus trips are impacted by traffic because it literally just doesn’t run at all. That is effectively what Sounder is outside of peak hours. Like yes I understand what y’all are saying the individual trip is more ‘reliable’ but it’s kinda misleading to not consider the overall frequency as well and span of service as well.
> A couple of weeks ago I tried to do a Link-bus transfer. Theoretically I was right on time to transfer to the bus, but it was 2 minutes early so I just missed it.
And what about the opposite, if you are 2 minutes late to Sounder you might need to wait 6 hours or practically then next day for the next train. Or what does one actually do — get on the st express bus.
“By their very nature freeways are very fast. ”
And incredibly unreliable.
A bus running in the HOV-3 lanes of 520 is quite reliable. There are only a few other options that are close:
1) A gondola or ferry.
2) A grade-separated busway or railway owned by the transit agency.
3) A railway owned by a freight company.
These are probably all in the same ballpark. Gondolas and ferries break down. Not often, but they do. So do buses and trains. Trains have “weak links”. Much of Link is grade-separated, but if there is an accident in Rainier Valley then it effects the rest of the line. Amtrak is notoriously unreliable because it is shared by the freight companies.
Regardless, a bus running on the freeway in a bus lane (or HOV lane that is limited enough) is about as reliable as you can possible get, while being much more reliable than a typical bus or streetcar.
“And when the 5xx’s from Pierce County are late, they are really late.”
“The express bus is just plain unreliable at time”
So Tacoma Dome Link will be popular?
This unreliability issue needs more attention. Almost every day there are traffic reports of a collision or closed lane or or a bottleneck somewhere. Moderate ones come to your highway once or twice a week, and major ones with a half-hour or more delay a few times a month. If you ride five days a week you get caught in a lot of them, as I’ve had.
It might just be.
High frequency and reliability go a long way. Even if the trip to significant destinations is well over an hour, it might be a reasonable choice for a decent percentage of folks.
I mean, we mostly agree it’s the wrong transit mode for intercity trips, but it might still be better than the other options, if we don’t make a significant push to fix the ST5XX reliability by changing HOV to HOT3, or fixing Sounder’s frequency and span by throwing TDLE money into track upgrades and slot payments.
@WL,
The reason Sounder doesn’t run mid-day is because ST didn’t negotiate any mid-day time slots.
Why? Because Sounder was intended as a commuter oriented service. At the time ST don’t think mid-day ridership would justify the costs of obtaining mid-day slots and operating the trains.
But a wise decision based on the economics and commute patterns of the day is not the same thing as being “impacted by freight traffic”.
Now if the commute patterns have changed sufficiently to justify the expense of mid-day trains, then I would highly encourage ST to go back to BNSF and negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement to do that.
@Mike Orr,
“ So Tacoma Dome Link will be popular?”
Yes. Almost as popular as Federal Way Link.
And of course an operating Tacoma Dome Link will increase ridership on Federal Way Link and make it even more successful.
A rising tide lifts all boats.
> Now if the commute patterns have changed sufficiently to justify the expense of mid-day trains, then I would highly encourage ST to go back to BNSF and negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement to do that.
We’ve discussed this many times and I’m sure you’ve already read it before that BNSF is highly unlikely to allow many mid-day trains, short of Sound Transit basically just buying the freight rail track for tens of billions of dollars.
Given the choice, I’ll take Sounder every time.
You are in the minority. More people take the bus from Tacoma to Seattle — even when Sounder is running. I was very surprised about that. I just assumed that folks would take Sounder. It is roomier. It may be a bit slower, but it is consistent. But more people prefer taking the bus.
That was before the pandemic. ST no longer releases detailed information, so maybe things have changed. However I see nothing in the overall numbers that suggests anything different. Hard to say why that is. It may be just that the bus serves more stops. I would think the additional stops in Tacoma would have the biggest influence, but about 75% of the riders board at the Tacoma Dome. In contrast the stops in Downtown Seattle are very spread out (and that may be the difference — people like that one-seat ride).
There was a very big difference between northbound and southbound though. Some of those riders take Sounder back, while some take a bus that runs in the middle of the day. Thus it may be that folks ride the 590 early enough in the morning that they feel like traffic isn’t a big deal. But coming back they avoid rush hour or take Sounder. This is another clear sign that we need HOV-3 lanes. If the bus could avoid the worst of the traffic (and it does in the early morning) then it would be a lot more popular.
@WL,
“ BNSF is highly unlikely to allow many mid-day trains”.
There is a lot of speculation on this blog that gets passed off as fact when it really doesn’t even pass the smell test. BNSF is a business. If ST makes it worthwhile to them, then some mutually acceptable agreement should be possible.
And I don’t believe in giving up before you even try. That is a self defeating attitude that leads to…..wait for it…..defeat.
Defeat is not an option.
The reason Sounder doesn’t run mid-day is because ST didn’t negotiate any mid-day time slots.
Why?
Because it would be extremely expensive and midday ridership on Sounder would likely be very low.
It is really kind of bizarre how transit advocates want to spend billions of dollars on a system that is less effective than simply changing a few road signs from “HOV-2” to “HOV-3”.
BNSF is a business. If ST makes it worthwhile to them, then some mutually acceptable agreement should be possible.
Sure, but the point is it would be extremely expensive. I estimate that it would cost somewhere around $100 per rider. That is for hourly service. In contrast, consider the alternative:
1) Change the lanes from HOV-2 to HOV-3.
2) This: https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/02/25/regional-transit-after-federal-way-link/
We already know that when the buses are relatively fast (in the morning) the buses (from Tacoma and Lakewood) are more popular than Sounder. It is quite possible that isn’t the case with other locations. But at some point the Sounder solution just can’t compete, unless you are willing to spend a ridiculous amount of money on the trains. Why would we do that? Why would we spend ten times as much for trains than a bus when the vast majority of people in these areas have terrible transit everywhere else?
> There is a lot of speculation on this blog that gets passed off as fact when it really doesn’t even pass the smell test. BNSF is a business. If ST makes it worthwhile to them, then some mutually acceptable agreement should be possible.
BNSF has repeatedly said they don’t want ST to increase the span of service.
“The BNSF tracks are congested by freight trains in off-peak times, limiting the available track time for passenger trains outside morning and afternoon peak travel periods”
The wsdot amtrak cascades study found the same issue. Sound Transit is hoping maybe they can run like 1 train in the middle but that’s about it.
> And I don’t believe in giving up before you even try. That is a self defeating attitude that leads to…..wait for it…..defeat.
Lazarus if it was that cheap we wouldn’t be building link light rail to tacoma, we would just run trains on the bnsf line to Tacoma. Also I don’t understand why y’all keep thinking it’ll be easy to run frequent trains on an active freight line. (like actually used all day not like one freight train every 3 days). I’m not sure why you keep trying to assert ignorance of what is happening as a good thing.
I find it rather academic to discuss adding lots more Sounder trains.
1. The original negotiations and subsequent negotiations both are based on restricted the service hours. I seriously doubt that these negotiations happened without some discussion of other times of day. BNSF has a profit motive to use those tracks for freight. So unless the freight service markets collapse there is likely slim to no chance to get a good deal from BNSF. Is the cost worth getting just a few more runs in?
2. There is midday Cascades service. It doesn’t stop at most Sounder stations. If the midday market is so lucrative, ST should be working with WSDOT to enable midday Cascades to stop at more Sounder platforms. That requires no extra train sets! It still amazes me that the two services are rarely discussed together as serving one corridor.
3. The HOV lane change can help bus reliability, but only if they are really congested. Those times are when Sounder is running. The massive I-5 widening in Tacoma and Fife is finally in place so that stretch doesn’t have HOV congestion like before. So switching to HOV 3 would help within the Seattle city limits but travel times south of 405 wouldn’t help that much in midday. Switching to HOV 3 north of I-405 seems much more productive as Metro buses on I-5 could use it too.
4. The region has agreed to spend billions to get Link as far as Federal Way in less than two years. The region is spending billions more to get to Tacoma Dome in supposedly 11 years (probably at least 15 given ST’s nonchalant commitment to construction schedules). That service will be more reliable than any express bus and will be more frequent at 10 minutes. Yes the trip will be slower between Tacoma Dome and the ID — but riders will have short waits for a train and can travel at almost anytime between 5:30 am and midnight without having to worry about missing a train (no need to build in more time up front to wait for a train). Link is also electric; Sounder and Cascades are diesel. Finally, ST will want to maximize its ridership on Link by truncating ST Express buses. Denying this eventuality is silly. Heck, the South King restructuring discussions are going on now!
5. Sounder ridership has been plateauing since last fall at about 60 percent of 2019. It may never recover back to 2019 levels. ST Express southward isn’t growing either. The pressure to address crowding is no longer there.
The bigger discussion that’s needed is electrification. Battery or catenary? Electrification can enable trains to brake and accelerate faster — making it less consequential to stop. Any train service electrification is better for the environment. That’s the inevitable system change. ST should prioritize the technology switch first, rather than add a diesel train to the schedule at great expense.
“It is really kind of bizarre how transit advocates want to spend billions of dollars on a system that is less effective than simply changing a few road signs from “HOV-2” to “HOV-3”.”
We don’t have control over the road signs. WSDOT would have to decide to change them, and it has refused to. If WSDOT had changed the signs twenty years ago we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
“Link is also electric; Sounder and Cascades are diesel.”
That’s an interesting point. If we weren’t building Link, ST might electrify the entire ST Express fleet now like Metro is doing. So that money would be lost anyway.
I’d like to see the 520 buses be branded as BRT… 542 (UW-Redmond) and an upgraded 556 (UW-Bellevue) designed to complement and tie into Link.
I’m not sure if there is much advantage to converting them to BRT. Not that much time is spent boarding, so off-board payment doesn’t get you as much as it would on a bus like the 7. I would support it, but I wouldn’t prioritize it.
UW-Bellevue will be handled by the future 270. I think this is a big step up from the 271. The biggest problem I see is frequency, not speed. Stephen Fesler mentioned this: https://www.theurbanist.org/2024/06/19/more-cross-lake-service-in-restructure/. I could see an express, but it doesn’t lend itself to an express nearly as well as Downtown Seattle to Bellevue does (or did). There are HOV lanes at the 405/I-90 connection that direction, whereas there are no HOV connections between 520 and 405.
But one of the reasons that the 550 covered Bellevue Way is because a bus needs to cover that road. Same goes for the future 270. You would have to come up with a different bus to cover the road. Again, the biggest weakness is frequency. ST is a different agency, so there is that. Theoretically they could run an express (that stays on the freeways) while Metro just backfills service on Bellevue Way. I suppose that could work, but it would probably make more sense just to have ST take over all of the 270 and run it more often. That would allow Metro to easily run other buses more often (without a restructure).
The 520 HOV lanes are practically a rubber tire subway with their in-line stations.
Agreed. that is why I like leveraging it. It is kind of weird now because every bus (or almost every bus) that runs on 520 will go to the UW. That is probably the best option but it means that there is no point in using the freeway stations as a transfer point. In contrast if some of the buses go to the UW and other buses go downtown (and they go to different East-Side locations) it could work out really well. I feel like we never took full advantage of that.
I do wonder if there’s a case for extending regional express buses from UW to Ballard (as a very limited express making literally one stop between in Fremont with like 1 or 2 stops in Ballard) and perhaps another non/limited stop express line continuing from UW to SLU via Eastlake?
UW to Ballard is problematic because there is no fast way to get there. This is one of the reasons why it makes so much sense for a subway line. In comparison consider Phinney Ridge to downtown. You could run down through Fremont and across the bridge (and there is a case for that). But instead it runs express, and is thus extremely fast (in comparison). UW to Ballard just doesn’t have that. Driving is slow. The fastest route is often to use backroads that the bus can’t possibly use.
UW to SLU via Eastlake is similar. It isn’t the stops, it is the road. Now if you ran an express (using the freeway) it might work. That is basically what the 320 and 64 do (although they don’t serve the UW). They are currently suspended, and it looks like they won’t be coming back. As you suggest, having ST run it as add-on to a bus like the 542 might work. Then again it does take a while to run through the U-District. Since the East Side stops are close to East Link it might be faster to just take East Link and then the bus north. The big time savings would come from continuing the 545, but there is no interest in that.
It is definitely tempting to extend an express into the neighborhoods (on both sides of the lake). To a certain extent this happens now. The 542 runs through the U-District. It overlaps other routes, but gives riders more one-set trips. Ideally you want that neighborhood run to provide unique coverage. The 41 used to do that. No other bus covered that Lake City/Pinehurst/Northgate route. I think the buses could do a better job of that, although it is challenging. For example the bus I have in mind (UW, Totem Lake, Rose Hill) would overlap the 225, but I wouldn’t want it to replace it.
> The bigger discussion that’s needed is electrification. Battery or catenary? Electrification can enable trains to brake and accelerate faster — making it less consequential to stop. Any train service electrification is better for the environment. That’s the inevitable system change. ST should prioritize the technology switch first, rather than add a diesel train to the schedule at great expense.
What? ST should definitely not prioritize electrification on Sounder South if it can only run hourly trains. Freight companies don’t like electrification because it’s harder to double/triple stack cargo. Also it’d cost probably 2, 3 billion dollars to electrify such a long route looking at how much it cost caltrain to electrify.
We don’t have control over the road signs.
We have just as much control over the road signs as we do anything else. Folks want to lobby ST to get them to spend billions of dollars running Sounder more often. I want to lobby the state to change HOV-2 to HOV-3. It seems to me that getting them to change the signs should be a lot easier.
@WL:
“ST should definitely not prioritize electrification on Sounder South if it can only run hourly trains. ”
What about battery electric (as I mentioned)?
Yes the trip will be slower between Tacoma Dome and the ID — but riders will have short waits for a train and can travel at almost anytime between 5:30 am and midnight without having to worry about missing a train (no need to build in more time up front to wait for a train).
Right, but if the buses run every 15 minutes and the buses are 20 minutes faster than Link then it doesn’t matter how frequent the train is. The train could run every minute — it is always worth waiting for the bus. That is the problem. The train is not a little bit slower — it is a lot slower.
The only time Link can compete is during rush hour, and that is because they haven’t changed HOV-2 to HOV-3. Do that and the bus is faster all day long.
Until then, the best approach is to depend on Link and Sounder during rush hour. The rest of the day we should run express buses every 15 minutes along with Link. That means some overlap — people in Federal Way would have both Link and 15-minute express bus service to Seattle. So be it. Lucky them.
It’s really unfortunate there’s no transfer point between the 405 and 520. That would open up much better connections to Seattle/UW from north of Bellevue
> We don’t have control over the road signs. WSDOT would have to decide to change them, and it has refused to. If WSDOT had changed the signs twenty years ago we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Perhaps, but even for ST express there were a lot of improvement projects dropped after the everett link and tacoma link were added. The industrial way hov lane direct access ramps would have allowed buses to skip the last 3 miles of traffic into Seattle.
Or for instance:
> A lot of the 594’s problems come from getting stuck in traffic on the Lakewood->Tacoma section
ST 594 originally this was going to be fixed. The project “HOV direct access I-5 Direct access to Lakewood Park-and-Ride Pierce” would have added some direct access ramps. Or to and from tacoma with “HOV I-5 Direct access to Tacoma Dome Station Pierce”. I think there was another one nearby the mall?
Practically all i-5 ST express capital projects were dropped for light rail projects along the corridor — and I agree it’s a bit of duplicate effort to build hov direct access ramps next to the freeway light rail stations.
Anyways my main point is st express doesn’t have to necessarily ‘stay’ bad we just decided to fund tacoma dome link instead.
“If WSDOT had changed the signs twenty years ago we wouldn’t be having this discussion.”
Oh, and regular riders would have saved hundreds of hours of time and aggregation. That’s equivalent to months of full-time work.
@WL,
“ if it was that cheap we wouldn’t be building link light rail to tacoma, we would just run trains on the bnsf line to Tacoma. ”
Ah, no. TDLE is not about building some lower cost substitute to Sounder. TDLE has nothing to do with Sounder.
TDLE is about extending the LR system to Tacoma and giving the citizens of Tacoma their first real access to high capacity, high reliability mass transit. And it is about giving the citizens of Tacoma reliable and fast access to destinations along the LR line, including places like FW, Highline College, and the airport. In addition to all the other destinations along the line.
It is important to note that Sounder does not provide service to any of these destinations, and Sounder certainly does not provide the bidirectional service that Link will provide.
And, again, one shouldn’t assume that regional transit is only about getting into and out of DT Seattle. Tacoma is a worthy destination in its own right, and the world does not revolve around just Seattle.
As per negotiations with BNSF, they have never completely shut the door. And that sends a message.
And I don’t beleive in quitting before even trying.
@Mike Orr,
“ We don’t have control over the road sign”
Nope, and if it was that easy to change them it would have been done decades ago. The fact is it isn’t that easy, and won’t get any easier in the future.
Maybe a monorail? LOL.
> As per negotiations with BNSF, they have never completely shut the door. And that sends a message
Uhhhh they never shut the door because they’ll just keep negotiating on and on. They are sending the message and have done so consistently that they don’t want sound transit to use more time outside of peak hours.
Why do you think sound transit was resorting to station capacity expansion rather than just running other peak train — literally bnsf told them they didn’t want sound transit to run more trains.
And then at best sounder south can run a couple trains midday — there’s no world where bnsf allows 15/30 or even hourly service all day while still using it as an active freight line.
And again by active freight line I mean like actually being used not those almost dead freight lines one coal car every half week.
The reason Sounder was created is it was seen as an early deliverable: it could get started up quickly at relatively low cost since the track already exists. ST felt it would be a mistake to not take advantage of that low-hanging fruit. The initial impetus was for peak hours because that’s what most politicians and constituents say they’re concerned about: getting out of peak-hour freeway congestion. ST didn’t pursue off-peak service then because it was focused on a big Link investment.
ST recently negotiated with BNSF a price for a few off-peak timeslots, and had a public survey asking whether users want more off-peak service, more peak service, or longer trains. The majority said more off-peak service. ST3 includes money for another run or two. ST has been coy about the exact number because it didn’t want to reveal to BNSF during negotiations the maximum it could pay, because then BNSF would have asked for exactly that amount. But those negotiations are apparently done or ST wouldn’t have sent out the survey.
Half-hourly Sounder full time would be a giant step beyond that. I don’t know whether BNSF’s agreed rate would apply to that. And I assume there’s too much freight traffic for that without adding tracks. BNSF prefers freight because it’s more lucrative, and all the governments would line up behind freight because of jobs and the products we export and import. Washington is the state that’s most dependent on international trade.
Adding a passenger-priority track would doubtless cost a ton. That’s something WSDOT would have more resources and clout to do, and it could be used by Cascades. But WSDOT has been dragging its feet on doing anything of the kind.
Sounder South at its maximum in the 2010s had almost-hourly service weekdays. There was just a 2-3 hour gap in the late morning one way, and in the early afternoon the other way. So if it reaches that maximum again it wouldn’t have that much further to go. It has enough trains; it just needs timeslots and personnel. Of course, that was without evenings or weekends.
Eastside Transit has some new videos up regarding Lynnwood Link testing. Here is a sample:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OVb8FfA2sYY
Search on their video feed to find the others.
59 days and 4 hours to go until Lynnwood Link is open.
SDOT are starting work on the ballard bridge
https://sdotblog.seattle.gov/2024/06/26/ballard-bridge-15th-ave-nw-construction-begins/
Notably for transit there will be new southbound bus lanes and the existing northbound bus lanes will be repainted to red.
https://sdotblog.seattle.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/06/Image-03.png
There will also be a new stop light at 15th Ave NW & NW 51st St https://maps.app.goo.gl/MezWHQABeVjaHBxe9
In general the changes look pretty nice speeding up the rapidride D and should make crossing 15th Ave NW much easier as well rather than having to go up to 53rd street or the underpass.
The Initial Graham Street Station online open house is posted:
https://grahamstreetstation.infocommunity.org/
There will be a field open house on Tuesday, July 16, 4:30 – 7 p.m. at the Van Asselt Community Center, 2820 S Myrtle St, Seattle.
I was surprised that the early diagram suggests platforms on either side of Graham Street (north and south). I think it would be safer for all station users to cross midblock north of Graham away from that turning traffic (with both platforms beginning at least a a few hundred feet north of the station).
PS. To the site team, this should probably be a separate post for STB.
Yeah, good idea. I’m not sure when we can get to it.
Interesting, both suggested locations are a bit farther north than I expected.
The original diagram https://www.soundtransit.org/system-expansion/graham-street-station made it look like the graham station was going to be centered on Morgan street but now the two options are either just north or south of S graham street.
I’m fine with either station location listed in the survey. Regarding reallocating road space it looks like with just removing one left turn lane it should be enough space. That is one minor advantage of the south of graham st option is that removing the left turn lane going west bound drivers can just turn right before s graham street and turn left onto it. (informal jersey left). The traffic on graham street is low enough it’ll probably be fine.
Lots of drivers turn at Graham Street to get to a corner convenience store or MacDonalds, or make a U-turn to get to other nearby places. That includes postal vehicles headed to the facility just north of Graham.
I would ideally like to see ST take out that postal facility (relocate it), and shift the northbound lanes slightly eastward, the shift the northbound track slightly eastward to install a center platform — with pedestrian crossing signals (or maybe just crossing flashers controlled by a push button) to get to that center platform. Because riders would only cross over one half of MLK they could easily get across in a few seconds. They would just have to look one way before crossing. They wouldn’t have to stand for a minute or two waiting for a walk sign to cross at Graham Street.
> I think it would be safer for all station users to cross midblock north of Graham
I mean for either alternative there will be a midblock crossing. North of S graham there will be S Raymond St and South of S graham st there will be S morgan st. The light rail station is 400 feet long so it’ll go from graham street to the next street.
I would center the platform on Raymond Street, and shave off the businesses and postal facility on the east side to move northbound lanes and track, providing more than enough room for a 400 foot center platform. I would replace the Raymond crossing with two new crossings both slightly north and south of Raymond Street at each platform end. There is about 1200 feet between Juneau and Graham.
It may be more expensive than crossing at Graham but it would be much safer.
The light rail station is 400 feet long so it’ll go from graham street to the next street.
Yeah, that is what I was getting at below. Othello is not just Othello — it is Othello and Myrtle. Columbia City is Alaska and Edmunds. Rainier Beach got screwed (they only got one entrance) but that was true in general. Anyway, the point is, it is quite likely they will have a pair of entrances. One on Graham and one to the north or south. Looking at this some more (and doing a better measurement) I think the existing crossing between Morgan and Angel would work to the south (https://maps.app.goo.gl/j7CgPynDBaLd6Fd48). While Raymond would to the north.
Overall I would give the edge to putting the station to the south. To the north you have Aki Kurose. This is a destination, but if you are going to the school then it doesn’t matter — either way you will access via Graham. But the north part of that super block (Juneau/Graham/39th/42nd) is basically a dead zone. There is a park there, but if you are walking to the park then you don’t mind walking a bit farther. In contrast to the south you have lots extending both directions. Mostly single family, but that is still people (and will likely change over time). If we assume the crossings as I suggested earlier, then Morgan/Angel is better. It connects to the neighborhood (each direction) a lot better. This (https://maps.app.goo.gl/j7CgPynDBaLd6Fd48) versus this (https://maps.app.goo.gl/2H3KWJ6MPBdVKtwDA). This could probably be fixed, but it would take some work by the city. Going to the south is basically ready to go.
I was surprised that the early diagram suggests platforms on either side of Graham Street (north and south). I think it would be safer for all station users to cross midblock north of Graham away from that turning traffic (with both platforms beginning at least a a few hundred feet north of the station).
Yeah, but don’t they all work that way? From what I can tell all the surface stations abut a busy street, although Columbia City and Othello also have entrances on the other side (a quieter street). It seems like they could have a second crossing/entrance on Holly or Juneau (to the north or south).