Countdowns: Lynnwood Link (Aug. 30, 11am); RapidRide G & restructures (Sept. 14)
Transit Updates:
Eastgate stop added back to Trailhead Direct starting Saturday, July 20
Sound Transit Doubling Sounder North Service This Fall with Four Runs/Day
First weeks of new sailings, King County Water Taxi sees jump in ridership
New Community Transit routes for Seattle commuters
Local News:
SDOT begins work on permanent remake of 3rd/Yesler
Kirkland Advances Catalyst Project for ’10-Minute Neighborhood’ Near Houghton
Big changes for part of 16th SW in White Center are progressing. King County is asking for input via survey.
Seattle City Council adopts new tools to fight illegal street racing
Recognizing Metro’s Operators of the Month (May-June 2024)
Results from Sound Transit’s Annual Passenger Survey
PSRC Examines Population Growth in the Region
Long wait times at the Ballard Locks due to falling lake levels
Other News & Opinion:
SLU Decision Points to Uphill Battle for Chinatown Station Advocates
American Towns Are Rebelling Against Megamansions (WSJ gift link)
Toronto’s Streetcars are Teetering on the Brink
How Vancouver’s First Nations became Canada’s biggest real estate developers
This is an Open Thread.
On the topic of Trailhead Direct…while Eastgate Freeway Station is definitely better than no eastside service at all, South Bellevue station, with direct Link access, would offer better connections. Better still, when the full 2-line opens, the bus can simply end there, avoid delay-prone travel through the I-90/I-5 interchange and Seattle streets. For Seattle residents, this would mean, at worst, an additional Link connection to reach the trailhead bus, but the overhead of that would be more than made up by having a bus that runs on time. And, of course, for those already on Link anyway to reach Capitol Hill/downtown, it’s not even an extra connection, but simply remaining on the train they are already on for a few more stops.
As to the Issaquah Alps route, it may seem at first glance, like truncating the route at South Bellevue would add a lot of time because you’d have to ride the 1 line into downtown and the 2-line back out. But, that’s only the case for people that actually live in the Mt. Baker neighborhood. If riders are getting there by riding the 1-line south from downtown (or points north), they can just as easily ride the 2-line east. And, if riders are getting there via the #7 bus, they can stay on the #7 bus a few more stops and connect to the 2-line at I-90, rather than go through downtown (for reasons totally unrelated to Trailhead Direct, the #7 really needs bus-lane queue jumps approaching 23rd Ave. and I-90; if it had them, the travel time from Mt. Baker to I-90 on the bus would be a lot less). So, depending on where the riders of the Issaquah Alps route are actually coming from, a similar pivot to South Bellevue may make sense, even for that route.
Better still, when the full 2-line opens, the [Trailhead Connect] bus can simply end there [South Bellevue).
I think everyone assumes that will happen. Until then, I think they are basically trying to attract two types of riders: People who don’t have cars, and people from the East Side that don’t want to deal with the parking mess at Mount Si (and other trailheads). By serving Capitol Hill and downtown you likely attract a high proportion of those who don’t own cars. By connecting to Eastgate you delay the riders from Seattle minimally, while providing a parking space that likely involves less back and forth (since South Bellevue is considerably west of Eastgate). As far as East Side transit goes, Eastgate seems on par with South Bellevue (both are well below Downtown Bellevue). Thus if you live close to Crossroads you have a better drive to Eastgate than South Bellevue, and the options for transit are much better. Overall it seems like the right choice.
As for the Issaquah Alps route is concerned, I have no idea why they go to Mount Baker. I suppose some of the thinking is that the trip is short. One of the main advantages of the Issaquah Alps is that it you can get there very quickly. (Another advantage is that you can hike in the winter, but since this runs only in the summer, that doesn’t add value.) By connecting to Mount Baker it means that people in Rainier Valley can get to the mountains (or at least the foothills) very quickly. It still connects to Link and lots of buses, so that does extend the reach of the trip.
In practice, the TD ridership is almost entirely people that don’t have cars. At 30 minute frequency, it is usually quicker for those that do have cars to park a ways away and walk than to wait for the bus, and Eastgate freeway station is a noisy, lousy place to wait.
Why the Issaquah Alps goes to Mt. Baker.. I’m not sure, but I’m guessing “equity” reasons. It would probably get higher ridership if it went from downtown/Cap Hill, just like the Mt. Si route.
One thing I was wondering, can the city of Seattle still contribute to trailhead direct if it doesn’t stop within it’s city limits ? I think they pay for 50% of the service.
Makes sense about South Bellevue TC but Eastgate is a flyer stop so it’s crazy not to stop there, minimal delay in making the stop… how about both?
Agreed to just stop at both places. Now that the 2 Line ends at South Bellevue, the station has new connectivity that didn’t exist last summer.
You can’t stop at both that easily. The eastgate hov ramps are in the middle, lanes while the south bellevue ramps are on the outside lanes.
Westbound from eastgate over to south bellevue station isn’t too hard using eastgate way, however eastbound from south bellevue station to eastgate is kinda complicated and stuck with more traffic
@ WL:
The Sunset Creek Fish Passageway project has reduced the number of lanes to cross by one for the rest of the summer.
Plus, the only traffic slowdowns on weekends are to get to 405 South — a problem that gets skipped by serving the I-90 Eastgate stop.
It’s an academic debate at this point for 2024. The service will quit running in just a few more weeks on September 15.
“The Eastgate hov ramps are in the middle, lanes while the south bellevue ramps are on the outside lanes.” I recall the 556 did this regularly?
Getting from the Eastgate HOV ramps to the 405 exit is illegal (it’s a double solid line for that reason) but to the Bellevue Way ramp is doable. I’ve done that merge in my personal vehicle many times
If others are correct that the BNSF lease for Sounder North’s right-of-way expires in 2030, this increased service might be a strategy to gauge the full ridership potential post-lynwood, so that when they renegotiate for the next contract they will know if it’s worth it to increase runs or decrease them in the decades to come.
Meant to reply to Tom below re: sounder N
I agree that the service upgrade is a test. I think the bigger motivation is as an alternative should Link 1 Line be overcrowded before 2 Line starts operating to Lynnwood.
Regardless, this is the make or break year for Sounder North. If the agreement does I deed expire in 2030 it doesn’t bode well for renewal.
If they have to pay another $230 million for twenty years of “slots”, I sincerely hope that ST just says, “No thank you. We’ll walk.”
It’s a beautiful ride, but not worth that level of subsidy.
What excellent timing Skycastle Transit exhibits by doubling service on Sounder North at the same time that they open the parallel and strongly competitive Lynnwood Link service!
It’s almost as if they have money to burn!
If so, I’d suggest that instead they burn some of it ensuring that the the new CT route 117 between Mukilteo and Lynnwood is reasonably frequent and operates well into the evening and on weekends. CT’s website doesn’t say anything about frequency or span of service so it’s not clear how useful it will be for regional users.
Yes, I get that many ferry users are from outside the ST taxing district, but in the absence of direct Washington State-funded shuttles, ST is the fattest available piggybank.
The Urbanist article does talk about the frequency and span of service for the 117. It looks pretty good, so maybe ST can just save the bucks for something more useful than Sounder North? There’s no doubt it’s a beautiful ride, but wow, at a huge cost per passenger.
A huge chunk of the cost is the sunk cost for paying BNSF for the right-of-way to run that many trips in perpetuity.
The marginal cost per rider to add those two trips is probably still substantial, but not as substantial as the pro-rated cost makes it look.
I say sell that ROW to Amtrak, along with the fleet.
Keep the service, but make it part of more runs to BC.
A huge chunk of the cost is the sunk cost for paying BNSF for the right-of-way to run that many trips in perpetuity.
Good point, but according to The Urbanist, it isn’t in perpetuity. The contract lasts until 2030. Until then, ST has the right to run four trains a day. While running (big) trains is expensive, it probably doesn’t cost much more to run four trains a day (each direction) versus two trains. As the article emphasized, part of the reason for the increased service is the fear of crowding on Link. If that is your goal then this is a decent option although it seems like replacing the (light rail) fleet should have been a consideration given that it would alleviate crowding whenever it happens (e. g. during ball games). ST has preferred flexibility in the fleet, and it is biting them in the ass.
The tough part is that ST agreed to pay BNSF until 2030. As soon as East Link comes on line (and likely much sooner) that will be completely unnecessary. Crowding won’t be an issue, and you will be paying for North Sounder trips (whether ST decides to run them or not).
Perhaps ST can parlay those North Sounder time slots into South Sounder time slots? It won’t be 1-for-1, but can be a carrot in the negotiations for additional South Sounder trips?
There would need to be some subarea equity accounting to make Snohomish whole, but that’s all within ST non-cash accounting.
Ross, I think it does. In fact, I think it costs one and a half times as much. I believe that the earliest run used to deadhead back to become the latest one, but the other two are unique trips. That means three crews morning and three crews evening.
The cost per train trip is certainly higher than a bus trip. The vehicle is much larger (1 loco + 2~3 cars vs a single bus), uses more fuel, and has higher staffing. The issue instead is that Sounder serves 3 stations in Snohomish, so deleting 1 Sound run in theory needs to be mitigated by 3 bus routes, one each connecting Edmonds, Mukilteo, and Everett stations to Lynnwood Link stations. For example, if I was a Snohomish politicians, I may ask for express runs of the 217 and 909 to match the prior N Sounder time slots?
The rail easements are a sunk cost – but there is also no cost to ST or CT to run a bus on local roads. If there was a trade off on capital investments that could be an interesting debate, but here the capital investment is zero; it is solely about how to best allocate O&M spend.
Yeah, I agree with AJ. To be clear, we are talking about three scenarios. The first is to keep doing what we are doing (running two trains a day). The second is to increase to four trains a day. The third is to cancel North Sounder.
The big expense is the leasing of the right-of-way. We’ve already paid for that. But if we can sell that back to BNSF (or sell it to Amtrak or swap it for additional right-of-way to the south) then the dynamic changes. Sound North should be cancelled.
But if we are paying for the rights anyway, then things get complicated. It is more expensive to run the trains, but the trains can carry more people. All three stations have existing bus service (that will be improved when Lynnwood Link comes on board). So it comes down to the ridership of the trains and buses. If a train picks up five people at Mukilteo and there are ten empty seat on the bus then we wouldn’t need to add additional bus service in Mukilteo if we cancelled that run. Same goes for the other stations.
Average ridership on each train varies quite a bit, from about 50 to 140 (per train). I don’t think it is that terrible to run the trains more often for the next six months, just to get more information. First is crowding related. Does this make a dent with crowding, and is it even an issue. Second is how much it would cost to replace the trains with bus service (if anything). The same questions should be asked for every train run.
Ultimately though, ST should be negotiating with various parties to get rid of North Sounder (before 2030). My comment about replacing Sounder with improved bus service is based on that. The savings that come from running two trains a day (versus four) are relatively minor. At best we could run a few buses during peak. The big savings come from canceling the whole thing.
“deleting 1 Sound run in theory needs to be mitigated by 3 bus routes, one each connecting Edmonds, Mukilteo, and Everett stations to Lynnwood Link stations.”
Everett already has beaucoup routes. They probably already have enough empty seats for Sounder North riders, or ST could add a couple express bus runs. We don’t hear about crowding problems or extra bus service when Sounder North is suspended due to mudslides. So it’s really only Edmonds and Mukilteo that need express bus service to a Link station, and they should have that anyway for when Sounder isn’t running.
@Mike — All three North Sounder stations will have buses connecting them to Link. It is more a matter of whether they would be crowded or not (without Sounder). ST doesn’t release Sounder station data anymore, but prior to the pandemic it was split roughly 40-40-20 (Everett-Edmonds-Mukilteo). That means that a train carrying 200 people would have roughly 80 people from Everett, 80 from Edmonds and 40 from Mukilteo. This could easily overwhelm the existing buses. You would need more buses. But if the train carries less than 60 people (like the 1706) there is probably enough excess capacity with the existing buses. But it may also depend on the station. Everett, for example, might have some fairly empty buses, given there is the 201/202, 510 and 512. Edmonds has more buses, but it isn’t clear what the best option is for getting to Link. Mukilteo will have one bus, timed with the ferry. That might be enough during peak — hard to say.
ST is worried about crowding, which is the main reason they are doing this. I really have no problem with that. ST should be able to work with CT to determine the extra capacity of the buses (and the ridership of each train). If ridership on the train is really low and/or crowding is not an issue, then I expect North Sounder to go back to twice a day.
I think the big mistake was paying for the right-of-way.
It’s a chicken and the egg. Provide minimal service on Sounder North and get minimal ridership on Sounder North. Limited hours and limited direction eliminates a lot of potential riders that would like to take the train. You sure don’t want to miss one of the 2-4 trains if you are a regular or semi-regular rider or find yourself stuck with a comparable trip taking 3 times as long on 3+ buses.
Yeah, the money would be much better spent on bus service. Best thing to do would be to just grant CT the money, and let them increase service as they see fit. But ST doesn’t (usually) operate that way. They like to have their own buses. ST tends to run regional buses, but there is plenty of precedent for running more “normal” buses. The 550 looks very much like a Metro route, including all the stops (it isn’t a true express in that it makes several stops between Downtown Seattle and Downtown Bellevue).
ST and CT buses should complement each other, which is why the timing is poor. With the East Side restructure, ST and Metro worked together on the routes (and they will introduce them at the same time). If ST adds extra routes now, it would be less than ideal. At this point, any additional routes would either overlap existing ones (that CT provides) or cause a shuffling around of CT routes (that likely wouldn’t happen for at least a year, just to avoid confusion). I’m not sure what the best option would be. Years ago I proposed this: https://seattletransitblog.com/2018/03/13/frequent-everett-bus-routes-serving-lynnwood-link/ but I don’t think it makes sense now.
Another consideration is Everett Transit; I don’t think they are going to restructure anything. With that in mind, one possible route would be this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/WqUFMaKeAfRnCigJ7. This would run every 15 minutes all-day (unlike the 113, which is peak-only every half hour). Unlike the 113 (which has always struggled) it would serve a lot more places. The 113 manages to skip over the apartments in South Everett — this would serve them. It would also serve the areas just south of Everett (like Mariner High School) that aren’t served by CT (even with the new restructure). It overlaps with Everett Transit, but minimally. Specifically it overlaps with the 2 and 12 (half hour buses). Everett Transit could live with that overlap, or make some restructures. The 2 could be sent to Evergreen Way, via 112th (making the same triangle loop as the 8). The 12 could be sent to Seaway on the same path as the 8, increasing frequency along that corridor. Or Everett Transit could use this as an excuse to make a bigger restructure, in anticipation of merging with Community Transit (or the restructuring could take place then).
Regardless of what Everett Transit did, this would give a lot more people a good connection to Link (as well as the Blue Line) while also providing additional coverage in relatively dense areas.
The other area that seems a bit underserved is Edmonds. There is a hodgepodge of routes in the area, but nothing is particularly fast or frequent if you are heading towards Seattle. I could see an express that runs every 15 minutes from Edmonds following this path: https://maps.app.goo.gl/iqD187Zbz6CWZYqNA. This would overlap part of the 909, but provide a faster — and much more frequent — connection to Link. It could stop on Aurora, at 200th, 192nd and 185th. This would be a great connection for riders heading south on Aurora, while also covering the really dense areas that Swift is skipping (like 192nd). It would likely poach some 909 riders, and CT might just decide to abandon the 909 (which is supposed to be timed with the ferry). Either way, that would be a huge improvement compared to spending money on North Sounder.
I thought of suggesting that exact same thing, but primarily as a ferry-synchronized shuttle, not an actual transit line. That would be pretty big bucks with a fifteen minute headway. Wouldn’t it be better for ST to pay for extending the Orange Line to the ferry terminal? It would serve a lot more trips. For folks headed to Seattle, yes, it’s a bit of a double-back. But not a horrid one, and it will be only seven minutes from Lynnwood to Shoreline North. It might actually take a couple of minutes less to get to Lynnwood Downtown than Shoreline North from the ferry terminal.
ST already has plans for a bus synchronized with the ferry (the 909). The problem is that the ferry runs every 50 minute (and the route is messy). More importantly, Edmonds is not Mukilteo.
Edmonds is a real destination. I may be exaggerating its attractions, but I can only think of two (urban) places in Snohomish County I would be interested in visiting: Downtown Everett and Edmonds. Edmonds also has pockets of density and the pathway I described covers most of it. In contrast, an extension of the Orange Line would go by fewer people. Throw in 192nd & Aurora and the bus route I described would get plenty of people. It not only works for Link (and RapidRide E) related trips but trips within the area. For example someone in the apartments/condos along 5th might want to head to the waterfront, or up to the PCC (along Edmonds Way). Or maybe someone in a condo or apartment on Edmonds Way wants to visit the shops in Downtown Edmonds.
The fact that it would replace the 909 is a bonus. Trying to time the ferries works fine from the ferry dock, but it challenging going the other way. The route that the 909 will take (from Mukilteo) seems long enough that you would have to build in plenty of cushion. Thus a half hour bus ride becomes a forty-five minute bus ride, since you sure as hell don’t want to miss a ferry running every fifty minutes. In contrast, with a bus running every 15 minutes the rider makes the choice (as to how big a cushion they want). Meanwhile, the 909 could become a true express, running from the 185th station to the Edmonds ferry dock. You still have the same issue (you have to allow some float) but not nearly as much as you would if you were picking up lots of riders. Of course that is backwards (ST should run the express) and if you could swing it that way it would be ideal. Again, another option is to just cancel the 909, leaving Community Transit with money they can spend on other routes.
The main thing it does is bring Edmonds on par with the other areas. It is weird to think that Everett has so much better service to Seattle than Edmonds, given that Everett is farther away. Consider:
1) Everett has peak-only express buses to downtown. Edmonds does not.
2) Everett has all-day 15-minute express service to Lynnwood. It also has the 201/202 which is not quite a full express (it stops along Ash Way) but is still pretty fast. Edmonds doesn’t have 15-minute bus service anywhere. Nor does it have express (or even semi-express) service anywhere. It has a combination of slow half-hour buses, and a slow bus running every 50 minutes.
Edmonds is clearly underserved with the latest set of restructures, and ST could fix that. Instead of putting loads of money into the the choo-choos, it could provide a good, frequent, straightforward bus serving the heart of Edmonds and the north part of Shoreline. As mentioned up above though, that would require ST dealing with the right-of-way rights they already bought.
OK, the 909 is designed to serve the ferry ridership. Thank you for pointing that out. I think it’s good enough to do the job, and running it to MLT makes it clear that it’s a Snohomish sub-area bus. It wouldn’t be good to divide the toward-the-ferry service between Shoreline North and MLT. For that matter, it wouldn’t be good to divide it between MLT and Lynnwood Downtown either by extending the Orange Line, my proposal.
But, extending the Orange Line gives Edmonds its fifteen minute link to the outer world, including Edmonds College and downtown Lynnwood. I think that the Grandees in Snohomish County would prefer that Edmonds’ fifteen minute service connect it to its county’s two largest transit attractors, rather than siphoning them away to King County.
I don’t know the area well enough to say “it should follow the 166 route” or “it should go the way of the 102 along Main Street”, but go it should. Google Maps does show a lot of apartment buildings just south of EC, so probably the 102.
“Edmonds is clearly underserved with the latest set of restructures”
Everett is much larger than Edmonds. Most of Edmonds’ population lives between downtown and 99, or between 99 and Link, so an express bus to downtown Edmonds that bypasses them wouldn’t serve them. They have Swift Blue, Swift Orange, and east-west CT routes, so they’re not as badly off as downtown Edmonds.
The ultimate problem is downtown Edmonds’ out-of-the-way location on the shore down a hill. This is a similar problem for Mukilteo, Des Moines, and Kirkland.
I’m not saying that Downtown Edmonds is as urban as Downtown Everett. But Downtown Edmonds is a lot closer. Proximity matters. More than anything, it is the ratio that is out of whack. Everett has eight buses an hour running express from Everett to Link. Edmonds doesn’t have any express service. Everett has a very frequent, limited-stop bus that also connects to Link (Swift Blue). Edmonds doesn’t have any service that is frequent.
I don’t know the area well enough to say “it should follow the 166 route” or “it should go the way of the 102 along Main Street”
My point is that neither route is as good as the one I outlined (which I’ll call the 509). Consider the three routes, all starting from the ferry dock:
166 — There are some apartments on Third, but they largely disappear after Edmonds Street. In other words, most of those riders could walk to the 509. After that it is very low density housing until you get to 86th. Even then the apartments and condos are pretty sparse until you get close to Edmonds College.
102 — Starts in a similar manner. There are apartments along Main, but they are all within fairly easy walking distance to 5th (close to the 504). Main Street then becomes very low density until it ends at 212th. At that point though, the bus stops are used by both the 102 and 114 (both of which go to Lynnwood TC). In other words, those folks already have 15 minute service. They split again at 72nd. From there to the college there are a few apartments, but not a lot. This option is better than the 166, but it still isn’t as good as the following.
509 — You have apartments pretty much the whole way to the highway. In other words, if your goal is to focus on density, you would follow the route of the 909 (initially). Go from the waterfront east on Dayton, then head south on Fifth to the highway. Same goes for destinations (like coffee shops and restaurants). The highway itself has sporadic density (and destinations) similar to the other routes, but it is faster. It is especially fast to go connect to the south end of 99 (in contrast the routes that go north on 99 have to make two extra left turns). Thus my proposal would be faster. You then stop at 204th. This is a connection to several CT buses. Swift doesn’t stop there, but it isn’t a big walk, either. It is not especially dense here, but similar to the high density parts of the 102 and 166. The next stop is 200th. This is the connection to the RapidRide E (something neither of the other options offer). The stop after that is 192nd. This has more density than anything on the 102 or 166 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/7Va57tLa14R4k3Wh7). There is also a large park and ride lot (part or all of which will eventually contain housing) as well as a YMCA. Swift doesn’t cover it. Thus this is the only connection for this dense area to Link. This is fairly close to Link, a long ways to downtown via the E, and fairly dense — all reasons why it would get plenty of riders. At that point you are basically done. I would probably stop at 185th (to connect to the 348) and then run directly to the station (since the 348 has 185th covered).
In terms of overall ridership this is better. In terms of ridership per service hour it is much better (the highway is fast). The route would cover the bulk of density in Edmonds while connecting to the two most popular lines (Link and the RapidRide E) in a way that is both intuitive and productive. It is a straight shot to the heart of Edmonds from Shoreline. As a bonus it picks up a very productive bus stop that CT forget to cover.
I get why CT doesn’t want to run more buses to 185th. Community Transit is remarkably provincial. But that is where an agency like ST — which is not worried about the arbitrary county borders — comes in. They can cross borders and provide this sort of regional connectivity that is not offered by the other agencies.
But Ross, you point out that there are apartments all along Edmonds Way, which us true, but to serve them you have to provide POB service, which ST is categorically forbidden to provide. That’s why the 909 is an “express”.
It will be the usual Republican bad-faith argument, but somebody would sue over a POB-style ST bus from Edmobds to Shoreline North.
I’m not sure what POB is, or why ST would be categorically forbidden from running a route like that. I see little difference between this bus and say, the 522. The 522 has 21 stops. This route would have about 15. The stop spacing seems similar. Quite often CT puts their stops very close together. That really isn’t the case here. They are maybe a bit close along 5th, but on the highway they are fairly spread out (like they are with the 522). The 522 overlaps various Metro routes, but also provides unique coverage (at 85th & Lake City Way). The routes seem quite similar. If anything, this is more appropriate for ST, as it covers two counties (while the 522 does not).
Of course is seems silly to call this an express, but the same is true for the 522, or for that matter the 550. An express from Downtown Bellevue to Downtown Seattle would stay on the freeway the whole time (stopping only at Mercer Island). An express would likely save most riders about ten minutes. But it would some riders, and force Metro to cover a fairly dense area. Same thing is true with this route. They are express in name only. So what?
the 909 is an “express”
Yes it is, but my guess is it will serve all the stops that the 416 makes. The 416 is a “commuter” bus, but it makes all the regular stops. The 130 and 416 overlap along 5th and SR 104 until 100th. At that point the 130 abandons the corridor, but the 416 keeps going and serves several stops along the highway before heading to Seattle. With the restructure, the 130 abandons the corridor entirely. If the 909 doesn’t make stops along the highway (or 5th) then a lot of people lose service entirely. In some cases they go from losing commuter service, while in other cases they lose both commuter and all-day service. I really doubt they are doing that.
I’m not sure why they are calling this “express”. Maybe because it runs at an odd schedule (based on the ferry schedule). Maybe because it skips several stops once it overlaps the other routes (the exact same thing the ST bus would do). Or maybe because it takes a straightforward route on the highway (unlike the 130) which is also what the ST bus would do. In other words, the bus I’m describing is probably more of an express than the bus they are calling “express”.
“to serve them you have to provide POB service, which ST is categorically forbidden to provide.”
Tell that to the 550 on south Bellevue Way, and the future 554 on south Bellevue Way and Gilman Blvd in Issaquah.
The Gilman Blvd reroute seems specifically so that Metro doesn’t have to provide east-west service in central Issaquah. The current route is the 208 further south, but that will be deleted. That will serve central Issaquah better, and provide 15-minute frequency instead of 90-120 minute frequency.
Likewise, the south Bellevue Way routing is because when ST created the 550 in the 1990s, it asked the community whether it should be on 405 or Bellevue Way, and the majority feedback was Bellevue Way. Its ancestors 226 and 235 served south Bellevue Way (at least north of SE 8th Street where the highest density is), so it was felt the 550 should too. The 550 skips a few stops so it’s not “fully local”, but you’d have to squint to notice it. ST’s primary mandate is to connect regional growth centers faster than a fully local route would do, but it has leeway what to do in between.
“That’s why the 909 is an “express”.”
The 909 is an express because it’s a successor to a 4xx/8xx route. CT decided to renumber all 4xx-routes-turned-Link-feeders into 9xx, presumably to avoid people assuming they still went to downtown or Northgate Station, and to make a spashy statement about the CT network overhaul.
@Mike — Yeah, right now they call them “commuter routes”, which makes sense, since they only run during peak (and only peak-direction). The term “express” is kind of weird, given that they are a lot less express than the routes they are replacing. I kind of get how they wanted to change things up (since they don’t go to Seattle anymore) but the number changes (to 900) seem to accomplish that.
Anyway, the point being, terms like “express” ultimately don’t mean anything.
“ Anyway, the point being, terms like “express” ultimately don’t mean anything.”
That’s especially true for our region.
Other systems sometimes use “limited” for arterial routes that skip stops (instead of “express”) but we don’t.
During the morning commute hours, Sounder N makes the Everett to Seattle trip in an hour. Route 510 is scheduled for 1:15, and 512 to Link takes 1:37.
I don’t see any hope in any of the plans that would make the buses competitive with Sounder N.
I do. Change the HOV-2 lanes to HOV-3 lanes. Suddenly the buses are much faster.
We have to wait for the state to agree to HOV-3 on I-5. We’ve been waiting twenty years. So it’s not a realistic alternative until the state changes its policy.
And even then HOV-3 performance depends on enforcement, which is boring for the cops.
We have to wait for the state to agree to HOV-3 on I-5. We’ve been waiting twenty years. So it’s not a realistic alternative until the state changes its policy.
How long did we wait for a subway line from the UW to Downtown Seattle? Fifty years? One hundred? You are saying we can built a multi-billion dollar subway line, but changing HOV-2 to HOV-3 is impossible? That is ridiculous.
And even then HOV-3 performance depends on enforcement, which is boring for the cops.
They are doing a good enough job on 520. There is little to no congestion there.
“You are saying we can built a multi-billion dollar subway line, but changing HOV-2 to HOV-3 is impossible?”
The difference is we can decide ourselves whether to build a multi-billion dollar subway line. With HOV-3 we have to convince other people living in more car-oriented suburban/rural areas to approve it.
Why were we considering a 45th line? Partly because it was easier to get those passed than to convert street parking or GP lanes to transit-priority lanes. With lane conversions, a few loud businesses complain about losing customers and spook the politicians. With a billion-dollar underground line, nobody cares because it doesn’t affect GP/parking lanes.
King County Water Taxis are the last service in the Puget Pass family charging a higher ORCA LIFT (low income) fare than its RRFP (seniors and disability) fare.
Even after $1 in credit for riding transit to the Colman Ferry Docks, the upcharge for an ORCA LIFT rider to Vashon is $3.50. The upcharge for an RRFP rider is $2. For a regular rider with $3 credit from a Link ride, the upcharge will be $3.75.
There really ought to be a mutually beneficial arrangement for private railroads allowing passengers trains on their track, so there is a financial incentive with financial benefits increasing with the number of trains allowed per day… property tax abatements, tax credits, etc. There’s gotta be other options that government can provide other than paying through the nose.
For routes not along the shore, the railroad companies have been given plenty of ROW to add more tracks. Indeed, that has been happening along the S Line.
Or we could just nationalize the railroads.
+1. Even the threat might generate more introspection and considerations beyond pure profit. Monopolies are gross.
Ideally, I’d have the government build and nationalize its own passenger railway system. The freight companies can keep their current tracks, with the option to sell some to the USDOT.
Expensive as hell and a hard political sell, so it won’t happen in our lifetimes, but that’s what my line of thinking is.
Yes, we need to catch up to the average of peer countries’ mobility and efficiency or it’s a drag on our economy and resilience.
It’s a fundamental institutional dilemma that is unique to the US and Canada. Most other developed countries build and own and manage the tracks — and set priorities and fees for private companies to use them.
Our different situation is traceable back to the 1800’s and the legislative enabling of private railroads to connect the US. So it’s a messy historical situation that isn’t easily resolvable.
Every other passenger mode network — highways, airways, waterways — is almost fully controlled by the public in the US (with occasional exceptions).
Every other mode of transport is private vehicles on public infrastructure/terminals (ports). It’s a unique issue with railroads, you can’t really separate the operator from the infrastructure owner by the nature of railroads… You get Amtrak model public on private or UK model private on public, neither of which work very well. Its either you get government as both operator and infrastructure owner (which carries with it lots of politics and is very political) or you get private company as operator and infrastructure owner. Of course having a private company as operator and infrastructure owner puts it at competitive disadvantage against other modes that have the government providing the infrastructure (highways, airports, seaports) and by its nature is a natural monopoly. Despite all the antigovernment rhetoric in the US, people seem to prefer the government have a monopoly than private enterprise.
“Our different situation is traceable back to the 1800’s and the legislative enabling of private railroads to connect the US.”
No. Other countries started with private operators as well. As an example, the UK started as private, went to nationalization in the early 20th century, and went to the private profit / public expense model in the 1980s.
The USA had nationalization twice: US Civil War and World War I.
I don’t want the government to own freight railways with toxic chemicals riding on them. You’ll get a penny-pinching administration or legislature and maintenance of way goes to crap. Given the enormous dynamic loads that a mile-long modern freight train unleashes on the track structure, four years of deferred maintenance will put trains on the ground. Bank on it.
It’s better to have the track structure owned by the railroads, except for passenger trains which are much less onerous, with the Damocletian Sword of lawsuits with punitive damages hanging over the rails’ heads.
“I don’t want the government to own freight railways with toxic chemicals riding on them.”
Because private railroads are more diligent about safety and infrastructure investment. Oh wait.
“the Damocletian Sword of lawsuits with punitive damages hanging over the rails’ heads.”
Lawsuits can take years and are uncertain. The outcome depends on who the judges are and how they feel that day. Republicans has gotten enough supreme court judges and other federal judges that they’re starting to gut environmental and safety standards, and that will go into higher gear if they get their way in November. They may even pass indemnity laws to block lawsuits.
It is a mixed bag (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_nationalisation). Countries go back and forth. It isn’t all or nothing, either. The US created Conrail out of a bunch of failed railroads (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrail). Conrail was eventually sold to investors. In the meantime, many of the tracks were sold to states (and local transit agencies or Amtrak) for passenger rail service. This explains why so many commuter rail lines in the Northeast are owned by public agencies. The countries biggest commuter rail line (the Long Island Railroad) was purchased by MTA after it was having trouble as well. The company was first subsidized by MTA, but then they just bought them outright.
“Our different situation is traceable back to the 1800’s and the legislative enabling of private railroads to connect the US.”
In other words, Congress didn’t want to pay for railroads so they left the communities at the mercy of self-serving companies. That’s the problem of privatization: save a little up front, but then it never really does what the public needs and charges them a lot of money.
“There’s gotta be other options that government can provide other than paying through the nose.”
How?
On a main line railroad, each freight car represents approximately $5,000+ in revenue. If you put a passenger train in place of a freight train and the line is at capacity, you’re blocking $500,000+ in revenue.
Anything you offer for compensation is going to have to be expensive.
Exactly
Maybe it’s seeing railroads as a public benefit particularly for passenger rail but also freight (they aren’t destroying the highway) and partially or fully funding improvements… the PDX-SEA Cascades model.
Why NYC’s Grand Central is So Hard to Build Around
https://youtu.be/7t_u1EgFTUw
And then there were none… Gig car share shutting down at the end of the year
Think of it this way: Lyft/Uber make much more efficient use of vehicles than carshare does.
Except, Uber/Lyft is not really a replacement of carshare because you can’t take the vehicles outside of the city – at least not at reasonable cost. With a carshare vehicle, you can rent it for a day and drive it to Mt. Rainier and back.
Of course, some would say that this is what Zipcar is for. But, I have personally found free-floating carshare to be way more convenient to use than Zipcar, even if the prices were about the same. The reason starts from the fact that Zipcar is heavily concentrated in the city’s most densest neighborhoods and has either skeletal service (e.g. just one car for an entire neighborhood) or no service at all in other parts of the city. While, the free-floating carshare vehicles tend to be scattered throughout the whole city, so nearly anywhere with street parking, there’s a vehicle nearby, available. And, even if you do need to travel a bit to pick up the car, you can still return the car right in front of your house, avoiding the need to repeat that travel on the return trip.
All this is hugely important, as needing to take public transportation to pick up a car – and a second time to return the car – makes the car rental process far more of a hassle than having a car within walking distance (although, if you are fortunate enough to live right next to a Link station, Link can help with this somewhat). And, the more hassle it is to pick up a rental car, the less often you need to use one before the time/money calculations start to favor owning/leasing your own car instead. And, once you have your own car, and the car payments/insurance/etc. become sunk costs, then the marginal cost of driving it on any given trip (especially short trips) becomes so trivial (quite often, cheaper than bus fare), so you end up driving the car for every trip that doesn’t incur parking costs, whether the car is needed or not.
Like it or not, if you want to have affluent people riding transit, not just poor people, a city needs quick and easy access to rental cars, ideally, with picking up and returning the rental car being no more hassle than parking a personally-owned car on the street. Gig offers this, Uber doesn’t, Zipcar doesn’t.
Of course, it’s also true that the really ideal carshare vehicle would deadhead autonomously to where the customer wants to be picked up, while still allowing the customer to manually drive the car outside the geographic bounds of the autonomous driving-approved area. This would allow rental vehicles based on fixed locations to offer a service more convenient than Gig cars offer today.
Such a service would also be much easier to electrify than traditional free floating carshare, which would either require the customer to use public chargers like gas stations (and pay the hourly rate while the car charges), or for paid staff members to shuttle cars to and from charging stations (probably cost-prohibitive).
The “car share” companies are basically just rental car companies, just like Uber/Lyft are just taxi-cabs. The difference is that rental car companies quickly adjusted to what car share companies offer. You can rent hourly. They can pick you up. Thus they don’t offer much more.
There is also a fundamental issue when it comes to cars. They are not easy to park. Thus car share companies are forced to operate in niche markets. It doesn’t work in really dense areas (it is too hard to park). They don’t work in really sprawling areas (it is too hard to find a car). At some point it just doesn’t work and becomes just another rental car company.
In contrast, it is easy to park a bike. In a really crowded environment you want docks, but they don’t take up that much land. Likewise, bikes take up less road space. This is why bike share remains a good option for cities, especially if they do it right (we haven’t).
Uber and Lyft not only offer easy-to-use apps (that traditional taxicab companies were slow to adopt) but they also have a different labor pool. They basically worked around the regulations involving traditional taxicabs (in every respect) including how they pay their workers. That sort of thing doesn’t apply to car shares.
I agree with Ross that Uber/Lyft have the advantage over car share/rental companies in that the user does not have to park in an urban area, and the Uber/Lyft driver does the driving if someone has been drinking plus knows the route. Plus as asdf2 notes Uber/Lyft have no first/last mile access. This can make a big difference at an airport.
Car share/rentals make more sense if the trip is longer or outside an urban area, like into the mountains. Plus payment apps now let riders of Uber/Lyft share the cost if there is more than one rider. Car rental companies allow the renter to drop the car off at the destination for a fee.
I don’t think bikes and Uber/Lyft are competing for the same customers. The explosion in Uber/Lyft has not reduced bike usage. Uber/Lyft competes with rental cars and walking/transit in the urban zone. Just two different customers. One issue with bikes is they are easily stolen, and to deal with steep terrain like in Seattle one really needs an E-bike which are often too expensive to leave chained to a bike dock outside. Plus bikes can’t be ridden far.
Transportation is like water: it flows to the lowest point in the easiest direction, depending on how much the user can spend. For a car driver, that means the cost of parking which is available in Seattle if willing to pay for it. For transit it is the cost of the fare and extra time and walking. For Uber/Lyft it is the cost of the trip divided by the number of riders, which as Ross notes rules out very long trips. For a car share or rental the disadvantage is parking ($40/night in San Francisco these days) plus the driver must do the driving but the advantage is having your own car in a city you probably don’t live in and the ability to drive long distances for the rental fee (which can be very reasonable if one shops or uses Costco).
Planners try to advantage or disadvantage different modes but it rarely works. The market is too strong. There is a reason there are so many modes and we tend to use them all in an urban setting. In my opinion the car share that once was all the rage is the least effective mode.
I don’t think bikes and Uber/Lyft are competing for the same customers.
To be clear, I wrote about bike share. Issues such as the bike being stolen don’t exist in that context. I wouldn’t say that Uber/Lyft are in direct competition with bike share (unlike traditional taxicab companies) but occasionally they compete. Both can complement transit, but bike share is especially well suited for that. Transit typically has a “last-mile” problem that bike share eliminates. For example let’s say I am trying to get from Seattle U. to Gas Works. One option is Uber/Lyft. Another is to use transit. But that means:
1) Taking a bus or streetcar to Capitol Hill Station.
2) Taking Link to the U-District.
3) Riding the 31/32 over to Gas Works.
Bikeshare can make steps 1 and 3 much faster. It is probably still faster overall to take Uber/Lyft, but if we had a decent bike share system, using Link + bike share would be much cheaper and not much slower.
Does Zipcar still exist in Seattle? My roommate and I used to use it for Costco runs, taking electronic recycling to Re-PC, spending the weekend in Aberdeen/Ocean Shores, but I haven’t seen its cars or logos for a decade. We thought it was gone and have been using U-Haul or regular car rentals instead. Zipcar was more convenient because the parking space was in the neighborhood (an on-street space or in an office/apartment building), and you could book it for a couple hours instead of the whole day.
I’ve hesitated to use leave-anywhere services because you could take it to a store and by the time you come out it’s gone and there’s no other one available and you have things you can’t carry.
Understood Ross. I would only note bike shares are not cheap, and with a drop charge using a bike share on both ends of a transit trip can add up although one can apply for a discounted bike/scooter charge (plus you need to carry your own helmet). Here is the city’s dashboard for bike/scooter share use. Not surprisingly, use increases during nicer weather with scooter use being much higher than shared bike use, and fairly consistent numbers since 2022 Scooter and Bike Share – Data and Permit Information – Transportation | seattle.gov. According to the dashboard shared car use is 686 trips/day so there must be shared car use companies operating in Seattle.
“Does Zipcar still exist in Seattle?”
I did a search to see if there were any, and the web site shows a bunch available. I’m not a member, so it might not be completely transparent to me.
I would only note bike shares are not cheap, and with a drop charge using a bike share on both ends of a transit trip can add up although one can apply for a discounted bike/scooter charge (plus you need to carry your own helmet).
You mean in Seattle. That is because Seattle has a really bad bike share system. In other cities it is much cheaper. For example in Boston it is less than $12 a month (if you sign up for a year) and you have 45 minutes to complete your ride. In Boston it is owned by the city (and surrounding suburbs) whereas in Seattle we basically just abandoned the idea, in hopes the market would provide. The market provided something very expensive that relatively few people use. Oops.
Oh, and Seattle doesn’t have a helmet law anymore (not that carrying a helmet is difficult).
Car Share fills a niche between transit and rental cars for car free or car light. It’s for trips that are too awkward (i.e. carrying heavy and bulky items) or difficult to get to in a reasonable time frame for transit but also is shorter than a typical car rental (i.e. half day or day but less than overnight). I find some good use cases are like going to the hardware store for a DIY project, furniture shopping (IKEA), bulk buying (Costco), doctor’s appointment when your SO or roommate has the car for work, etc.
I found Gig really good going from Capitol Hill to Mt Baker Station to catch the first Link train of the morning to the airport (for the earliest flights). Unfortunately the 48 is terribly timed but what do you expect for 3:30 in the morning.
If one is willing to go to the airport, car rentals can be reasonable from the giant car rental center there but goes by daily rates, can get hit with high season rates in summer, and much more time consuming to travel there and pick up a car. At least after you drop off the car can exit out the backdoor of the rental car center and walk a short distance to TIBS.
“The market provided something very expensive that relatively few people use.”
Just like our railroads discussion.
My experience has been that carshare doesn’t really work well for shopping trips – that either Uber/Lyft, or simply paying the store to deliver the merchandise is nearly always the cheaper option. Where carshare works better is for all-day trips to places outside the city, trips where there is really no other good option.
When those trips do happen, the ease in picking up the car and returning it is paramount. This means not only keeping the travel time to the car’s pick up/return location to a minimum, it also means not having to wait in line behind a bunch of other customers to get keys and fill out paperwork. The airport is just not good in this regard – it’s a full hour, each way, by bus/train from most of the city, plus the overhead of the shuttlebus, plus a substantial risk of having to wait in line. Ideally, the car should be close enough to fall within walking distance, or at least a short hop on Link.
Ultimately, I think where the rental car industry is eventually going to be headed, is adding autonomous driving to their fleet and having the cars drive themselves to where the customer wants to be picked up. Note that this is much more convenient than having a robotaxi transport the customer to the rental car office, as the customer is spared from having to make an extra trip altogether that exists only for the rental company’s convenience. Of course, even if the cars drive autonomous to pick up the customer, the customer still has the ability to manually drive the car, so the customer isn’t geographically bound to cities that the car has been trained to drive autonomously in. Thus, your trip to Mt. Rainier takes the form of the car driving empty to your home, you get in, car drives itself to the edge of the autonomous driving area, you take over and drive the car the rest of the way, then repeat everything in reverse for the trip back. Simple and easy.
Unfortunately, it will be quite some time before this happens, though.
Downtown Seattle has car rental offices; you don’t have to go to the airport to get one.
Downtown Seattle has car rental offices; you don’t have to go to the airport to get one.
Not just downtown or the airport either. They are scattered all over Seattle. There is an Enterprise Rental just down the street from me on Lake City Way. They will also pick you up. It is quite convenient. That is the main reason why car sharing has struggled — the rental car agencies basically just grew into their space.
It looks like Enterprise has eight locations just inside the city limits of Seattle.
Of these, it looks like a few are within walking distance (say less than 1/3 of a mile) of Link stations at Mt Baker, Capitol Hill, Westlake and Roosevelt. Most locations are on a high frequency bus route.
There is also a Budget/ Avis rental car location very close to SODO Link, and many around Downtown.
The major issue is their hours of operation. At some point, I can see that being remedied. Most locations already allow for drop off after hours.
GIG which is owned by AAA will end operations in Seattle and San Francisco in December 2024 the company just announced, which are the last two cities it operates in. GIG Car Share to permanently end services in Bay Area, Seattle | KRON4.
According to the article, “The company listed various reasons for ending its operations, including “decreased demand, rising operational costs, and changes in consumer consuming patterns.”
I agree with those who posted rental cars adapted with drop off and pick up service and are a better option if travelling outside the city, and many frequent travelers belong to frequent rental car company clubs with easy apps that eliminate the paperwork and wait of renting.
But in my opinion the high cost and hassle of parking in an urban area, whether at a hotel or on the street or in a garage, plus driving strange roads in congestion, made Uber/Lyft a much better option because you don’t have to drive, park, get picked up or dropped off (and getting a rental car off site at the airport is a major pain unless you plan to have it for several days), the driver knows the city, and the difference in cost is minimal.
When you get out of an Uber/Lyft you never think about the car again, and you are picked up (without the valet wait at a hotel) and dropped off right in front of your departure and destination which is important if safety is a concern, and you qualify for HOV.
Seattle and San Francisco are similar in that each is quite hilly so options like walking and biking are often not realistic, plus Seattle has such little urban density walking it is unrewarding, for example going from one urban oasis like Capitol Hill to another lesser oasis like Ballard. As someone who once lived in San Francisco, Uber/Lyft transformed the city because taxi medallions were artificially restricted so it was difficult and a long wait to get a smelly cab so you didn’t travel around the city as much. After Uber you would spend the evening Uber going from one part of the city to the next which really opened up all parts of SF you never used to go to.
I live in Belltown and there is so much walking just to go from one establishment in Belltown to the next. So that leaves Uber/Lyft, or a rental car, car share, or transit, and Link misses a lot of the most vibrant parts of the city (like Belltown) and the weather and dark winters are also factors.
In the end, the market sorts these things out. People are traveling more than ever and need to get around. Some modes win some lose. Personally I wish I lived closer to a Link station (and I avoid walking to the Westlake station) but about the only areas it goes I would go is Capitol Hill and the airport.
“Not just downtown or the airport either. They are scattered all over Seattle.”
True, but non-airport locations tend to have limited hours, with many locations closed Sundays and holidays, and only open for half-days on Saturdays. So, with a traditional rental car company, a car trip on a Sunday after required paying for the car for two days, even though the trip itself is only one day. Worse, if you’re busy during the limited hours the place is open Saturday morning, you now have to rent the car for three days (Friday->Monday). Plus, if you don’t already own a car, you have to buy insurance from the rental company for each day. For reasons like this, carshare often ends up cheaper, in spite of the daily sticker rate being higher – you need the car for one day, you only have to pay for the car for one day, and no more. Neighborhood rental car locations also tend to have relatively small fleets, which puts them at relatively high risk of being sold out if you want a car for a high-demand holiday weekend.
That’s not to say I haven’t used the traditional car rental model. In Kirkland, for instance, Gig/Zipcar/etc. never operated there, leaving Enterprise as literally the only rental car game in town. Pre-pandemic, I was even able to get some decent rates, although being required to drive through Friday evening rush hour to pick up a car for a Saturday was definitely a drag. Post-pandemic, when they started jacking up the prices and often ended up sold out weeks in advance, I finally broke down and bought my own car, as the rental car thing just wasn’t working. It’s definitely more expensive per year than what I was paying before, but at least, when I do want to drive somewhere, the hassle factor in picking up the car and returning it is reduced to zero.
Given the 2.5 year East Link delay, does the contractor have to compensate for the loss of ridership revenue as well as the cost of doing all the other things like running Route 515 until the 2 line gets to Seattle?
No, because fares do not cover the cost of operations.
I wasn’t aware that the North Sounder easement only extended until 2030; I had assumed that it was a perpetual easement. Doing some searching, I haven’t been able to locate any information about the easements on the south line.
Does anyone know if the south line easements also have an expiration date?
There’s been confusion in the comments section over which easements expire in 2030 if any. Some say the North easements expire in 2030 but the South eastments don’t; others say the South easements expire in 2030 but the North easements don’t. I thought all Sounder easements were perpetual forever. So somebody would need to find a definitive source for us to be sure what the situation is.
It seems like easements with an expiration is basically like handing BNSF a loaded gun. Sound Transit would have absolutely no leverage at renewal.
Per this Motion, ST purchased perpetual easements for Sounder North: https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/FinalRecords/2003/Motion%20M2003-135.pdf
This Motion indicates ST purchased perpetual easements for Sounder South, as well: https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/FinalRecords/2012/Resolution%20R2012-12.pdf
The first round (2000) of South Sounder trips were not permanent. All of the subsequent trips are permanent easements.
I’m not sure, but the “North Sounder expires in 2030” might be the Operations & Service agreement. Distinct from the easements, ST pays BNSF to actually staff and operate the trains, and that agreement would be time limited.
This contradicts the Urbanist article:
The four existing easements that Sound Transit purchased from BNSF in 2003 cost $258 million, a price that was dramatically higher than the $65 million had been assumed when Sounder North was promised to voters in 1996. That existing agreement is set to expire in 2030, which may prompt another round of discussions about the future of Sounder service in Snohomish County.
The documents Nathan referenced are quite clear cut. I have no idea why Ryan Packer wrote what he did. Maybe he has a different source. It is confusing to say the least.
Perhaps the quadruping of the estimated price has something to do with the agreement to make the slots permanent? The “Rule of 72” says that at twenty-eight years any investment has depreciated to no value. Even an “investment” in land, which is obviously still there after three decades, is “fully depreciated”. It has to do with the “time-value of money”.
If ST terminates Sounder North, perhaps BNSF might be interested in buying back the lease rights.
Anyone have suggestions for a place near-ish to Tacoma Dome Station open on Sunday evenings with outdoor dining?
Arriving on Amtrak a bit before 5 pm, and need to be at SeaTac by 7:30, so only have an hour or so layover in Tacoma.
Pretty slim pickings by the Dome from what I recall, probably worse on a Sunday evening. If careful with time and poor frequencies, venture north on the Link T line into the heart of Downtown.
Thanks. I’ll have to see how much time my Amtrak arrival allows. It looks like there’s a gyros place a block away, that might be good. Very mixed reviews.
By the way, I’m going to Tacoma because it’s $20 more if I extend the trip to Seattle or Tukwila. Apparently people are using Cascades between Tacoma and Seattle on days Sounder isn’t running, reflected in the ticket price.
Portland – Mt Vernon shows as completely sold out.
Berliner, if you like German style beer and brats. Good fries. The Mexican place is okay in Freighthouse Square. Alfreds is solid for breakfast, though havent done dinner. I kinda like Cocos but it isn’t for everyone. Many more options if you had slightly more time.
Outdoors – Berliner has a small porch, and cocos has a patio.
If you’re not staying in Tacoma but transferring to ST Express to Seattle, then you might just want to wait an extra hour to eat, since there are a lot more choices in Seattle. If I arrived at Tacoma Dome and wanted to eat there, my first thought would be Freighthouse Square, but I don’t know if it’s open Sunday evenings, and you said outdoors.
If you have time, there are more options in downtown Tacoma and you can try out the streetcar.
“If you’re not staying in Tacoma but transferring to ST Express to Seattle, then you might just want to wait an extra hour to eat, since there are a lot more choices in Seattle.”
I’m actually headed to the San Juans, but Mt Vernon doesn’t have anywhere to spend the night close to the station.
So, I’m taking the Airporter from SeaTac to Anacortes and spending the night there, so I can get one of the morning ferries.
So, I’m heading out of Tacoma on the 574 to meet the Airporter.
https://fo-latam.ttinteractive.com/Zenith/FrontOffice/(S(430de9e4cb7a40dc83917638f8382a65))/kenmoreair/en-US/BookingEngine/SearchResult?IdPos=1&OriginAirportCode=TRP&DestinationAirportCode=FBS&OutboundDate=2024-07-26&TravelerTypes[0].Key=AD&TravelerTypes[0].Value=1&TravelerTypes[1].Key=CHD&TravelerTypes[1].Value=0&TravelerTypes[2].Key=INF&TravelerTypes[2].Value=0&TravelerTypes[3].Key=UM&TravelerTypes[3].Value=0&Flexible=true&Currency=USD
If money is no object, $199 flight from Tacoma to Friday Harbor, leaving twice a day. Takes less than an hour.
Dustys hideaway is just up the hill in Mcakinley and has great food and outdoor space, but you would miss the 574.
I suppose another option would be to get a 574 upon arrival at Tacoma, and find somewhere near the airport. I’d wind up with about an hour there. There’s even less there than near Tacoma Dome though. A 13 Coins across the street and a few blocks away, and a place up by the car rental edifice.
There’s a Denny’s within walking distance of SeaTac Link station (south of it). And restaurants along RapidRide A between Federal Way and SeaTac stations.
The ST Board will need to consider an important detail for the fare system before The Great Conjunction arrives in 2025 or so:
Will riders transferring between the 1 and 2 Lines need to tap at ID/C Station?
If yes, ST may need to install a bunch more ORCA readers there.
I don’t see why they would. That would be silly. It doesn’t work that way now. Let’s say I take the train up to Lynnwood after it opens. I want to check out the stations, so I get out at each one and just take the next train. Do I have to tap? No. I’ve already paid.
I am mostly sure that tapping an Orca card to begin a trip is more like getting admission to the system for a period of time (generally two hours) for buses or Link. If you tap again on another mode it doesn’t matter if you are within the two hours.
What I don’t know is what happens if you tap off and on again within the first hour.
I also don’t know if the fare checking software merely records if your card is active, or they also check to see if you are on a valid train or going in a valid direction. I believe that it’s the former — so I would advise not tapping anything while transferring. Introducing a tap-on/ tap-off issue could be a real problem.
Keep in mind that it will be possible to transfer from SeaTac to Bellevue using a center platform at Capitol Hill with no Orca readers in sight. While it’s out of the way to do that, I would think that the system has to let you do it.
A final note: going from Federal Way to Downtown Redmond on Link will require an estimated 88 minutes of riding. Adding about 15 minutes as a maximum transfer effort and wait, it gets to 103 minutes. If the next tap is a connecting bus (after a wait of up to 30 minutes) or if the previous tap is a connecting bus, it easily can exceed the 120 minutes allowed. In that case, the system will charge you for two trips. I suspect that at least a 2.5 hour allowance will someday be proposed if not 3.
I agree, but worth noting: By the time East Link crosses the water, there will be no more “tapping off”. Fares will be $3.00 (for every trip).
“What I don’t know is what happens if you tap off and on again within the first hour.”
The readers may stop processing tapoffs. It would be confusing if the readers do something different than ST says. If somebody taps to transfer and it’s processed as a tapoff, then they’d tell the fare inspector that and ST would get a lot of complaints.
In other cities with flat fares, the exit turnstyles are always open; the equivalent of not tapping out. I can’t think of any tap-to-transfer within a fare-paid zone. St Petersburg has turnstyles to access a transfer platform, and they may have required a token decades ago, but when I were there they were just always open. But all these systems with flat fares are smaller than Link’s full buildout, so the issue of getting a lot of long-distance service for a flat fare and no record of your transfer doesn’t come up.
The closest to tap-to-transfer between subway lines I can think of is whatever London is doing with Oyster cards. I think there’s a special-color reader you tap to indicate your transfer is within a fare zone vs to another zone, or vice-versa, but Oyster didn’t exist when I was there (I used unlimited weekly Travelcard passes) so I haven’t experienced it.
The readers may stop processing tapoffs.
That is my guess. The other guess is that it processes tap offs, but only from the same station, and only within a few minutes of the tap on. That way someone can “unpay” (if they change their mind).
But even then there is a drawback to this. If it is a really big station (e. g. Westlake) you may not remember if you’ve tapped on. I transferred from the monorail and initially started down the wrong escalator then realized I needed to go back up, and then wondered if I had tapped already. I guess as long as the kiosk gives you a signal then it is OK.
“The other guess is that it processes tap offs, but only from the same station, and only within a few minutes of the tap on. That way someone can “unpay” (if they change their mind).”
That’s what the old ORCA system had that the new one doesn’t. It used to be that if you tap again at the same station within ten minutes, it canceled the trip. If you tapped a third time, it continued the original trip.
Now it just says “You tapped twice” and ignores the second one. Except there was a report of one person where it canceled their tapin without telling them.
“The group supporting Seattle’s social housing developer, voted into existence in 2023, filed an initiative Tuesday to enact a payroll tax on businesses in the city with employees making over $1 million. If successful, the tax could raise as much as $50 million a year to go toward the acquisition and construction of affordable housing”.
Seattle’s social housing developer proposes payroll tax on ‘excess earners’ | The Seattle Times
This initiative has gathered enough signatures it will be on the same ballot as the $1.55 billion transportation levy the Seattle Times has recommended voters reject due to the size and vagueness of the levy projects (along with initiatives to repeal the carbon tax, tax on long term capital gains, long term healthcare tax, and recent legislation allowing PSE to phase out natural gas and charge more to fund green electrical energy production). Plus a presidential and governor election.
My assumption was Mayor Harrell had basically shut down this group when he proposed the $956 million housing levy last year that passed. Apparently not. I would have to think this will benefit Bellevue to some degree. Amazon is up to 11,000 employees in Bellevue, none of which are new hires.
The three levies when combined will add almost $1000/year to the average priced home in Seattle in property taxes, and will increase rents as well. Is anyone concerned this housing levy could jeopardize the transportation levy?
The new $1 million payroll tax on the ballot should have almost nothing to do with the transportation levy. It’s only a tax on extremely high earners.
The previously passed housing levy might have an effect, but I doubt it will sink the transportation levy, which seems to have very high support. If any tax is getting repealed I think the long term healthcare one might.
Cool, so it funds only 60 units of “affordable” housing a year benefiting only 60 households (but more importantly: the affordable housing industrial complex) while p’ssing off the large employers in Seattle and encourages them to shift jobs to the suburbs.
poncho: $50mil per year is more equivalent to 100 units per year, based on the average cost of affordable housing development in the ball park of 500k per unit. I would rather loosen the restrictions on market rate housing and subsidize that as it is built out (and let it become naturally affordable in 20 years), but this is a decent start.
“so it funds only 60 units of “affordable” housing a year benefiting only 60 households”
It’s probably more than 60, but you have to start somewhere. The alternative is to do nothing, and then our situation will keep getting worse.
” (but more importantly: the affordable housing industrial complex)”
You don’t care about housing people, but only about blocking government programs? I think housing people is more important than whether it also spawns city jobs or developer profits as a side effect.
However, I’m not sure whether I’ll vote for it because of the total cost and cost per unit. Still, if we don’t do that, then we need to do something else, so what would we do?
Amazon’s hissy fit and rechanneling growth to Bellevue was just ideological posturing. Bezos has long been anti-tax. Large corporations that try to get subsidizies, or get out of paying a fair share of the community’s wholistic needs (which includes housing and education that ultimately benefits its workforce), or offer a token small donation to housing that’s not enough to solve the problem, aren’t being responsible citizens; they’re trying to get everyone else to pay so that they don’t have to.
It’s not necessarily 60 new units… it’s 60 units either constructed OR (and that’s a big “OR”) “acquired.” So, the social housing folks could buy a 60 unit building and turn them all into affordable units which doesn’t actually create new units, it just re-allocates existing units.
There is a lot of reasons to be skeptical of the whole social housing group. Giving them the benefit of the doubt because “we have to start somewhere” is not good policy or process.
The key to this levy is without it the original promoters of I-135 will lose their high paying jobs. Mayor Harrell had the city contribute something like $500,000 for the first year to fund three staff positions, but $50 million/year will mean long term employment security, the main goal of most housing groups.
With a levy there are no pesky oversight or performance requirements either that have resulted in Seattle withholding funding from the King Co. Regional Housing Agency due to complete ineptness. The $50 million will roll in year in and year out no matter how many housing units are created, independent of oversight and outside normal government, and the people running the show won’t be an actual agency like SDOT. They are total amateurs.
I am glad this housing is going in Seattle and Seattleites are paying for it, in addition to the $970 million housing levy which Harrell claimed would be in lieu of this levy. Maybe the levy money can be used to convert some of the vacant county/city buildings into affordable and supportive housing in anticipation of CID N/S.
I am sure Bellevue will appreciate the millionaires who leave Seattle, which is very easy to do these days with most millionaires working from home full or part time. I could see an altruistic Seattle millionaire thinking, all right, I will pay even more in taxes because it is going to professionals who will spend the money wisely, but these are grifters.
Only in Seattle, where only “millionaires” will fund an unqualified group to the tune of $50 million/year to build not 100 $500,000/unit “affordable housing” but no housing. As noted above they will buy some buildings displacing low income working people because those buildings are the last of the market rate affordable housing. Based on a tax on income that can move anywhere unlike property taxes.
No wonder Seattle is becoming a place where you either have so much money nothing matters or you have to leave.
“the social housing folks could buy a 60 unit building and turn them all into affordable units which doesn’t actually create new units”
That’s still 60 more affordable units than we had before. Who cares if they’re new or not? While it may be a net loss of market-rate housing, it’s not enough to raise market-rate rents. It may be a lost opportunity for more density on the lot, but that’s all theoretical and we have no idea which building it might acquire, or whether it’s a dreaded 2-story in a 7-story zone. Even if it does acquire a 2-story building and uses it in the medium term, that doesn’t preclude later replacing it with a 7-story building.
“There is a lot of reasons to be skeptical of the whole social housing group.”
“The key to this levy is without it the original promoters of I-135 will lose their high paying jobs.”
Enough with the conspiracy theories. You could say that about all government agencies and programs (and people do), but without them we couldn’t get anything done. The US has less effective government than Europe/Canada/Australia/New Zealand because of its paranoia about taxes and highly-paid bureaucrats, and the southeastern states have even less effective government because they’re more paranoid.
The primary issues, again, are the total cost of the levy, the cost per unit, and what to do if we don’t do this. Those are the things worth debating. If you want to shut down the agency without even suggesting an alternative that would create at least as much housing, that sounds irresponsible. Housing insecurity and homelessness is creeping up the wage level, and we must do something about it.
The social housing group is an attempt to create a European level of public housing. (Vienna is 33% if I recall, and growing fast enough to serve everyone in need.) That’s the most effective suggestion of anything I’ve heard. This tiny step would be a drop in the bucket, but it’s a start, and we can improve on it later. Otherwise we’re still stuck at square zero.
If the anti-cap-and-trade initiative passes, would free youth fares go away?
Climate change is fueling a home insurance problem, leading to a mortgage problem, leading to a housing problem:
https://www.ciel.org/climate-crisis-domino-effect/?amp=1