Midweek Roundup – Open Thread 60

156 Replies to “Midweek Roundup – Open Thread 60”

1. I hardly ever visit this website any more.
   When it started years ago it was one with different, even contentious opinions at times.
   Now it feels more like one where a bunch of old-timers are ‘chewing the fat’…

   1. Many frequent (and infrequent) writers left during the pandemic, so it’s been slow work rebuilding a cohort of writers – but as we’re seeing this week, WL has stepped up, as well as some others (like me!)

      Anyone who is interested in lending their voice to the blog is welcome to reach out to the contact email!

   2. In the teens Twitter started to turn the transit & urbanism blogosphere into a department of Progressive Dot Org. 2020 finished the job. Toe the line or get ratioed. People with occasionally-contrary opinions left and found something better to do with their free time.

      If Twitter continues its slide, and nothing replaces it as the Grand Central Station of Internet mobs, things might eventually get better, but I wouldn’t hold your breath.

   3. Fortunately there’s a comments section on STB, where people can share their thoughts on the post and contribute to the conversation. There is quite a bit of varying views on STB in my opinion particularly on transit solutions. There needs to be a health conversation on transit and urbanism and understanding of varying viewpoints. I would encourage you to leave comments and share your perspective.

      There are similar blogs like The Urbanist that have zero interest in the opinion of readers and have a top down approach that tell its readers what to think. I’ve tuned them out since they aren’t interested in a dialogue or varying viewpoints.

      1. We’re the unofficial comment section for Urbanist articles now. :)

         I think The Urbanist eliminated comments due to the quantity of rule-violating ones and the time it takes to moderate them. STB has been lucky to not have that many of those. I think that’s because people like myself come from the 1990s internet era where it was more college students and researchers discussing serious topics in a friendly manner, and those who didn’t experience that also want to talk about transit policy and listen to others’ views on it, and all those high-quality comments crowd out the opportunity for knee-jerk reactions/flames to take hold.

2. New CT route 117 (Mukilteo Ferry Dock to Lynnwood Station) is practically an express route. I’m note sure why it was not just called CT 908.

   There will be a couple all-day, every-day, two-way CT express routes, 909 Moutlake Terrace Station to Edmonds Ferry Dock, and 905 Stanwood to Lynnwood Station.

   The more-circuitous 909 feels like it was numbered that way to ensure votes for eliminating commuter fares. Having the more direct, but longer, 117 not formally be called an express route is the foil that backs up my conspiracy hypothesis.

   I’m totally down with getting rid of the CT express fares. I just think it should have been part of a more balanced package that could have included CT joining the Subsidized Annual Pass program, like Sound Transit and Everett Transit have done.

   Regardless, I will go out on a limb and predict CT 117 will be renumbered to 908 in the near future.

   1. Why are Stanwood and Marysville getting all-day expresses when other cities aren’t? It seems like Stanwood is getting disproportionate service for its size.

      1. Stanwood has an Amtrak stop. Marysville has a couple freeway flyer stops that are easily and quickly served along the way.

         All the CT 900-series routes and ST Express routes that happen to go by South Everett Freeway P&R will serve it, along with CT 201/202.

         I’m less interested in how Stanwood and Marysville deserve regional connectivity, and more interested in how CT 201/202 and 905 could be combined with ST Express 510/512 to create better frequency and connectivity for all the riders.

      2. I’m less interested in how Stanwood and Marysville deserve regional connectivity, and more interested in how CT 201/202 and 905 could be combined with ST Express 510/512 to create better frequency and connectivity for all the riders.

         Agreed. There is clear overlap between the 201/202 and 512, then ST seems to have ignored. The 905 skips Everett and the 510 is an express to Downtown Seattle, so I would consider those different beasts. But ST could do something different with the 512 besides ignore the fact that the 201/202 does pretty much the same thing, only better. From Everett the 512 is a tiny bit faster, as it avoids Mariner. But it still leaves the freeway to serve Ash Way, which means looping around to get there from the north. Serving both (the way the 201/202 does) is a clever way to make a very important connection (128th, where the Green Line runs) while also serving Ash Way. The savings from the 512 are minimal. No one in Everett or Lynnwood is going to turn down a 201/202 for the 512 (unless they see it approaching). In contrast, plenty will do the opposite, just because the 201/202 goes to many other places. Not only 128th, but the heart of Downtown Everett and Everett Community College.

         There are a lot of options for the 512 (including ones I suggested a while back) but it is clear that there is redundancy there. Of course if the two agencies time everything just right then it means 7.5 minute headways from Everett Station to Lynnwood (but not Ash Way to Lynnwood). Hard to argue against that.

      3. I’m no expert on anything Snohomish County, having only visited it occasionally.

         However, a friend of mine who rides the bus frequently there hates the Ash Way P&R loop-de-loop, and will not set foot on the 201/202 due to how much longer the ride takes.

      4. Both the 512 and 201/202 serve Ash Way. The 512 is more of a loop. A northbound enters the park and ride from the HOV lanes. After going through the park and ride the bus goes south to 164th, takes a left on 164th and then gets back on the freeway (in the general purpose lanes). I can’t draw the full loop with Google Maps (since Google assumes I can’t travel in the HOV lanes, but this is the second part: https://maps.app.goo.gl/1jnVnCST5KYjDNzM6). In contrast the 201/202 exits the Park and Ride and then continues the same direction (north) on Ash Way until it becomes 4th, goes by the Mariner Park and Ride and then gets back on the freeway at 128th (https://maps.app.goo.gl/1jnVnCST5KYjDNzM6). It is less of a loop, and more of a detour.

         Personally I think the 201/202 approach is much better. It is bound to be a bit slower, but you cover two major cross streets (128th and 164th) along with the street in between them, and the extra delay isn’t that big. I think it would be different if Ash Way had bidirectional ramps (like South Everett). Then serving the Ash Way Park and Ride would be much faster, and this would be much faster than the 201/202 approach.

         The combination of 512 and 201/202 is messy. They are too similar. The 201/202 already connects to Ash Way from the north. This is a time consuming connection, and one that relatively few take. The 512 should just skip Ash Way and run express to Everett. If they can afford it, ST should then run a different bus to Ash Way that continues on surface streets. At that point the 201/202 should then either be timed with that bus (to provide a high-frequency connection from Ash Way to Lynnwood), terminated at Ash Way (to save money) or go to Lynnwood via the surface streets.

   2. The “express” term used for several of Community Transit routes, and in my opinion it is meaningless. They aren’t especially express. A few of them are, but so are other many other routes. In general, there is nothing particularly special about them, although most — but not all — are peak-only. Many of them used to be peak-only “commuter routes”, but that term actually made sense. Those were peak-only buses that went to Seattle. In my opinion they should abandon the special numbering system (and terminology) or at the very least restrict it to buses that run peak-only (at which point they should bring back the term “commuter”).

      Why are Stanwood and Marysville getting all-day expresses when other cities aren’t? It seems like Stanwood is getting disproportionate service for its size.

      I think with the 240 it is more about the places along the way (Tulalip). With the 905 it is more about regional transit. The main value is an express bus from Lynnwood to Smokey Point Transit Center. Stanwood is basically a fairly cheap extension. I suppose they could have swapped places with the 220 (since the 220 goes to Arlington) but it might have to do with the overall length of the route (and cost to run it).

      1. Oh, and as far as Marysville goes, it is the same idea. They have several buses that cover the area (209, 222, 223). They intersect the express buses for travel to Everett or Lynnwood. Not just the 905, but also the 201/202 (which runs a lot more often and goes to a lot more places). So if you headed to Lynnwood you might time it right and catch the hourly 905, but most likely you catch the 201/202 (which together run every 15 minutes).

   3. No conspiracy. The 117 is more of a hybrid. Within Mukilteo city limits it operates as a local route between the ferry dock and SR-525 the length of the speedway, with tighter stop spacing. Hence the “117” numbering convention designating it as a local service. From the Beverly Park intersection, it operates as an express to Lynnwood Station. Those blended characteristics differentiate it from the 900 series, which are truly limited stop express services connecting to the rail system.

      1. Those blended characteristics differentiate it from the 900 series, which are truly limited stop express services connecting to the rail system.

         Not all of them. The 907 does not connect to a Link station. It doesn’t look to me like the 909 is much of an express, either. It probably makes all the same stops that the old buses (130/416) did. It also goes to Mountlake Terrace and most likely stops along the way. If it went towards 185th it would be more of an express.

         Meanwhile, other “regular” buses are limited stop express buses connecting to Link stations. For example the 201/202. They run express from Everett to Mariner, and from Ash Way to Lynnwood Transit Center.

         I think it is just sloppy branding. CT used the “commuter route” terms for years, if not decades. It was quite effective and very easy to understand. Buses in the 400 series went to Downtown Seattle. Buses in the 800 series went to the UW (and later Northgate). The numbering scheme also reduced confusion, as it avoided conflicts in Seattle. With the 900 series, I really don’t see the point. The only potential conflict is with the 908, because it goes to Bellevue (the land of the Metro 200s). All the other buses serve the same service area as the regular buses. The 101 and 130 manage to edge into King County, but that is OK, since Metro’s 100-series buses are south of Seattle. Thus they could just rename the 908 the 108 and call it a day.

         Several of these are peak-only, so they could revisit that term. I count five of those — enough for a nice group. Labeling them as “commuter buses” makes it clear that they only run during peak, which adds value. Giving them special numbers (900-series) would help as well. In contrast, right now you have a mishmash that doesn’t provide much value.

      2. The 907 is the exception and serves Boeing, which CT has served for literally decades with a north end route. It replaces the 247 and has fewer stops, faster travel time in a well established market. The 905 serves the same origins, but goes to LTC.

         Yes, the 201/202 combo has similar hybrid characteristics, and the numbers designate them as local service, exactly the same as the 117. For you KCM aficionados out there, they are very similar to the old 18 or 16 expresses, with local stops the length of their neighborhoods and express operation into downtown.

         The 909 is limited stop service timed to the ferry schedule. The Swift Blue line is being extended to 185th, so CT is covering three of the four new Link stations.

         The 908 will not start until the 2-Line is compete. It will connect Monroe and SE SnoCo to Stride and East Link in Bellevue.

         Link opening is a whole new ballgame for Snohomish County. The 900 series is a new product line– express connex to another new product, Link light rail, (plus the traditional Boeing connection). The 400s and 800s that have been going into downtown Seattle for decades — commuter routes — are going away. The change in numbering and terminology signal the changes in the network. Why is that so hard to understand?

      3. I have no problems nor a service animal in debates over CT route nomenclature. Just don’t try to change the name of future route 908’s southern terminus to Bellevue Symphony Station.

         But I do find it incredibly puzzling that CT 907 will only operate in the peak direction, to Seaway TC in the morning and from in the afternoon, while ST Express 513 will also only run in its peak direction from Seaway TC in the morning and back to it in the afternoon.

      4. But I do find it incredibly puzzling that CT 907 will only operate in the peak direction, to Seaway TC in the morning and from in the afternoon, while ST Express 513 will also only run in its peak direction from Seaway TC in the morning and back to it in the afternoon.

         The CT bus is a commuter bus for Boeing. The Sound Transit long term plan is for the 513 to be bidirectional peak. But to quote the service plan:

         We’ve removed the proposal to add two-way service and more frequency on Route 513 in order to make operating resources available for temporary additional peak service to Downtown Seattle on Routes 510 and 515 until the full 2 Line opens.

      5. If the time it takes to serve Ash Way P&R on ST Express 513 is what keeps the buses on that route deadheading out of service, why not have a temporary ST Express 514 that just serves Lynnwood Station and Seaway TC in the reverse-peak direction?

         Of course, ST Express 515 might be scuttled due to tiny ridership sooner rather than later, and ST Express 510 truncated to Lynnwood Station at the requests of its riders, freeing up drivers for the 513 by March.

         I still expect the 510 to Lynnwood will replace the 512 all day, with the arrival of The Great Conjunction, given the available frequencies on 201. 202, 513, and Swift Orange.

         At that point, half-hourly service between Everett and Stanwood, via Marysville, might become much more popular than hourly service between Lynnwood and Stanwood.

3. The lovely black and white photo gives a nice contrast to our full-color photos and debates on the days around it. Maybe we can find more vintage transit photos for future news roundups.

   1. Sounds good to me!

   2. Agreed!

      Looks like you were able to access the tracks directly from 4th. Much better Sounder-Link connections! As long as you don’t mind dodging locomotives.

      1. Where in that 1929 picture do you see access to the lower tracks from 4th Ave?

      2. The group gathered in the lower left looks like they are queuing for stairs.

      3. Or they are jumpers who just lost everything in the stock market crash. Though I think that wasn’t until the fall.

      4. That picture got me thinking. I wonder, what was the best decade for public transit in Seattle’s history? And, explain why. Feel free to include 2020 to 2030 in your consideration, which I think will be a very strong contender for best transit decade. I’m tempted to suggest some pre-1940’s streetcar network decade, but I wonder how good the service really was. Did most streetcar service all but disappear after early evening? How was service on the weekends? I’d need to know this before declaring the 1930’s, for example, a great decade for public transit in Seattle. There may have been a large streetcar network, but maybe the service sucked.

      5. I think the current network & service is most likely Seattle’s best, but the city is also the largest and richest it has ever been. An interesting metric could be service hours per capita. Remember that most of the streetcars were replaced by buses/trolleybuses, which have more service flexibility (i.e. the ability to get around crashed/parked cars) than steel-rail streetcars. Also, the streetcars never had AC.

      6. Link puts its wheel on the scale and outweights a lot of bus-network defects, so it can’t be anything other than 2020s. ST3 is too far-off and uncertain to consider, and the threatened bad line-to-line transfers downtown will counteract some of its benefit.

         Looking at just Metro, 2010s was the best era because frequency was highest and reliability was significantly improved. However, if you live in south Seattle, some routes have gotten targeted frequency improvements for equity, so those may be higher than the 2010s.

         I have no idea of the frequency and span of the streetcars before 1930. In some cities I’ve heard, they came every 90 seconds so if you missed one you could see the next one coming. I don’t know if Seattle reached that level, and with one trunk to North Seattle, several routes doubled up on it so that limited the frequency of each branch.

         The streetcars had right of way over cars. That’s one reason the automobile lobby pushed to eliminate them.

      7. @Sam: 1928. That was the last year that we had a rail system that Sound Transit is trying to replicate over the next few decades. The interurban between Seattle and Tacoma shut in 1929. By the way, it did go to downtown Tacoma.

      8. To me it looks like the group in the lower left is watching something, like maybe a celebrity getting off a train. One of them even lols to be holding a box camera of some sort.

         Maybe first day of one of the revamped trains or through routed coaches or something?

4. I enjoyed reading the “Places you can go: Lynnwood Link Edition,” where they suggest what to do at around each station …
   – Shoreline South: Take a train to SODO.
   – Shoreline North: Take a bus to Northgate (a bus?), or walk 16 minutes to the library.
   – Mountlake Terrace: Take a train to downtown.
   – Lynnwood City Center: Take a bus to Alderwood Mall.

   1. @Sam,

      I don’t think ST thought they could mention it, but MLT Station actually has two breweries within less than half a mile of the station as the drone flies (Diamond Knot and Hemlock State). And they have a classic butcher shop too.

      185th St Station also has a brewery, but it is about a mile from the station. It is also a repurposed spay and neuter clinic, and I find it a bit hard to relax there.

      The NE corner of the future 130th St Station will also be a great place to watch golf from. Otherwise there is nothing there.

5. The CT service level information seems sparse.

   Of course, the Swift blue line should be using a pathway on Aurora Avenue orthopedic and Meridian Avenue North. It would be faster, have one rather than three turns, would provide common stop transfers with the E line, and connnect the Shoreline P&R with Link.

   1. Ross has been arguing that for two years, but the folks at CT seem wedded to Aurora Village TC for some reason.

      It’s clearly better for the reasons you both mentioned.

   2. The fastest route from AVTC to North Shoreline Station is the route CT has chosen for Swift Blue. And it will also likely be the most reliable due to having less congestion than Aurora.

      And remember, CT’s reason for existing is to provide transportation services for SnoCo. Providing a quick and reliable connection to Link for Swift Blue riders is clearly beneficial to SnoCo riders, and the route that CT has chosen for that purpose is near perfect.

      Backfilling Metro service in King County using Snohomish County tax dollars is clearly not in the cards, no matter how often certain individuals on his blog might fantasize about it.

      1. I believe the section of Aurora in question already has a bus lane, so congestion on Aurora is not an issue. I don’t know if moving into the left lane to turn left on 185th would have problems, but that could be solved through a special signal phase to allow the bus to turn left from the right-hand bus lane. It certainly doesn’t seem like it would be any worse than the existing left turn from Aurora onto 200th.

         In the meantime, on 200th, detouring off the street, into bus bays, like the Blue line is planned to do is absolutely not the fastest route, and never will be. And, if you consider not only transfers to Link, bus transfers to the E line, staying on Aurora avoids multiple stoplights on both buses, which a good chunk of the time will put the transferring ride on an earlier bus, saving 10 minutes. Really, the only advantage of the chosen route is people shopping at Aurora Village not needing to cross the street. That’s it. But, because people shopping at Aurora Village are Existing Riders, their needs have priority over future riders and, therefore, carries the day.

      2. Just noting that if CT Blue Swift il used Aurora southbound, they couldn’t use the bus lane much further. It’s on the right and the bus would need to turn left at 185th.

      3. asdf2, you got it.

         Lazarus, sure, you’re right that it’s the shortes route IF you assume that the bus needs to visit AVTC. Nobody goes there except to transfer, and if someone taking the Blue Line really wants to go to the TC they can simply ride the 101 which stops everywhere that the Blue Line does plus a bunch more stops. You can be double darn betcha certain that Costco shoppers won’t be taking the Blue.

         There are also CT 130 and 114 that serve the TC. The Blue pulling in is redundant.

         And the point of continuing on Aurora to 185th is not “to backfill service in King County.” That’s a Red Herring argument in bad faith. It’s to give riders to and from Snohomish County a quicker ride to Shoreline North and a better “through” transfer to and from the E. Get off the bus; stand still; get on the bus on which you want to continue your trip.

         Easy-peasy.

      4. @Tom Terrific,

         Continuing on Aurora is the slowest of all the possible routes and provides the worst service to Shoreline North.

         The fastest route, if CT was to skip AVTC, would be to use SR-104/205 and then go south on Meridian or 1st and then east on 185th to Shoreline North.

         The fastest route, if CT was to retain service to AVTC, is exactly the route CT has selected for the Swift Blue extension.

         Preserving service to AVTC is the right decision. It’s a destination/origin for some Swift Blue riders, and it is a major bus intercept point for multiple bus routes, including RR E.

         CT got this one right. It’s the obvious choice.

      5. Continuing on Aurora is the slowest of all the possible routes and provides the worst service to Shoreline North.

         Bullshit! The fastest route is Aurora, where there are bus lanes. There are fewer turns as well. Swift Blue would just keep going south on Aurora and turn left on 185th. Hell, just look at Google Maps. From Aurora (north of 200th) to the 185th Station it is telling me that the fastest way is straight down Aurora and over on 185th: https://maps.app.goo.gl/cdtBWkKQCmk5uUi59. The Swift pathway is so slow it isn’t even showing that as an option! Google is basically saying “Why the hell would you want to go that way?”. Keep in mind, Google has no idea that I’m in a bus. Even without the bus lanes Aurora is faster!

         The idea that Meridian is some special back-way shortcut that only locals know about is absurd. That is not the way the world works anymore. Google (and Apple, and Waze) map out various alternatives in real time. If Meridian is the faster way, then people go on Meridian and next thing you know, it is no longer faster. Meridian also meets up with SR 99 (as the latter curves). This means that traffic is funneled onto Meridian, making the idea of a detour even sillier. For example, look at this trip: https://maps.app.goo.gl/Nh5vkEBB8oyJESyQ9. Notice that it is suggesting Meridian as an alternative. This means that when Aurora is congested, it is quite likely that a lot of drivers will cut over to Meridian/76th, thus ruining this secret-special-short-cut idea. But again, there are no bus lanes there! Aurora is the better way in general, and it is definitely the better way when you consider the bus lanes.

         Aurora is the fastest option, just as the best transfer spot would be on Aurora. Transit riders will be needlessly detoured all because Community Transit wanted to get closer to a second-rate mall.

      6. @RossB,

         I’m sorry, but you are dead wrong about this. The fastest route from AVTC to 185th St Station is clearly the route CT has selected. The other routes aren’t even close. But hey, it doesn’t really matter because:

         Nevertheless, the transit experts at CT have persisted.

         As per your comment that:

         “the best transfer spot would be on Aurora.”

         No. The best transfer spot is at AVTC. That is where the majority of the bus routes converge, and that is where the majority of the bus route transfer options exist. It’s not just about supporting RR E.

         And again, nobody should expect CT to use SnoCo tax dollars to backfill for service deficits in King County. That is Metro’s responsibility.

      7. Just noting that if CT Blue Swift il used Aurora southbound, they couldn’t use the bus lane much further. It’s on the right and the bus would need to turn left at 185th.

         So what? Either way the bus has to turn from Aurora. It either turns at 200th, or turns at 185th. Is there some special way that Swift gets from the curbside bus lanes over to the turn lane on 200th? No. You can see that on the map: https://maps.app.goo.gl/ABgSJ1EtpEyZviKX7. There is Swift, having left the bus lanes and moved over into the turn lane, about to line up behind the two cars turning left. The exact same thing would happen at 185th. The difference is, the bus would stay in the bus lanes longer. Quite a bit longer (almost a mile).

         It really boils down to this: Going via Aurora is faster when there is no traffic, and much faster when there is traffic (because the bus can take advantage of the BAT lanes).

         In terms of a transfer from Swift to the RapidRide E, it is much better. The current plan is to force riders to do this:

         1) Watch as Swift leaves the BAT lanes and wait for it to turn left and go along 200th.

         2) Walk over to the intersection, press the beg button to cross the street, and then walk across to where the RapidRide E is.

         3) Board the RapidRide E and then ride it as it goes back to the same intersection you were just at it, while you wait for the bus to turn left, onto Aurora.

         In contrast, consider what would happen if the Swift Bus stop was moved to Aurora (just south of 200th):

         1) Get off Swift on Aurora.
         2) Get on the RapidRide E at the same stop.

         That’s it. You never leave the BAT lanes. This is not an obscure trip. This is a trip along the same busy corridor that provides the bulk of ridership for both routes! If you think of it as one trip then the situation is just ridiculous. Swift does not detour to get closer to the college. The E does not detour to serve Stone Way. Both buses stick to the main highway the entire way — except this one time where it makes an extremely time consuming detour to serve Aurora Village? WTF?

      8. The fastest route from AVTC to 185th St Station is clearly the route CT has selected

         Who cares about AVTC! Why the hell should should Swift detour to Aurora Village, when every possible transfer can occur somewhere else?

         You are missing the point. The fastest way for Swift to get to 185th Station is via Aurora and then 185th. It isn’t even close. I’ve showed you the facts. You can see it on Google Maps. You can see the BAT lanes. You provide no evidence to support your ridiculous assertion other than “because I said so”.

         The best transfer spot is at AVTC.

         Again, wrong! Look at my other comment. Holy cow, the detour to AVTC probably costs a rider close to five minutes. You’ve got two left turns. You’ve got the time spent by the bus as it leaves the BAT lanes and moves over into the left-turn lane. You’ve got the walking time between the bus stops which also involves pressing a button and waiting for a walk signal.

         Nevertheless, the transit experts at CT have persisted.

         Bullshit! Holy cow, put aside the fact that if Metro does something they are incompetent idiots but somehow Community Transit is full of “experts”. You are ignoring how they came to this decision. They had a poll. They asked riders if they wanted to continue to go to Aurora Village. Most people didn’t respond. The handful that did wanted to make the detour. Of course they did. That would happen with any detour.

         Most riders are oblivious to the various choices that are made, and how they hurt them. Just look at your comments! You are a frequent commenter. You pay attention. No notice what is wrong. You spend more time on this (or any other transit subject) than the vast majority of transit riders. Yet you are completely wrong in this instance and I’ve provided the facts to show that. Going via Meridian is slower than just continuing down Aurora. Transferring on Aurora saves riders a huge amount of time. If, after this much time you are not aware of the issues, how would a layperson understand them, given that Community Transit never listed that in there literature! You realize that right? No one every wrote “One advantage to going via Aurora is that transfers from Swift to RapidRide would be much faster”. If the “experts” don’t mention it, you can’t blame the average rider from glancing at the proposal and thinking “I get there either way” and just dismissing it. The vast majority of riders who will be hurt by this detour have no idea what this will cost them. They will continue to endure the really awkward transfer from RapidRide to Swift, not realizing there was a simple alternative that would have saved them a lot of time. Riders going from Swift to Link will be delayed considerably, not realizing that the bus could have gotten there much faster.

         You are also ignoring the fact that a real transit expert — someone who was planner at Metro for years — agrees with me. Community Transit just made a mistake, that’s all. He prefers to be anonymous, and you will have to continue to guess, since just about everyone else agrees with me on this. [Note — if you did not work for Metro, please don’t say anything. I don’t want to “out” the writer by a process of elimination.]

      9. “they had a poll”? LOL, you give yourself away, Ross. You don’t really know too much about what happens north of the line, do you?

         All you King County guys need to get out more. SnoCo is not KingCo. Different markets, different patterns, different history. eddiew, you would be right to point out the single left urn, but for the TC activity. Lazarus is correct that all the CT local routes in SW SnoCo converge at AVTC. It is the obvious location to facilitate convenient transfers. The alignment from there to Shoreline North is fast and easy. Fewer arterial signals, less traffic, existing TSP.

         And FWIW, if anyone thinks Costco shoppers don’t use the Blue Line, you should ride it some time. (I ride it every week).

      10. “they had a poll”? LOL, you give yourself away, Ross. You don’t really know too much about what happens north of the line, do you?

          Are you saying they didn’t have a survey? Seriously?
          We covered it on this blog: https://seattletransitblog.com/2020/02/18/community-transit-studies-connections-from-swift-to-link-at-185th-street-station/. Obviously they based their decision on the results of the survey. Otherwise, why offer up the three possible choices? Hell, they even said as much after the fact. You know that right?

          But again, no one explained the fact that this would result in a huge delay for riders trying to get from RapidRide E to Swift, because they are simply used to that crap. There was nothing in the survey that listed the differences in travel time for a transfer. It makes a huge difference. If I see something that says “this option is on average 5 minutes faster” that is the one I choose. It also wouldn’t require crossing the damn street. I’m sure a lot of people expect the same kind of transfer as exists now. Is Community Transit really going to loop around the transit center before continuing to 185th? If so, that delays riders headed to Link even more! If it just drops people off on 200th (which I suspect will be the case) then riders have to cross 200th to make the transfer. Again, this wasn’t part of the survey. With Option A you have a same stop transfer. With option B you you have to walk to the corner, press the button to cross the street and then walk back to the other bus stop. Which one do you want now?

          Nor did anyone bother to explain that this would be much slower for people heading to Link. The fact that some people still think Meridian is faster (because of traffic) just shows the ignorance surrounding the area. Here it is is, 4:00 PM, and despite the “usual traffic”, it is faster for cars to use Option A. I’m sure at some point it might be faster to drive via Meridian, but that ignores one important fact: There are BAT lanes on Aurora! For buses, going via Option A (185th and Aurora) is faster when there is no traffic, and faster when there is traffic (because of the BAT lanes). Did anyone mention all this in the survey? No.

          It is worthwhile to poll people, but at a minimum you need to inform them of various facts (like which route would save the agency money, or which way would be faster for those making a transfer). They did none of that. If they did that for other projects then nothing would happen. There would be no Swift, because no one likes to lose their stop.

          Same goes for restructures. You are bound to have people complain if they lose their one-seat ride. You are bound to have people keep quiet if the new proposal benefits them. It is the whole idea of a squeaky wheel. Community Transit just went with the status quo because it was easier. It shows a fundamental lack of leadership. I wish this was limited to Community Transit, but Metro does the same thing. They refuse to restructure antiquated routes and then wonder why ridership isn’t as good as it should be.

      11. I tend to think that there is no bad path for Swift Blue to Shoreline North. Just connect the route to Link!

          The path has been studied and decided — at least for several years. So discussing it is academic for awhile. Can we just be happy that it’s happening?

          I will say in defense of the CT routing on Meridian that Aurora is a big and scary road to walk across — and buses get stopped at signals there even in the bus lane, as every vehicle must wait for pedestrians to walk across that crazy wide street. Getting to use bus lane for another 3/4th of a mile can save a little time — but not if that same bus has to wait at a signal longer and not if a pedestrian/ rider going to AVTC has to wait longer to walk across Aurora.

      12. @RossB,

          I am not wrong on the superiority of the planned routing for the Swift Blue extension, and neither is CT. They have the data, and they know how to interpret it. The routing on 200th and Meridian is clearly better.

          Bus lanes do help, but they don’t help that much. The current situation on Aurora is what it is. That is why the routing that CT has chosen from AVTC to North Shoreline is so superior to other options like Aurora.

          What would help speed up the Aurora routing option? More infrastructure investments and more signal priority. Such improvements have been discussed in the past, but given how long it takes to get things done around here, I wouldn’t expect those improvements to come on-line for at least several years, if ever.

          So it will be the CT picked route via 200th and then Meridian for at least the next several years, if not longer. And that is not a bad thing.

          And CT isn’t likely to abandon AVTC. It’s where all the routes converge, and it is a major destination of sorts in its own right. And if the North Shoreline garage fills up, some of the overflow is likely to go to AVTC — increasing its transit importance and decreasing the likelihood that any of the transit agencies would abandon it.

          It’s just good, solid transit planning. Get used to it.

      13. @another engineer,

          “ all the CT local routes in SW SnoCo converge at AVTC. It is the obvious location to facilitate convenient transfers.”

          Correct, and there are Metro routes that converge there too, making it an obvious choice for transit service.

          Transfer opportunities are the lifeblood of transit, and places like AVTC, the other transit centers, and all the Link stations provide those transfer opportunities in droves. It’s really not that hard to understand, and I don’t know why anyone would propose reducing transfer opportunities by eliminating service to AVTC.

          And county line isn’t where civilization ends. There is a lot going on in SnoCo, and it’s important for the various transit agencies to coordinate service across the county line.

      14. @Al S,

          “ The path has been studied and decided — at least for several years. So discussing it is academic for awhile. Can we just be happy that it’s happening?”

          Yep. It’s been studied to death and the experts picked the route via 200th. And it is or a bad choice. It’s actually a very good choice, and I think the users of Swift Blue will be very happy with it.

          It is sort of disappointing though that Metro doesn’t do something similar with a RR E extension or spur. There are undoubtably a lot of RR E riders who would love a one-seat ride to Link, but for the most part they are going to be relegated to a two-seat ride with lower frequency service for at least one of the legs. Not good!

          But hey, I’m certainly happy! Just 28 days to go and the transit world around here will change for ever! Can’t wait.

   3. When CT asked the public whether to do this alternative or the Aurora alternative, some lower-income Snohomish residents said they shop at Aurora Village and would be negatively impacted if Swift bypassed it. That seems to have carried the day.

      1. @Mike Orr,

         I don’t think the route choice has anything to do with “some lower-income Snohomish residents” who want to shop at Aurora Village. And I don’t think blaming “lower income” people for anything is exactly fair, nor accurate.

         In this case the route CT chose was simply superior to the other options. It’s faster, has fewer lights, and less congestion. It is better all around.

         And remember, CT doesn’t exist to backfill King County service holes using SnoCo tax dollars. If CT was to delete the AVTC, they surely wouldn’t go down Aurora in KC anyway. They would go down SR-104/205th and then go either north to MLTS or south to North Shoreline Station.

         There would be no service provided by CT on Aurora in King County. That is a fantasy.

      2. Those lower-income Snohomish residents could take the 101.

6. Sound Transit isn’t including East Link in the ridership reporting, so here’s my report. I rode East Link yesterday between Bel-Red and South Bellevue. Ridership was very light in the westbound direction in the morning, but it was early (~7A). There were probably only 3-4 people in my car. I did notice that the Bel-Red parking lot had quite a few cars. It also looked like one of the apartment buildings by the station is nearing completion.

   Ridership on the return eastbound trip at around 4:30P was significantly better. At the maximum (leaving downtown Bellevue), there were 10-12 riders on the car. East Main, Wilburton and Spring District didn’t have anyone board; everyone boarded at South Bellevue (coming from the 550) and downtown as far as I noticed.

   Not great, but significantly more people than when I rode in the afternoon shortly after opening.

   1. About a week ago a group of us were meeting with Bellevue staff about the ivy growing on trees on the west side of Bellevue Way being a safety hazard as some trees had died from the ivy and fallen across the road. The Bellevue rep. wanted to meet at S. Bellevue Park and Ride. I got there early to take a look around. Four people were waiting for the 550 bus and 2 for the train. I counted 30 cars in the garage. This was a little before 8 am. No one including the Bellevue team took Link or a bus to the meeting. The station is very large and clean, but required removing thousands of trees along the route.

      ST is estimating around 3000 boardings/day, or 100 boardings, on the starter line, which could be as few as 50 riders/day going to and from a station. I think that is about right. Based on current bus ridership for the 554 and 550 and a few peak cross lake routes from Issaquah I think when Redmond Link opens and East Link across the bridge 20,000 to 24,000 boardings/day will be about right, which again could be as few as 12,000 riders going back and forth from a destination when there is something like 1.7 million daily trips on the eastside according to a Seattle Times article on the starter line.

      I can’t use transit for my job in the field but I hope East Link makes other people’s trip easier or faster and relieves some of the traffic congestion, although the real congestion is north/south on 405. Maybe cities like Bellevue or the large employers should require their employees to use East Link or the bus if they work in the office.

      1. Oops, I accidentally used 100/daily riders. I meant to say 3000 daily boardings could be 1500 riders taking trips to a destination and back.

         Also when Googling this I found Sherwin Lee’s very good article on ridership from Sept. 6, 2023 I would have just linked to. Breaking down East Link Starter Line ridership – Seattle Transit Blog. According to Sherwin ST is estimating 6000 daily boardings, not 3000. 6000 seems a little high compared to what I saw at 8 am on a weekday morning. That is like 600 boardings/hour when the East Link starter line is operational.

         I like where Sherwin compares current ridership on buses along the same route or across the lake to ridership on the full East Link, and whether Link will generate more boardings and riders than buses today.

         I don’t think free parking is going away, but there is a lot of building going on that could attract more people to the eastside from Seattle and that could increase ridership depending on where they are going. A recent Seattle Times article noted the big difference in office leasing between Bellevue and Seattle today, and Amazon has already moved 12,000 employees from Seattle to Bellevue so that could help.

   2. The current 550 is discouraging riders with infrequency, midday trip cancellations, traffic congestion, moderate unreliability, and the loss of the Rainier freeway station. The 554 is even more infrequent, and it does a long detour to get to a surface equivalent to the Rainier freeway station. Cross-lake Link will be much better service, so that will attract riders.

      1. All true. I ride the 550 and can’t wait for Link to open. 18+ months feels like a long time.

         The 550 is actually pretty full at peak times now. Most/all of the seats are full in the morning and the afternoon has quite a few people standing. I think that it runs far less frequently (every 10 minutes at peak) than it used to though.

         It’s interesting to note that 550 ridership was in free-fall prior to Covid: https://seattletransitblog.com/2019/10/16/why-ridership-on-st-550-melted-down/

      2. The good news (from a data perspective) is that ST does list 550 ridership. There has been a bit of an uptick in June, but it still much lower than it was before the pandemic. 2019 was significantly lower than 2016 (when 550 ridership peaked). Here are the weekday averages:

         June 2016: 11,400
         February 2019: 9,140
         June 2024: 4,178

         The months listed are the highest of the year. 2016 is not on the data tracker, but on the Service Implementation Plan (https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/2018-service-implementation-plan.pdf#page=187).

         It will be interesting to see if and when the number of people crossing the lake by transit gets back to those numbers. It isn’t just that bus (of course) but all the buses that went downtown from the East Side, all of which will be truncated.

      3. “550 ridership was in free-fall prior to Covid”

         In 2019 the 550 and all buses got kicked out of the downtown tunnel, so they were slower. Around the same time the South Bellevue P&R closed for Link construction, and the Rainier freeway station closed too. So the 550 was hit with a triple whammy.

      4. No doubt that ridership on the 550 is down considerably Ross, but it also runs far less frequently, at least at peak times. Looking at historical schedules, the 550 was running every 5 or 6 minutes at peak in 2018/19. Now, it is every 10 minutes at peak. That’s still decent frequency, but almost halved from pre-covid times. In addition, many/most people seem to be remote on Friday. The result is buses that may be nearly as crowded mid-week as they were in 2019.

         I work in downtown Seattle with people from throughout the region. I know many that commute from the north and south on Link, but only a couple that take the bus from the eastside. The train is just a much nicer experience and while I don’t think that the initial projections for the full 2 line will come true, I expect ridership to spike dramatically when it finally opens across the bridge.

      5. I’m thinking that 2 Line will induce lots more transit trips than those just on ST 550 and 554, along with some I-90 Metro routes — as Seattle residents will find it easier to get to Bellevue to shop. I think some riders will move from 520. The huge South Bellevue garage will gradually fill with not only workers going to the two downtowns, but also UW students. Finally, Judkins Park itself will be better used than the old freeway station was — and the new 23rd Ave entrance is like adding a new station.

         The 550 and 554 ridership seems to have been very work commuter oriented. Covid reduced that market. However, I see that the 2 Line will induce new non-work trips.

         One unknown is what Microsoft does with their buses. I suspect that the forecasts assume that they don’t exist.

      6. Looking at historical schedules, the 550 was running every 5 or 6 minutes at peak in 2018/19. Now, it is every 10 minutes at peak.

         Yeah, it definitely followed the ridership-frequency death spiral, but ridership dropped off first. Nor is ten minutes horrible. The reason it doesn’t run as often is because a lot fewer people are riding the bus. Kicking the buses out of the tunnel was a big part of it, but now of course it is people working from home. Ridership on the 550 was always very peak-oriented. It was peak-oriented both directions (lots of people in Seattle work on the East Side). A lot of those reverse-peak riders put up with ten minute frequency (or worse) because they don’t drive (or hate driving). Now many of those people work from home.

         That is why I wonder whether it will reach the heights it once did. It may be other trips make up for the lack of commuting trips, but that doesn’t seem obvious to me at all. Not when you consider the big difference in ridership between then and now. To be clear, I’m not just talking about just the 550. I’m talking about other buses (like the peak-only express buses from Issaquah). Most of those have been cancelled. Riders will have a big improvement over what exists now, but it isn’t necessarily better than it was then (people don’t like transferring, even to Link).

      7. I wouldn’t ignore the impact of parking rates in garages. Daily parking has given way to parking for a few hours as partial work from home jobs have become more common.

         The old transit model was highly commute hour (or 2-3 hour) focused. This is where the biggest post-Covid drops in things like Sounder have occurred here and in other US Metro areas. It was usually peak direction focused too — except for 550. Off peak runs were pretty empty.

         It’s better for a transit system to have riders throughout the day. It creates more waste to have to have drivers and buses for a pronounced peak hour — with the non-peak direction not being very productive. The model of traveling whenever you want from 5 am to 10 pm with service every 10 minutes beats having to travel in a limited time window even when it is running every 5-6 minutes but abruptly deteriorates after 5:30 or 6:00 pm.

         Our three-legged frequent light rail system open within two years combined with as many as about a dozen RapidRide, four Swift and three Stride routes — supplemented by other frequent routes — will be very comprehensive any time of day by 2026-7.

         If there is an Achilles heel, I think it’s the transfer environments themselves that should be the focus. It’s why I push things like cross-platform transfers, down escalators, and minimizing bus transfer street crossings.

         A bus every 10 minutes instead of every six increases the average (half of frequency) wait from three to five minutes (two minutes more). In contrast, a bad transfer affects every rider. It takes longer to walk down 50 steps or use an elevator. A rider may have to cross two legs of an intersection that could take 2-3 minutes to do. And the granddaddy transfer mess of it all is the wild Dow/Bruce transfer 3-D maze at Pioneer Square which is the official ST alternative Downtown.

      8. One other point about transfers:

         Bus frequencies can be changed. But bad transfers are hard and expensive to change. This is especially true for anything built underground.

         Our transit agencies and cities aren’t giving the attention to transfers that they should — because it will likely affect children born this year with every transit trip until they retire, die or move away.

         Service is like wearing clothes. Physical transfers are like tattoos.

      9. Amen Al S… couldn’t agree more about the importance of good transfers and how little concern they are given with operators here. Transfers must be super easy with absolutely minimal time between transfers.

   3. Are you sure you didn’t see anyone board at Wilburton? A lot of commenters said many riders will prefer boarding at Wilburton over Bellevue Downtown.

      1. I’m pretty sure that I didn’t see anyone on these particular trips. It is the smallest of sample sizes of course.

   4. While of course the ridership will be much higher once the train crosses lake washington, the interim state highlights the disadvantage of using an alignment heavily following a freeway routing — the ridership is probably at or below rapidride B a bus.

   5. IIRC, ST was predicting 4000 to 6000 daily boardings on the ELSL. The last estimate I saw was actual ridership was just shy of 4000 daily boardings, but this was early on when people were still getting used to the system. I’d expect ridership to increase as people integrate the ELSL into their daily routines.

      I’ve put some feelers out for better ELSL ridership data. Hopefully I will hear something back. And hopefully I’m allowed to report it.

   6. I think ST’s monitoring staff should have East Link ridership online by now. The project was originally planned to be open last year at this time. The staff should have easily had it done in time for the opening earlier this year, which was still nine months after the original posted opening date back in 2021. Who manages their work assignments?

      With Lynnwood Link opening soon, there should even be more Line 1 stations ready to go too.

      Ideally, they should have every station opening by 2026 listed already— with blanks for the months prior to their openings.

      ****

      I’ll be curious if ST will report each line separately or not. I think get probably will. The lines will soon overlap, There is system double-counting if riders transfer and each line is counted separately. BART only reports entering and leaving stations rather than counting each line separately. So a BART train-to-train transfer isn’t double-counted. Of course, the new Link flat fare means that riders won’t tap off — so that each route boarding will probably be counted as the most complete data thing the counters by the car doors. A Link trip from Bellevue to SeaTac will probably count as two boardings. — one on each Line.

      1. In June, ST said that the 2 Line was missing from the performance tracker because the “data is being vetted for accuracy.” So, obviously, they still must be vetting the data for accuracy.

      2. I doubt that accuracy is the issue, San.

         A number of the 2 Line vehicles are Kinkisharyo original cars that have been counting passengers for years. Even new Siemens cars have been tested too. Plus, the passenger loads are much lighter than 1 Line trains, which have been producing data.

         Finally, the new stations are not even listed in the pull down menus. All of this points to a failure of the online reporting software, not the actual counting.

      3. @Sam,

         Bingo! I think that is exactly it. There is still some vetting going on, and getting a trend line over time is definitely part of that process. You just don’t publish the first number you get without doing a sanity check first.

         That said, ST’s Ariel Taylor has reported out to Eastside business people that “We’re hitting our growth projections of between 4,000 and 6,000 passengers a day.”

         That is not a firm number (yet), but it is exactly in line with ST’s projections and that is good news. Hopefully her statement is accurate.

      4. Changes to East Link are so far off that I don’t think it matters. If the problem is in the software then they will likely backfill for the months that aren’t displaying (yet). But the next change is Downtown Redmond, and this likely to happen next Spring. Thus having data starting in say, December is about as good as having it now. You’ll be able to see which stations got a bump from the extension. Then, when Link goes over the bridge, you’ll be able to see the same thing for the rest of the system.

         What frustrates me more is the lack of directional data, which they used to release. Ideally you have trip data (which would be fairly easy to gather from people “tapping off”) but that will probably be a lot harder to gather once people stop doing that. But directional data is what is initially gathered — it shouldn’t be hard to release that to the public. Same goes for Metro. (I have no idea if the other agencies bother to collect the data.)

      5. @Al S,

         From one of ST’s reports from yesterday:

         “ Owing to a few remaining technical issues,
         this link metric does not include boardings on
         Line 2. Line 2 ridership will be included in a
         future report.”

         So apparently they are still having trouble with ELSL data.

7. Ha! Looks like CT is buying some Tesla Model Y’s. Apparently they work well as EV Vanpools, and are cheaper too.

   That one caught me by surprise.

   1. Vanpools are very good candidates for electrification. Lots of weekly miles, but a very predictable daily load, which can be met with nothing more than a standard residential charger at the driver’s house.

      I would vanpools in the category of low hanging fruit for electrification, similar to supervisor vehicles (many of which are already operated with Nissan Leafs).

      1. Has anyone seen taxicabs make the switch? I remember it was quite notable how so many cab companies switched over to using Priuses. It made sense. Not only did they have great mileage, but they were very reliable. I would think the same thing would be true for electric cars. They become cost effective if you put on a ton of miles (like a cab).

      2. I have seen some rideshare drivers using electric vehicles (mainly Teslas) but the main barriers are the classic issues of range, charging time, and lack of infrastructure. Plus, they’re more expensive up front and more expensive to insure.

8. “In the teens Twitter started to turn the transit & urbanism blogosphere into a department of Progressive Dot Org. 2020 finished the job. ”

   What can transit and urbanism look like without progressivism? Is STB really more progressive than it was in the 2008? How else can we accommodate the fact that left-leaning politicians are more likely to support prioritizing transit/bike/ped infrastructure than right-leaning politicians are? Right-leaning politicians on average are trying to prevent it, trying to keep cities car-dependent.

   Salt Lake City and Utah seem to be doing the best in supporting transit and housing without being progressive. But I don’t think all red states can be like that, and even SLC’s transit — while I haven’t been there myself more than a one-hour Greyhound layover — I don’t think it’s as extensive as Seattle’s or DC’s or Chicago’s network, so I don’t think it’s an epitome we could just build everywhere and the problem would be fully solved.

   1. As someone who mostly lurked on STB from it’s inception, moved, then came back in 2020, I was actually surprised at how conservative it had become. I’ve seen regulars advocating for things like highway expansion, which is certainly not a progressive ideal.

      1. There have been many, many transit improvements and bicycle improvements in the past 15 years. It’s been quite transformative. Link, RapidRide, streetcars, lane reductions, bicycle tracks, many conversions to PBLs, new crosswalk improvements, pedestrian crosswalk signal changes, sidewalk installations, etc.

         Advocacy at the time was pursuing these transformative changes. They happened!

         I think there are still some tentative attitudes out there as ST2 awaits completion in the next 18-24 months. Plus, the performance of the recent investments is still awaiting evidence to see what macro mode changes have occurred in a post-Covid world where more people work from home. Certainly some of the recent changes have also been a performance disappointment and that does create a certain hesitancy to make more changes.

      2. I’ve seen regulars advocating for things like highway expansion, which is certainly not a progressive ideal.

         I haven’t. If anything it is the opposite. Imagine suggesting we just take a lane on a street like Aurora twenty years ago. People would suggest you are crazy. At best it would be greeted with “OK, sure, in an ideal world maybe we could do that, but we have to be realistic. We can expand the roads to add bus lanes — that seems possible.”

         Now it just happens. Under a conservative mayor no less! Harrell is no Republican, but he lost to the more progressive candidate. I agree that there is some of the same attitude with some issues (e. g. we can’t possible change HOV-2 to HOV-3) but in general things have gotten more progressive on this blog as well as the rest of the city.

      3. Cam’s comment and Bruce’s comment are an interesting juxtaposition.

      4. I allow that I may have moved left, after living with folks in a very poor city.

         A hundred million for a slightly enhanced bus in the rich part of town? Pitch-forks.

      5. @Cam Solomon,

         I’m not sure I’d use the word “conservative”. I’d maybe use the word “monotheist”, or maybe just plain “nostalgic”.

         There just seems to be a lot of nostalgia for the days before ST and rail transit. I don’t understand that personally. Because one of the great problems this region has always had has been that we have underinvested in rail transit.

         That has been corrected now with Link/Sounder/SC, and it has been hugely successful. And thank gawd for that.

         It is time to leave the 1980’s behind. We have Link now, and in 28 days we will have Link to Lynnwood too!

         It just keeps getting better.

      6. “I’ve seen regulars advocating for things like highway expansion”

         What? The only thing I can think of that might be interpreted as highway expansion is the HOT lanes on 405. That wasn’t our idea: we just wanted to convert two existing lanes to transit-priority. But the only thing WSDOT was willing to do was add lanes for HOT.

      7. @Lazarus

         > It is time to leave the 1980’s behind. We have Link now, and in 28 days we will have Link to Lynnwood too!

         At least my criticism is not that we are building Link, but that exactly we are now building it to the 1980’s mentality of freeway rail corridors.

      8. To be clear, it wasn’t you or Ross, Mike. It was a defense of widening of 18 for “safety” reasons, as well as a couple of other new highways. I can’t remember who it was, just a regular poster, and not the banned mercer island barrister. Not a big deal, just surprising on a transit blog in a pretty liberal town.

      9. So no, I wasn’t talking about content, I was talking about the more conservative tone in the comments, compared to what I remembered back in the aughts and teens.

      10. > I was actually surprised at how conservative it had become
          > So no, I wasn’t talking about content, I was talking about the more conservative tone in the comments

          Feel free to correct me, but checking the past articles I think the difference is that historically Sound Transit mainly just needed more funding for projects and it was mostly about proposals for where to build.

          Now we mostly do have enough money — the issue is trying not to overbuild and/or lengthen construction times due to nimbyism. Secondly most of the “easy or obvious” routes have or are being built, the next set of sound transit after st3 is less obvious and also with sound transit 3 taking up 25 years instead of the normal 10/15 years makes it harder to look that far into the future.

      11. Secondly most of the “easy or obvious” routes have or are being built, the next set of sound transit after st3 is less obvious and also with sound transit 3 taking up 25 years instead of the normal 10/15 years makes it harder to look that far into the future.

          I think the “easy or obvious” routes were built with ST2, which is why ST3 is so challenging. At this point I think the next thing we should build is Ballard to UW. In contrast, it is hard to argue that Ballard to UW (or pretty much anything else) should have been built before Downtown to the U-District.

      12. There’s also more pessimism among the “pragmatic” advocates about the perceived mis-allocation of transit dollars towards large capital projects (expensive rail lines through suburbia, fleet replacement with battery buses instead of fleet expansion with hybrids, etc.) instead of “simply” increasing service.

          The pandemic also cut the commuter market in half (or more) semi-permanently, exacerbated socioeconomic issues have made fare collection problematic, and public opinion is more focused on public safety and housing costs as opposed to traffic and transit.

          Regarding the Blog, there’s been much discussion in the last few months about its place in PNW news media. STB is unique today in that it’s largely a comment forum built around articles of interest. Today, we don’t have the capacity to be on top of breaking news, but with the rise of the Urbanist, we don’t need to be.

          What is special about STB is that when we’re at our best, we can dive into transit details that other outlets (like the Times or the Urbanist) don’t bother delving into – an excellent example being this week’s focus on the RapidRide candidate corridor data buried in the Appendices of a niche plan. Now, we can refer back to these articles when it comes time for these corridors to come to fruition; without STB, this very likely would have been lost.

      13. But anyways I guess we could have some articles about ST4 if people really want to. And perhaps talk about how to actually implement them aka for example from Ballard to Bothell via Holman Road, Northgate Way, Lakecity Way. Or the extension from West Seattle down to Renton.

          They’d most likely be at-grade — I don’t really see a financial situation where we’re deep bore tunneling them.

      14. Others have pointed out ST 3 is now pushed out so far ST 4 will be when we are all dead. ST 3 itself is based on some pretty optimistic population growth projections that according to the Census Bureau figures today are inflated (compared to the Office of Financial Management). Plus we have seen a 1/3 decline in transit ridership with existing population with work from home.

          By the time ST 4 rolls around Issaquah Link will be built and the low ridership and cost per rider mile will be pretty apparent. Don’t forget: a lot of ST 2, and all of ST 3, were predicated on very high ridership projections by ST that today look “optimistic”.

          Three other issues about ST 4 are:

          1. I highly doubt all five subareas will vote yes. Link has not been beneficial for Pierce Co. It won’t reach Everett or Tacoma for a long time. So I think it is more realistic to discuss “ST 4” subarea by subarea (which is subarea equity), when some subareas like downtown Seattle that is the hub are changing. Next time rather than Seattle voters dragging ST 3 over the line the four other subareas reject ST 4 so there is no transit levy for Seattle even though those voters vote yes.

          2. Technology will be completely different. Just look at work from home. It is likely the younger generations will become more and more work from home oriented and technologically proficient, and then you have 3D printing and the whole “urban village” concept that results in fewer trips across the board.

          But it will be driverless cars and transit that will change things the most unless it is climate change. The experts I read and I think are probably correct think all local transportation will morph into a leasing system in which in any kind of urban/suburban environment people will lease a certain number of miles from a company running a fleet of driverless cars. This is why Tesla and Uber trade at a premium. This will reduce onsite parking requirements, traffic will be much more efficient, and smart governments will simply contract at reduced rates for lower income citizens who will now have door to door service, with likely some user cost to make sure it isn’t abused. Not unlike Metro Flex. Maybe for longer runs light rail will make sense, but first/last mile access will be by driverless car/van.

          3. Will expensive transit systems be able to meet operations, maintenance and replacement costs based on new ridership levels. MTA is a fiscal mess. The CA legislature basically told BART it has two years to survive and find a new sustainable funding method or shut down.

          Generally unless you are talking about the Dark Ages the future is better than the present. So think about what would be better from a total transportation model. Less pollution, less waiting, fewer transfers, less parking, lower cost, less congestion (for example Amazon deliveries don’t require the purchaser to leave their home with free delivery for Prime), transportation for the poor similar to for the rich, cost more closely related to miles travelled, greater safety, more areas served, less driving yourself, and fewer trips having to be made.

          That isn’t our current transportation systems, although work from home and urban villages rather than long commutes to a central urban core are the beginning of the future because they make life better. BAT lanes are a bandaid on a transportation system rooted in the past. So are HOV lanes.

      15. @Rail skeptic

          > That isn’t our current transportation systems, although work from home and urban villages rather than long commutes to a central urban core are the beginning of the future because they make life better. BAT lanes are a bandaid on a transportation system rooted in the past. So are HOV lanes.

          Most jobs still involve traveling to the actual workplace. For self driving cars I and this blog is not the right place to research into this and either way self driving cars with one occupant do not magically change the traffic problem though there’s great opportunities for better transfers.

          For ST4 it is definitely a long time being 15 years away and then would need actual construction for another 10/15 years but still planning has to be done.

          > But it will be driverless cars and transit that will change things the most unless it is climate change. The experts I read and I think are probably correct think all local transportation will morph into a leasing system in which in any kind of urban/suburban environment people will lease a certain number of miles from a company running a fleet of driverless cars

          I mean we have to wait on driverless car technology as well, I don’t know how many years or decade or two decades away it is. There’s not much productive discussion we’d have here beyond random timeline guesses — probably discuss that on a self driving car blog.

      16. The only way I see an ST4 anytime in the next decade is if the Board cannot realistically fund ST3. Even then, I have doubts that it will pass.

          Besides, at some point, ST will have to raise funds for “correction” projects. Things like the MLK grade separations, need for more escalators, driverless trains, crossover tracks and track repairs will need to be analyzed and built.

          With the ST3 plan, the political message is “we did it” so the regional consensus will likely be very tough to create and then pass in an election to push more projects.

          In contrast, I can see additional “feeder” referendums at the county or district level and focus on service changes or quicker-build minor projects like driverless buses.

          The one exception is if Seattle ever decides to host the Olympics. I think it would be great to host — but the financial costs of doing it are significant. I’ll leave that to our local corporate billionaires to ponder.

      17. The environment changed in the late 2010s so our attitudes changed too. Before, everything ST and Metro were doing, while it wasn’t perfect it was a step forward and we just needed more of it. Now with Ballard/DSTT2, ST is actively making it worse than the representative alignment in a way that will harm passengers and hinder Link’s potential. (This is referring to the wide transfers between Lines 1 and 2/3.) And Metro has backtracked from its bold restructure visions in the 2010s. I’m not going to blame them for staffing/parts shortages, but for the planning they are in control of.

      18. @Mike

          I do remember in the last couple meeting sound transit or at least one of the board members brought up about starting up the st4 planning.

          Perhaps we could write about the more obvious low cost extensions for now. It has also been 8 years since 2016 when they were last discussed

      19. It’s too early to speculate on ST4. ST3 was expanded by a third, incorporating things that were previously expected to be in ST4 (e.g., Everett). So it’s like 3 plus part of 4. Even transit fans — its biggest supporters who helped get ST2 and 3 passed — have become divided about parts of ST3 and wonder if they’d support an ST4. ST has its hands full for the next two decades finishing ST3 before it can think about ST4.

          What we have are a few wishlist items from the subareas in 2016: extend Link north to Everett college (short and inexpensive), extend Link south to Tacoma Mall (short and inexpensive), extend West Seattle Link to Burien and Renton (how much does South King still want that), maybe extending Issqaah Link further into Kirkland (how much does East King want that?), and nothing definitive in North King. (Commentators have opinions, but boardmembers haven’t mentioned any.)

          We can certainly imagine things that could be helpful. There’s a whole Pierce County series a couple months back. And we can imagine new kinds of investment, like a substantial ST contribution to several RapidRide, Swift, and Stream lines. But until the board is ready to consider ST4 and we get some indication which projects they’re leaning toward, there’s little point in outlining scenarios ourselves. Those scenarios would end up being superceded by events in the next twenty years.

      20. @Mike

          Sorry to clarify, the board in st3 already chose and funded the studies and corridors. We could just talk specifically about these and what might be a reasonable way to build them.

          https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/futuresystemplanning_st4-1.pdf

          https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/P-02%20-%20P-09%20HCT%20Planning%20Studies.pdf

          HCT Study: Light Rail Extending from West Seattle to Burien, connecting to Renton via Tukwila
          HCT Study: Northern Lake Washington
          HCT Study: Commuter Rail to Orting
          HCT Study: Connections from Everett to North Everett
          HCT Study: Tacoma Dome to Tacoma Mall

      21. WL, it might be worth reviewing those wishlist items and other low-hanging fruit. And we could offer big alternatives like pivoting to contributing to RapidRide/Swift/Stream as I mentioned, or we could pursue the 167 BRT idea. I just don’t see the point in designing new Link lines or such when ST hasn’t been interested in any of our earlier ideas (the 45th line, Metro 8 line, a Rainier Beach-Renton extension). If somebody wants to write an article about their idea, that’s fine, but I don’t see making it an STB mission at this point.

      22. WL, I think you miss the entire point of my post, which was in response to another post by Wesley about ST 4.

          I wasn’t talking about driverless cars. I was talking about driverless transit, and what that transit will look like when ST 4 is ready to pass, and whether there will be any distinction between the two. That is the central question for the future.

          You are stuck in the past. You think transit has to look like a bus or articulated bus or train on a fixed route because that is what public transit looks like today. Any ST 4 would have to be about the future, and will have to meet the future. Instead, you look at today’s antiquated transit and transportation systems and think that is how the future must look, just with a BAT or HOV lane.

          Uber is a form of transit. Driverless Uber will reduce the cost so signficantly it will change the SIZE of transit. It will still be transit, for everyone, just smaller and more individualized transit looking more like vans and cars. That is why Metro Flex is implementing such a system. Metro Flex: On-demand transit services now even better, united under one name – Metro Matters (kingcountymetro.blog)

          Yes, most jobs do today require in person work, but much fewer than just four years ago, and you also miss the point about urban villages and the move away from commuting long distances to a dense urban center like downtown Seattle. Not only riders but miles travelled per trip are down. So you think increasing frequency on Sounder S. is the answer when that misses the point: many fewer trips, and much shorter trips because people work from home OR closer to home. Increasing frequency won’t restore the lost ridership on Sounder.

          The final piece is how expensive can transit systems be with much lower ridership and still survive financially? MTA is effectively broke unless there is a massive inflow of cash. So is BART. And Sounder N and S. Sound Transit has seen Link farebox recovery go from 40% to 15% of O&M costs. The inability for these large antiquated transit systems to fund O&M from current and future ridership will force a profound change way before driverless technology or ST 4.

          I agree with you it is way too premature to begin to discuss ST 4, in large part because some cannot fathom a transportation system and transit system that doesn’t look like the systems we have today. That was my point. They – we – will be dead when ST 4 rolls around so our prejudices and unwillingness to give up the past won’t be a barrier for planners and inventors tomorrow, and I for one am in the camp that cars and SOV’s and Uber and Metro Flex and buses and trains will begin to merge into one, and the defining characteristic will be smaller, probably leased or rented, driverless vehicles, not huge mostly empty lumbering fixed route buses. Like Metro Flex today which is in its infancy but probably the Vision of younger planners at Metro not afraid of the future.

          We can discuss the past and present all we want on this blog but it won’t have anything to do with the future, which I think transportation and transit wise will be completely different than today by the time ST 4 arrives.

          Now, back to BAT lanes, transfers, frequency, fixed route frequencies, deep stations, RR, off board payment, things no one will be discussing when ST 4 rolls around (I hope).

          It is always good to work to incrementally better the present but we can’t wed ourselves to incrementalism when it comes to the future.

      23. ” The experts I read and I think are probably correct think all local transportation will morph into a leasing system in which in any kind of urban/suburban environment people will lease a certain number of miles from a company running a fleet of driverless cars. This is why Tesla and Uber trade at a premium.”

          That sounds more like Tesla/Uber’s marketing position than what experts think. There’s a reason transit is public and mass. Tesla/Uber couldn’t make enough profit to please their shareholders if it served all the trips transit does at transit’s fare level. Routes like the 7 and H are very efficient at what they do, and replacing them with taxis would increase the road space they take up exponentially, and I doubt every passenger could get a taxi within ten minutes reliably. We don’t even know if driverless cars will improve their safety level enough to become mainstream: they keep saying it will happen in five years, but they’ve been saying that for ten years, and more problems keep cropping up.

      24. > It is always good to work to incrementally better the present but we can’t wed ourselves to incrementalism when it comes to the future.

          Sure but until driverless car/transit technology actually exists what is there exactly to discuss here? It’s like discussing the future of air travel with the Concorde airplanes. Until they are actually running and not prototypes there’s not much we can concretely discuss.

          > just with a BAT or HOV lane.

          Secondly if you do not have a separate category of a lane even for driverless cars or transit they will still be stuck in traffic.

          > Yes, most jobs do today require in person work, but much fewer than just four years ago, and you also miss the point about urban villages and the move away from commuting long distances to a dense urban center like downtown Seattle.

          @rail skeptic

          Do you know how many times someone claims this decade will be the end of the traffic with xyz thing?

          The suburban office complexes, freeway expansions, or edge cities etc… and self driving cars might actually induce even more traffic if the cars drive around with drivers. Self driving does not magically mean no traffic.

          > You are stuck in the past
          Again this is more research study level stuff done by universities right now if anything. And the past is full of items that we thought would “solve” traffic but didn’t

      25. Anyways at the end of the day if you have something about self driving cars/transit that is specific to Seattle metro area feel free write some concrete proposal

          I just don’t for now see anything detailed to talk about it. I mean is self driving cars more like Ubers or is it going to be buses restricted to hov lanes on freeways first. It’s practically impossible to really talk about it for the region beyond over generalized cheaper operating costs and more frequency.

      26. One person in one self driving vehicle takes up as much road space as one person driving themselves. Taxi services like Uberand so on have their place, and making them cheaper with self-driving might help in some places, but for the most part I don’t see it making any changes.

          I’ve currently spent the past hour on a southbound Amtrak connector bus entering Seattle, moving at walking speed thanks to all those single occupancy vehicles that apparently aren’t supposed to be there due to work from home or something.

      27. There is always the chance that someone will spend billions on a mass transit system and then go “Shucks. Now that we have self driving buses, that was a huge waste.”

          But chances are that if that happens, the mass transit system you built is really bad. No one is going to say that about UW Link. But they might say that about Issaquah Link. Or Tacoma Dome Link. Or many of the other projects that people discuss.

          The fundamentals don’t change just because you have automation. Or for that matter, a lot of people working from home. At best mass-transit edge-cases become losers. We regret spending a lot of money on a rail-based solutions when a bus-based one would have worked. But for the most part the lines that make sense still make sense, and the ones that don’t, really don’t.

   2. Salt Lake City is more progressive than many people assume. Yes, it is the heart of LDS country (obviously). But a lot of people end up in SLC because they like the outdoors, or there is a good job there. They gravitate towards the big city. Only about half the city is LDS, and many are secular, and/or progressive. There is a high Latino rate as well (about 20%).

      Politically they reject Trumpism in part because the LDS church is (now) multicultural. Romney hates Trump. It is more than that though. Salt Lake City has had a Democratic mayor since 1976. The University of Utah is in Salt Lake City (BYU is in Provo). It is basically an island of progressiveness in the middle of a sea of conservatism.

      1. LDS is more progressive than many people assume. The Mormon Church has been built on collective action since its foundation, so it’s not surprising that its 21st century leadership is supportive of public transit.

         One’s opinion on gender ideology or caffeine consumption need not correlate with one’s opinion of public transit.

   3. SLC does not have a legacy of fearing minorities and obsession to create a segregated world that is found in many other red areas.

      So things like riding transit don’t induce the fear and loathing that evolve in a highly segregated and gated lifestyle found elsewhere in the US.

      1. SLC does not have a legacy of fearing minorities

         Except for, you know, the church that is headquartered there.

         In general it is just city versus suburbs/rural. Just about every city in America (even in very right-wing states) votes to the left. There is a very strong correspondence between ideology and density.

      2. I really don’t like to stereotype anyone. Every person and family is different. I’m sure there are many exceptions to what I’ve observed and described below.

         Also, I am not raised nor affiliated with LDS. So my observations are as an observer.

         My experience with LDS and ex-LDS people is that they generally are less afraid of being on transit. The church does encourage teens to be missionaries in the wider world while most other churches do not. That seems to instill a level of comfort of being out in the world so that using transit often isn’t a scary experience for them.

         Here is a link to the LDS General Conference encouraging public transit use and including a paid transit pass as part of the admission ticket earlier this year: “Those who come to the conference are encouraged to use public transit. Anyone with a ticket to General Conference will be able to use that ticket to ride UTA trains, buses, and light rail as they travel to and from conference.”

         https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/general-conference

         I can’t say the same for people raised in certain mega churches in the bigoted South or other areas of the US. While most major metros are generally voting more liberal anywhere , there are still people living their lives in suburban Atlanta, Jacksonville, St Louis, Houston and even parts of our region in a mostly segregated or gated world — looking at relegate outsiders to only be their minions when needed and otherwise avoiding contact.

         It sounds surreal to us transit advocates, but I’ve talked with these “sheltered” adults who now may even be gym-toned 30 year-olds still afraid of riding a frequent bus or train thanks to fear taught by this parental “protected” indoctrination/ upbringing. Instead, they’ll pay amounts like $200 to use Lyft after waiting over an hour for a pickup — even when the bus would be faster and cost much less. I could not convince them that transit would be a great choice because they still had this ingrained fear from childhood.

      3. I only know one friend in his late 20s who won’t ride the bus, but it’s more that he’s had multiple bad experiences riding the bus in Albuquerque on ABQRide. Including getting assaulted by another passanger on the bus on his way to work, which was ironically a security job.

         I honestly understand where he’s coming after riding ABQRide recently when I visited him for a weekend. It’s very “ride for the destitute” or “ride of last resort” vibes than “alternative to get around the city without a car”. And it’s less “Oh there’s poor people on here” and it’s more “these buses feel ancient and dark than bright and inviting”. Like I’ve been on an old 90s Italian buses when living in Florence that felt more inviting to ride than an ABQ Ride bus built in 2007.

         To me, one bad experience on a service that feels mediocre on top of being unsafe can truly sour one’s feelings of riding again. He actually used to ride KC Metro when he lived in Renton, so he isn’t against transit or scared of it. More of didn’t want to deal with getting assaulted again.

         He’s moving to Calgary in a few months, so it’ll be better for him if he has to take transit again.

      4. @Zach B,

         Calgary has an excellent LR system which is in many ways very similar to Link light metro — 4-car trains, non-automated, honor system payment, etc.

         Ridership is huge though, and the entire system is wind powered. At one time their slogan was “Ride the Wind”, which I consider to be far superior to Sound Transit’s “Ride the Wave”.

         They had an older BRT system too, but I believe they shut that down in the early 2000’s. Don’t know much about their remaining bus system though.

9. SEAFAIR SHUTTLE:

   “Guests arriving via Link light rail 1 Line can get off at the Columbia City station and take advantage of Seafair’s free round-trip shuttle service from the station to the park Friday through Sunday from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. The shuttle will take you free of charge from the light rail to the Main Gate of Seafair Weekend.

   King County Metro Routes 7, 9, and 50 also serve the Genesee Park area.

   Route 27 will be rerouted in both directions and will not serve the stops between E Yesler Way at 31st Avenue and Colman Park from Friday, August 2 through Sunday, August 4 during Seafair Weekend festivities.”

   1. SDOT has already set up no parking signs on the shuttle route. The buses will move quite quickly between Link and the site because of the early planning.

10. What is the deal with ELSL ridership dropping in June?

    Ya, it is still preliminary “estimated” ridership data, and it is still too early to get a trend line from just 2 full months of data, but a 15k (12.5%) ridership drop seems statistically significant.

    Time to blame Balducci?

    1. Where did you get June ridership numbers?

       1. @Nathan,

          There was a single chart in yesterday’s REO report out, but no explanation and lots of caveats. And there are lots of notes elsewhere about technical issues with the ELSL data.

          And the June data doesn’t seem to agree with some public statements made elsewhere.

          So who knows. But it is a bit odd.

       2. @Nathan,

          Ah, more conflicting information on ELSL ridership.

          My feelers just came home and the data is that ELSL ridership is hovering between 4000 and 5000 riders per day. Which is right in the range that ST had projected, and agrees with public. comments from ST staff.

          The pedigree of this info is of the highest order, so I have no reason to doubt it.

       3. Lazarus, is there any data on park and ride use along the ELSL? From what I have seen and heard about the number of cars at the park and rides along the ELSL I don’t know how 4000 to 5000 daily riders are getting to the ELSL to ride it. Are they using feeder buses. I could see that for a longer trip across the lake but taking a feeder bus to the starter line seems slow to me.

          At least on the Eastside before Covid transit ridership could be estimated from the park and rides. 5000 riders on the ELSL when the bus restructure hasn’t occurred and the park and rides are nearly empty seems strange.

       4. @ Issaquah Resident,

          I try not to ask too many questions of people who have better things to do, lest I get categorized as a pest and start getting shut out.

          So, no, I did not ask about “parking”. But you always can. Go for it.

       5. I think people just live near it and walk on. Downtown Bellevue, Spring District, and Overlake in particular have a lot of people that live nearby

       6. @John D,

          My neighbor who is a MicroFlaccid employee takes the Connector bus into work. He reports that he and is coworkers use it sometimes for offsite meetings and lunches.

          P&R’s have never been the primary source of ridership for Link. I would expect the ELSL to be at least somewhat similar.

          And it’s not like each P&R parking spot only generates two boardings per day anyhow.

       7. @John D,

          Also, I forgot to mention it, but RR B ridership data for June is somewhat anomalous.

          RR B had been showing steady year-over-year ridership growth as Metro finally begins to recover from the pandemic. But May data showed lower growth than previous months, and June ridership showed negative growth compared to June of last year.

          So it is also likely that some RR B riders have simply abandoned the B and switched to Link. That would drive ELSL ridership up, and RR B ridership down.

          Time will tell as we get a better trend line.

       8. If a decrease in eastside bus ridership from May to June means riders are switching to the 2 Line, does the decrease in 1 Line ridership from May to June mean that riders are switching to the bus?

    2. This presentation talks about 2 Line ridership:

       https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/FinalRecords/2024/Presentation%20-%202025%20Service%20Plan%20Preview%20-%2008-01-24.pdf

       It says that the current average weekday is slightly below 4000. When Downtown Redmond Link opens (early 2025) it is forecasted to grow to between 6900 and 8200 (late 2025). That’s before the 2 Line crosses Lake Washington.

       1. Thanks, Al.

          Interesting that they’re saying Downtown Redmond Link won’t open until Spring 2025, when today’s Capital Program update for June indicates they still have 9 days of float left ahead of the baselined opening on December 31, 2024 (meaning that as of the end June, RDLE could open on December 22, 2024).

          https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/agency-progress-report-capital-program-june-2024.pdf

          Maybe they don’t want to schedule an extension opening during the winter holidays?

       2. Meanwhile, East Link’s completion across I-90, which had been teetering on slipping into 2026, recovered 49 days of float and as of June 30, could open as early as November 7, 2025.

          Some schedule savings was seen this month as the E130 and E750 contractors began working on a coordinated schedule to support ST’s ability to enter pre-revenue operations in Q2 2025.

          That is quite exciting news!

       3. @ Nathan:

          I did a little poking around to see how much lead time ST gives before opening.

          Lynnwood Link opening date was announced just under 5 months ahead.

          Eastside 2 Line opening day was under 3 months ahead.

          So if it is to open by the end of the year, ST would seem to announce the date in the next month or maybe in September.

          Even though I cite it, I don’t trust the Progress Report.

          ST can’t just open when done. The testing period has to be reasonably far enough along to set the date — and the simulation period requires a change to driver work assignments. Which makes me wonder if there been a test train sighting on the Downtown Redmond extension yet. Any news on that?

       4. Someone here a few weeks ago said they saw a train at Marymoor Village. It was probably dead-pull test. Today I saw one of those large utility trucks fitted with train wheels moving along the tracks east of Redmond Tech.

       5. @Sam,

          They have been doing fit and function testing for at least a month now.

          Progress is being made!

       6. @Nathan Dickey,

          “ Meanwhile, East Link’s completion across I-90, which had been teetering on slipping into 2026, recovered 49 days of float and as of June 30, could open as early as November 7, 2025.”

          Sparrman seems to be doing a pretty good job. I hope good things continue to happen.

       7. @Al S,

          ELSL ridership *was* just under 4000 in May, and that is the data that presentation appears to be referencing.

          My sources are telling me that ridership is currently running between 4000 and 5000 daily boardings. And that info aligns with other public statements ST officials have made recently.

          So I trust the 4000 to 5000 number.

       8. @Lazarus:

          “ELSL ridership *was* just under 4000 in May, and that is the data that presentation appears to be referencing.”

          The presentation was dated August 1. If June was better, why didn’t ST staff say so? They supposedly had the newer data.

       9. @Al S,

          2025 Service Plan presentations is not where up-to-date ridership data is published. I am sure that statement is referencing May data.

          All recent public statements that I have heard reference the 4000 to 5000 number, and I know that is what they have been telling the business community in face-to-face meetings.

          And again, I have exactly zero reason to doubt the info I was given.

          There have been some other issues with operating the ELSL, but that is a different issue.

11. With the H now running, I’ve decided the best way to get from Tacoma to West Seattle is unfortunately to go through downtown, then backtrack, just because the frequency of the H makes the variability of the trip less.

    Or it would, except:
    – The H often gets tangled up in traffic on it’s spin around Virginia.
    – Transfer is horrendous. The logical place to transfer is to get off at 4th and Jackson and walk (or in my case, ride) all the way down Jackson.

    I did this last weekend. I got there right when the H was supposed to arrive, with a few people waiting for it. Ghost bus. It just vanished off the app. I waited a bit more then gave up and road across the bridge. A handful of people waiting for the bus. As I climbed the route, every stop had more and more. By the time I got to White Center almost an hour later, the stop had a couple dozen people waiting for it. I thought Rapid Rides, for all those 10s of millions, were suppose to be reliable and frequent. If not, what’s the point?

    One women, who looked like a tourist from Japan, who was used to real transit, was clearly freaking out. Running half a block, checking her app, running back to the H stop. Poor showing.

    1. I once got off a southbound RR D bus that was stuck in traffic in LQA and just started walking. I eventually caught up to the previous RR D bus and reboarded. It wasn’t much faster, but I was tired of walking.

       RR is about branding. Unfortunately they are watering down the brand with all these new RR routes that have almost zero “rapid” in them.

       1. Some of it is just enforcement. There are some good BAT lanes on Lower Queen Anne, but it is fairly common for people to ignore them. The city needs to be more aggressive when it comes to enforcing the law in that regard. I would make the case in terms of safety as well. If you delay the bus then fewer people take the bus. If fewer people take the bus, more people get hurt and injured in traffic accidents. There is plenty of evidence to support this idea. A public campaign to enforce transit right-of-way is easier when expressed that way.

    2. Cam, no offense, but it sounds to me like you overreacted to a bus not showing up. The H Line runs fairly frequently on the weekends. All you had to do is wait for the next bus. But it sounds like impatience and confirmation bias took over.

    3. I followed the route. I’m an old man, with arthritis and a beer belly. I’m not fast. I was riding up an often steep hill for an hour. It never passed me. I made the correct decision, Sam.

       1. Just to clarify are you saying you took the 131 instead? Or that you walked from downtown Seattle to white center?

       2. You couldn’t have followed the route, because you didn’t bike down highway 99, or over the West Seattle high bridge. Several H Line buses passed you during your bike journey. You need to be more patient.

       3. I rode my bike.

       4. The first stop at Delridge had a crowd at it. I didn’t miss any H.

    4. Transfer is horrendous.

       It seems weird to me that none of the buses that go up Columbia stop at Second. I get that you can have too many stops (and this is fairly close to Alaskan and Third) but it is also downtown. If there was a stop on Second than the transfer you mentioned would be trivial — just walk down Second to the bus stop. Of course you would still have the problem going the other direction. For what it is worth it Google suggests transferring at Seneca if you are going from West Seattle to Tacoma, and Columbia if you are going the other way. That means plenty of backtracking, but not that far of a walk.

       Of course Google often suggests staying out of downtown. Some of these involve the 50, and a transfer in SoDo. Other times they suggest going the same basic direction the whole way (but three buses). It depends on timing and if a bus is late (or doesn’t show up) it screws everything up. You can’t just take the first bus that show up (if they are going different directions).

       Going north to go south is annoying, but in this case it is especially bad. The two buses run parallel to each other and don’t get close until you are fairly far north. This is one of the advantages of the idea we suggested a while back (build ramps from the Spokane Street Viaduct to the SoDo busway). That way reverse direction trips would be a lot easier.

       In a few years the situation changes. You’ll have the option of going south to Burien, then taking the Stride to Tukwila, then Link to Federal Way and the bus from there. If West Seattle Link gets built you will have a different four seat ride: North on a bus to Link, West Seattle Link to SoDo, Main line south to Federal Way, then a bus from there.

       1. Yeah, for me, and I think most people, 3-seat rides are simply a non-starter. 4 seat rides are laughable.

          I actually may just keep doing a one-seat ride on the 594 to downtown, and then getting a bike ride in. It won’t be that much slower than 574->560 or waiting for the H. If they H comes as I’m going up the hill, so be it. But transfers are apparently for suckers.

    5. The H may have had a bad day. Even RapidRide is subject to fleet/parts shortages. You now see red buses on regular routes and green buses on RapidRide lines more frequently than you used to.

       I only take the H occasionally, but I’ve found it to be what I’d expect, a bit faster than the 120. It shares a downtown stop with my 131/132, so I see it coming quite frequently and regularly, more than every 15 minutes.

       I think Metro should improve the travel time between downtown, White Center, and Burien, but other than that the H is doing pretty well and getting lots of riders. You may have hit a day where a run was canceled.

       1. Probably. Though this 2 in a row now. A 25 minute wait the time before. I’ll keep trying.

          I honestly just take whichever of the 574 and 594. They both have pros and cons regarding transfers to W Seattle.

       2. Everything I’ve tried so far ignores the H.

          Eg:
          594 – 21
          594 – 50
          574 – 560

          Only way I was able to get it to mention the H was to start from SeaTac assuming the 574, and then it gives me 161 – H – C, so that’d be a 4 seat ride. Even then, I can also get it to show Link -> 128.

       3. Yeah, the transfer is so horrendous from the 594 to the H, it only makes sense with a bike. Honestly, I don’t really know how anyone outside of north Seattle, Capital Hill and downtown manages to use the patchwork transit system without a bike.

       4. The 594 to 50 is listed as taking 1 hr 10 minutes on the trip planner, which isn’t that bad considering the distance.

          Of course, a bus route like the 50 that features a hill so steep someone from some midwest cities would consider it falling off a cliff isn’t for everyone.

12. Skagit Transit is developing a long range plan, and seeking public comment:
    https://www.skagittransit.org/lrtp/

13. Random tidbits from kcm meeting.

    * metro is working on adding apple support for the orca phone pay, employee passes currently can’t be converted.
    * kent councilmember troutner was excited for the high ranking of rapidride 150 and seemed to imply the city would help implement the transit improvements
    * metro will show the current priortization of rapidride in the system evaluations released annually in october

    * Jorge L. Barón (king county district 4 councilmember) asks around the 50 minute mark; for route 44 if smaller changes aka like speed improvements could be implemented first for all these lines. (aka basically transit plus). Responded that this is a policy question about whether to add stations/frequency/all door and was debated back in 2017 and again in 2021 and with the next update with metro connects and it is up partly for the committee and kcm to decide.

    1. Thanks for passing that along. I’m excited for improvements to the 44; while it’s far more reliable and frequent than it used to be, there’s still days where it’s almost unusable (i.e. 520 bridge closures that back up I-5 onto 45th, random sportball events at UW, street events in Ballard or Wallingford, etc.). A route that is maybe 6 miles long that takes 30 minutes at peak to drive end-to-end with 8-15 minute headways should never have a bus that’s 30 minutes late, yet not infrequently it is.

       I’m betting a little bit of speed/reliability improvements would go a long way to getting the route back up to a base of 10-minute headways with no extra operating costs.

Comments are closed.