And:
Is high-speed rail hitting the fast track in the near future? An audio interview by the 1A radio show.
We’ll have more podcasts in the future, as in our zeal for videos we’ve overlooked the growing number of audio-only episodes. I’m not sure yet whether they’ll be on Sunday or Wednesday or in a new column.
This is an open thread.
Yay! Another plug for cross-platform transfers!
SODO, anyone?
I just don’t understand why we put two lines next to each other in SODO if a single line with a center platform would provide far better transit experience. With a single line, we could run West Seattle trains (if WSLE gets built) through downtown immediately.
Exactly. Unless ST has a real and plausible plan for adding capacity to the Rainier Valley, there will never be a need for more than two tracks through SoDo. Yes, Lander and Holgate would have to be overpassed, and maybe the back end of some of the buildings on the west side of Sixth South between Lander and Forrest would have to be trimmed, though I doubt it would be more than one small outbuilding. Al doesn’t think that the southbound curve can be used for a flying junction, but I do. If the track needs to keep rising through the frog fine, the elevated structure south of the junction would be three feet higher than it might otherwise be. Woof-woof.
Also, the at-grade crossing at Lower Royal Brougham Way would have to be closed so LRBW west of the tracks would essentially become a part of the busway. East of the tracks it would be access to the Greyhound station.
A second pair of tracks for a train every ten minutes is a stupendous waste of money, and it closes the busway unnecessarily.
Now maybe some time in the future the RV is grade separated or the “Bypass” is built. Then is the time to convert the busway to a rail line, not now.
Now maybe some time in the future the RV is grade separated or the “Bypass” is built. Then is the time to convert the busway to a rail line, not now.
Agreed. It is just the wrong approach. It means that things get worse for a long time before things get better (and they don’t even get that good). West Seattle has to wait until Ballard Link before they get a train that goes downtown. The SoDo Busway — used by buses that carry tens of thousands of riders — gets blocked up, and those buses are delayed. Not only does that hurt those riders, but it costs the various agencies a bunch of money, which means the buses don’t run as often. The correct approach is just to run the trains in the same tunnel.
Overall this seems very easy. Right now they run the trains every ten minutes most of the day. During peak they run every eight minutes. According to Sound Transit, “3 minute headways are achievable without significant deterioration in trip quality”. So worse case scenario they could run every nine minutes during peak and every ten minutes the rest of the day. Most riders wouldn’t notice. It is also possible that running eight minutes is not a problem. According to that same article:
Although going below 3 minutes is possible, due to the variability inherent with human factors and surface operations it “wouldn’t give our ridership as reliable a service.” The small windows to fit in delayed trains might cause them to bunch up, delaying riders. Furthermore, it would likely require additional investment in Traction Power Substations.
Basically going below three minutes is pushing it. Fine. But a train every two minutes and forty seconds is not that much different than a train every three minutes. It is possible that it would work fine, and delays would be rare (just as they are today). That means it is quite possible that you could have the exact same schedule as today.
But again, worse case scenario the trains run every nine minutes. That is only a bit worse than today’s eight. It makes little difference when it comes to crowding, but that too is something we should deal with when it become a real issue. In the long term we should look into trains that have more capacity although my guess is we’ll never need it.
ST intends to run MLK service every 5 minutes when DSTT2/Ballard open.
Mike, in other words, “Never.”
Neither DSTT2 nor “Ballard Link Extension” makes sense as ST proposes them, and the Federal transit funding on which “BLE” depends, is going away soon. Yes, something needs to be done for SLU, but Westlake is a wide street and could certainly host a new version of The Monorail, perhaps with a dogbone loop to First Hill.
But “going to Ballard” is a fool’s errand without at-grade extensions to at least 65th along 14th and 24th and a radical upzone between and along them. Neither the City nor ST will contemplate those changes.
Forcing prople to transfer to the train twelve or eighteen blocks into their journeys will irritate Ballardites as much as it will West Seattle riders, so all the arguments against WSLE pertaun to BLE.
In fact, since Ballard is “shorter” than West Seattle a larger percentage of rides will be in that short and very irritating zone. Somebody riding the H from SW 120th to downtown won’t resent the tramsfer as much as soneone boarding at NW 75th and 24th. If the RR version of the 40 is still running then, a lot of people will just stay on it.
Notice how the Netherlands builds most of the bicycle lanes in the video with drainage curbs, so that drains the water out of the bicycle lane. They do this from experience.
Seattle has started doing the opposite. SDOT just poured 4 inch curbs on MLK that will do a retain rather than drain water. I posted about this last week — but got quite a bit of pushback from others saying it was either not important or preferred.
The bike lanes featured in the video are often not adjacent travel lanes for cars, so they have no need for concrete curbs to prevent cars from driving or parking in the bike lanes. The bike lanes shown near car traffic are separated by curb an planting strip, fence, or bollards.
Paint is not protection.
“Paint is not protection.”
Concrete drainage channels are not paint.
Fair point. But I guarantee drainage was a consideration when they designed the MLK protected lanes.
> Seattle has started doing the opposite. SDOT just poured 4 inch curbs on MLK that will do a retain rather than drain water.
I don’t understand how the 4 inch curbs block the existing water drainage on the road? Also there are gaps in the curbs on mlk way anyways, and the water flows to the outer side of the road.
> I posted about this last week — but got quite a bit of pushback from others saying it was either not important or preferred.
You might need to clarify what exactly you are referring to. The bike lanes are built on the road are much cheaper precisely because SDOT doesn’t need to redo the drainage. The water drains to the “right side” of the road, the only thing the 4 inch curb from the general lane to the bike lane could block would be water pooling up on the general lane not for the bike lane.
Wood planks stronger than steel ($), used to build a ceiling and staircases in a Portland airport. Maybe Seattle can have a demonstration project like this sometime.
A friend of mine in the 80s interned with a “cardboard furniture” manufacturer. They cut corrugated cardboard into narrow strips and glued them together sideways so that the corrugation was facing out. This made is strong enough to build chairs and bookcases with that could carry the weight of a person.
Existing “mass timber” construction projects in Seattle:
An affordable housing project in Capitol Hill which opened in 2022: https://timberlab.com/projects/heartwood
A 5-story office building on Dunn lumber’s old yard on the north end of Lake Union in Wallingford: https://www.weberthompson.com/project/northlake-commons/
And another affordable housing project, but this one will be 12 stories and become the tallest mass timber building in the city: https://www.theurbanist.org/2024/06/18/u-district-tower-tallest-mass-timber/
The VA Hospital is currently adding more buildings using mass timbers, too.
There was an article written years ago, I think by Dan Bertolet describing how rare it was to see 8-story buildings being built, despite it being allowed in some areas. (I looked for it but couldn’t find it.) Basically once you go above 6-stories, you need steel. Since steel is expensive, it isn’t worth it to build just a bit higher. So even though the zoning might allow an 8 or 10 story building, it wasn’t worth it.
That was then. With new types of wood products and more liberal laws surrounding them, the development world changes. It could lead to buildings a bit higher in some areas — what they had in mind in the first place. There are other issues that still remain though. FAR and design reviews discourage building anything different than the typical 6-story box.
“I think by Dan Bertolet describing how rare it was to see 8-story buildings being built”
It may have been rare twenty years ago, but they’ve been springing up like mushrooms since 2013. I sometimes count the stories in recent buildings going from ground up. Ones I assume to be 6 stories often have an extra penthouse floor at the top, sometimes recessed in so you may not notice it. And maybe another floor somewhere, and don’t forget the garage.
Underpasses under MLK light rail and car lanes could allow east/west connections for the Rainier Valley (Alaska St, Orcas St, Graham St…) and a save way for pedestrians and cyclists to reach the light rail platforms. The walkways/bikelane could be shallower than the car lanes to allow ramps to reach each platform without having to worry elevators for ADA.
An excellent idea, though I think there’s a sewer under Martin Luther King Blvd which might interfere with the deeper car ramps. But it would be a huge win for east-west movements through the Valley if it can be done.
Right – an overpass is better.
Several years ago, I asked in an STB comment thread about car driver hitting a Link train if it would be viable to grade separate the RV Link segment by building underpasses under MLK, and another commenter (Pete Lorimer) replied:
Building underpasses for the cross streets would never fly in a built-up environment. The new bridge for the rail would be on the order of 3 feet deep (bottom of beam to existing grade. Then the roadway has to go low enough to provide 14′ clear for trucks. This requires 340 feet of ramp at 5% grade, plus `20-foot transition zones at the top and bottom of the slope on each side. Add in the width of the double track and you need approx 800 feet from the beginning of the cut to the end.
You also need to lower MLK Way (again at `400 feet on either side) to make connections with this new, lower road or it would become a limited access highway. So now how does one access the shops and housing in the blocks that front these streets? You’ve effectively created cul-de-sac neighborhoods that can only be entered from points away from the major intersections.
This also is true of the rail stations themselves. They are all placed near a major intersection. If said intersection is lowered 17′ how do you get people away from the stations?
It’s complicated to underpass the side roads versus the rail itself. You can view the magnitude of the effort for say Caltrain road underpass
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2024/01/25/palo-altos-rail-plans-in-flux-after-caltrain-review/
Ironically one of the problems might be is that there isn’t enough east west road traffic. Otherwise it’s easier to attain the funding and political will to demolish houses for such an underpass
Philip, the best way to do it is to have the two middle lanes, one each direction, descend to the underpass while keeping the outer two lanes for right-off, right-on access to King Boulevard. To get to the “farside” lanes on the Boulevard a car would have to make three rights or two lefts and a right beyond the underpass.
Actually I think that on Alaska, and especially Orcas, an overpass would work much better because both streets are higher to the west than the Boulevard. Orcas is higher to the east as well; a bridge could just go across the roadway and trackway flat.
This is the model for the Hardy Toll Road which has a heavy freight railroad running down the middle. Cross-streets use overpasses over both the toll road and the railroad, and have “stay level” connections like described above.
“Ironically one of the problems might be is that there isn’t enough east west road traffic.” Fair point on funding, but that makes the design easier. As Tom points out, there is no need for a complicated interchange design – just a simple 2-lane bridge crossing over MLK + Link. Turn left for a car will be tedious*, but given the low-ish volumes it is OK to force cars to make 3 rights on side streets.
*but not an issue for EMS, as Link is generally designed such that an emergency vehicles can simply drive over the tracks along more of the RV alignment.
As there isn’t a lot of east/west traffic and even less traffic turning on/off MLK, we wouldn’t have to build full interchanges. Cars which need to turn could use neighboring streets instead. We could focus on pedestrian access.
I believe the Dutch underpass was mined without interrupting train traffic. That would keep Link trains running. If you build one underpass at a time, cars can use alternative east/west connections during construction.
I’ve always felt that a trench option for light rail would be best accomplished by putting the trench where travel lanes in one direction are, the putting the lost travel lanes where the tracks are today. That would make MLK work better as a street because it wouldn’t be so wide and take so long to cross.
That said, I’m not sure if it would be worth it. However, ST isn’t known for choosing projects because they are cost effective. They instead build them because some development interests convinced elected officials to do it.
“walkways/bikelane could be shallower than the car lanes to allow ramps to reach each platform.” I wouldn’t even bother with a grade separated bike/pedestrian crossing; the under/over pass should be 2 vehicle lanes only.
Station access should remain at-grade. Pedestrians & cyclist can cross the street at grade with a dedicated signal. Since the primary traffic conflict is resolved by grade separating the vehicles, MLK still have improve throughput even if a high frequency pedestrian crossing signal.
There have been several people who have been hit by cars or the train trying to cross the track or traffic lanes. I don’t think we would address the issue if we still require cyclists and pedestrians to cross at grade. An underpass with ramps to the platforms would allow pedestrians and cyclists to either cross MLK or access the train safely without any waiting.
Or leave everything at-grade just remove all the signalization entirely.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/sep/22/what-happens-if-you-turn-off-the-traffic-lights
That would result in either A. Link traveling at 5mph through the intersection, or B. Many people being killed. Or possibly both.
Seattle has many non-signalized intersections, mostly on neighborhood streets with those weird not-roundabout objects in the middle, and they work well for the same reasons that example in Amsterdam does. A freight arterial in suburban SE Seattle is not a good example, however.
“That would result in either A. Link traveling at 5mph through the intersection, or B. Many people being killed. Or possibly both.”
You’d think.
But it apparently didn’t.
If this is at a Link stop, the train is already going 5mph.
MLK way isn’t the right street comparison. That’d be more like turning off the intersection for say broadway and pine, and honestly along pike and pine with the stop signs it’s basically “not signalized”
Link light rail trains can’t stop as quickly as the lighter tram vehicles. And for the street itself, that one shown is more like cars driving at 20 mph. mlk way cars the limit is 25 but honestly most are going like 40 or 45
Well that’s kinda the point. We absolutely, positively want do not want people going 45 on MLK. If they are coming into a chaotic intersection were they actually, well, have to pay attention, and care about not killing people, they will be going a reasonable speed appropriate for an urban area.
Yes, it was designed using highway specs way back in the day. It doesn’t have to stay that way. And it absolutely shouldn’t.
@Cam
Sure, but say even for amsterdam they have avenues with trams as well where they are not considering removing traffic lights as the car speed is faster and there are multiple car lanes. The main point is that the intersections you are comparing for the treatment isn’t really the same.
https://www.google.com/maps/@52.3724964,4.8491571,3a,75y,332.1h,75.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sQrqryTWix4FqnFSjqYUnIg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D14.850562483580163%26panoid%3DQrqryTWix4FqnFSjqYUnIg%26yaw%3D332.09618312649627!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu
Right. Change the intersection.
You don’t think the intersections in Amsterdam didn’t get a complete redesign? It’s all about your priorities. If you care about car-throughput, you stick with the status quo. If you care about not killing people and encouraging people to get out of their cars, and on to feet, wheels and transit, you switch the design.
@Cam
I’m not sure you are getting the point, even for amsterdam they would not consider removing traffic lights at such intersections with light rail trains. it is a different situation.
Sure we can talk about traffic calming etc.. but removing traffic lights isn’t safer here. You need to apply it to similar situations
I guess it comes down to this: is Link a streetcar, and should be traveling slowly through neighborhood streets, or is Link a light metro, and should be moving swiftly with optimal (but not exclusive) grade separation.
Investing in a handful of overpasses would be to move Link along the continuum closer to a light metro. It will be more expensive to build, but once done will result in a Link line that is faster & more reliable, boosting ridership.
Alternatively, slowing down Link and forcing a driver to manually navigate intersections will move Link closer to a streetcar. Link will be slower and less reliable, hurting ridership (in particular riders simply trying to get through RV), but the immediately neighborhood around MLK may be nicer. Ridership at MLK stations may be higher, even if overall Link ridership suffers.
So, who is more important, riders trying to get to/from MLK, or riders simply traveling through. IMO, Link is a light metro and in a regional context the Rainier Valley is primarily something on-the-way, and therefore an overpass is better than de-signalization.
Some good thoughts on tram-trains and where it is best practice to intentionally slow down a train – at the end of the line and/or where few of the riders are trying to travel through:
https://humantransit.org/2009/10/karlsruhe-the-tramtrains.html
https://pedestrianobservations.com/2020/11/03/tram-trains/
is Link a streetcar … or is Link a light metro
I don’t think it is either. It is a mish-mash of various technologies and ideas. There are similarities but important differences between it and various systems around the world. I’m not sure if it fits any traditional label, or if there is anything quite like it.
It isn’t obvious what we should do in Rainier Valley, other than make it safer (which is what they are working on). In contrast, I think there is a very good case to be made for burying Max in Downtown Portland. But Rainier Valley is a small section of one part of one line. It is not clear if the train would run more frequently even if it was grade-separated in Rainier Valley. Link is extremely long and getting longer. ST has been reluctant to run trains frequently now, even though it is probably the most efficient it will ever be (i. e. it is likely this is the highest ridership/per mile we will ever have). As this line gets longer and mixes with the other line the case for running it more often gets weaker. If you ran it every six minutes all day long right now it would mean that the north end of the line (where most riders are) would see six minute frequency. But with the mixing it would mean trains running every three minutes, and that seems like overkill. Furthermore, it isn’t even the weak-link now. Trains can run every 7.5 minutes all day. Link just doesn’t want to run them that often.
Rainier Valley riders would benefit from running the trains more often, but it isn’t clear they benefit otherwise. A bunch of underpasses (or worse yet, overpasses) would be very disruptive. It wouldn’t necessarily make the area more pleasant (although it would make train interactions safer). You might end up with more roadway given over to cars, which is really bad for the community. Hard to see ridership going up as a result. I could see burying the trains resulting in a nicer area, for the reasons mentioned. You add greenery, bike lanes, narrow the street — that sort of thing. Same goes for elevated if you do it right. But with elevated (or even a trench) it means riders take longer to get to the station.
Of course people to the south of Rainier Valley benefit with any sort of improvement. But not that many people ride from there. This has to be put into context with other big projects, and it is hard to see this bubbling to the top anytime soon. Just throwing money at RapidRide, “transit-plus” or “RapidRide+” projects is likely to benefit a lot more people. Other rail projects (e. g. Ballard to UW) would cost a lot more, but benefit a lot more riders to a much higher degree. It is a nice idea, but I’m not sure if it will ever happen.
Right – there is a continuum between metro & streetcar. I thought it was a helpful framework to ask what is the goal & therefore what are good investments.
If we remove the signals then pedestrians could never cross the street because there would never be a break in cars, and if they’re going at 40 or 45 I couldn’t be sure I could get across before one reached me. It’s the same situation I encountered on 1st Ave S in north Burien, where the AFH I looked at was across the road from the northbound 131 stop with no crosswalk. I was afraid that if I went there once a month, eventually I’d get hit by a car.
There is absolutely no way that the signals are going away. I guess you could call that my personal opinion, but it sure looks like it’s almost fact instead.
The liability issues alone would quickly it an end to that idea. The local residents would be at more risk as crosswalk pedestrians. South King and the Port (SeaTac) and ST would be outraged at adding 15-25 minutes to a light rail trip and the subsequent loss of transit riders and daily light rail revenue miles.
Seattle is pushing hard to design every mode to be more “protected” these days with programs like Vision Zero. This would go in the complete opposite direction of travel behavior anarchy.
It seems about as likely as Washington State becoming a Canadian province.
As I see it there are four options:
1) Overpasses.
2) Underpasses.
3) Elevating Link.
4) Putting Link in a trench.
It isn’t clear which option is cheapest, let alone best — I think they would have to study them all. The first seems like the ugliest. I could see it getting the most backlash from the community. The second is better in that regard. The third and fourth give you more. They free up space on the surface that can then be used for bike lanes and/or narrowing the street. I could even see adding bike lanes and adding BAT lanes (for the 106) if the train was elevated or buried. I think you would have to compare costs (as well as disruptions) to decide which is best. Even then it requires a value judgment (i. e. how much is it worth to narrow the street?).
Unfortunately, I don’t see how how any of the four options could be done without years of disruption to Link service itself. Personally, I don’t think it’s worth it.
Overpasses can be done with no effect on Link except a few nights when the structural beams are put in place. DOT’s build overpasses over active freeways, and the worst effect is usually lane narrowings for pier installation. The piers can be designed to stay away from the tracks.
I agree with Tom – overpass is the best option because of the small impact on Link options.
TT and AJ, overpasses are much more disruptive to a neighborhood and difficult to navigate for pedestrians and cyclists in particular with Link’s overhead wires (would be easier with 3rd rail). An underpass can be drilled/mined underneath with little disruptions to the surface rails and pedestrian/cyclists could use a shallower underpass (see Palo Alto design) including ADA-compliant station platform access ramps. None of which can be done with overpasses.
This video reminds me of the Lower Rainier Vista area of th University of Washington. They lowered a road, built a pedestrian overpass to light rail, repaved part of the the Burk Gilman Trail, and built a newer bus layover zone. All of this making the campus walk nicer.
Is it possible to remake the composition of the ST Board so that decisions are made apolitically? Remove the politicians and replace them with technocrats and riders? Would it take a simple referendum, or is it more complicated than that?
You could have an appointed board, similar to how judges are (sometimes) appointed. There would be no guarantee that they would be apolitical, though. I suppose you could try and set it up like the civil service as a way to at least try and get the board to be non-partisan. Just as important is the goals of the organization. Something as simple as “Improving transit as cost effectively as possible” would work for me. Unfortunately the goals of ST have been way too specific in terms of mode and destination (a “spine” consisting of light rail between Seattle and Tacoma).
I’ll take whatever goals and board structure The Netherlands is using, if that’s the result.
ST is a creation of the WA legislature, so it would take an act by them to change to structure.
As to “decisions are made apolitically” is a nonsense statement. ST is a public entity and therefore all of its decisions are political. If you mean to say “remake the composition of the ST Board so that decisions are isolated from the perspective of local politicians” I suppose you can do that, but I don’t see how that would make the decisions apolitical. Robert Moses very much had a political opinion.
WSDOT is run by civil servants, with only the overall budget and policy set by the Washington legislature. No reason Sound Transit couldn’t be a department of the state government … but looking at WSDOT’s projects, I don’t see how that would result in a better outcome.
If we could always be sure that the Director would be as “science-based” as Roger Miller, it certainly might be a good thing for operations and construction oversight.
BUT (there’s that word), all the lines would be triple tracked, with freight trains allowed on the center track….
[/snark]
A few states — Rhode Island, Delaware, New Jersey, Maryland and more recently Massachusetts (MBTA) — have state transit agency departments. The state has a bigger role in other larger states too — especially in the funding.
A version of this for us should involve a discussion about what shifts to the state and what stays local.
I would combine WSF, Cascades, Sounder, Stride and ST Express. Link could be in or out but I’m not sure what would be best. I would leave the county or district local buses out of it.
I particularly like the idea of including the ferries as part of it. Ferry terminal connectivity could be developed and utilized better. Ferry terminals have amenities that would work well for regional bus riders.
One exciting element could also be broader regional express services. Just like ST Express transformed regional connectivity in recent decades, a state-focused system could be amazing. It should be easier to get to Olympia especially. It could also result in some other connections like Kelso to Portland or better Central Washington connections. Of course, the private bus company competition issue would need to be fairly resolved.
Another improved outcome could be combined Sounder / Cascades planning and operations. Battery electric trains seem like an eventuality and they offer starting and stopping capabilities that diesel trains don’t have. Now that new 500-space garages are happening in Kent, Auburn and Sumner, why not stop Cascades at at least one of them?
It won’t be easy to implement though. ST3 is effectively a loan on an original 25 year payback plan that is being pushed out to at least 30 years and frankly appears to be increasingly unaffordable — so that probably would be the hardest hurdle to figure out.
The Canadian model of provincial transit is also curious. The REM in particular is backed by Quebec pension funds in an innovative funding arrangement.
I mentioned the civil service as the example. They are appointed by politicians, but are supposed to be apolitical. This wasn’t always the case.
The primary goal of the civil service system has been and continues to be to ensure that appointments to government jobs are based on merit and ability as determined through a competitive process. The principles of civil service specify that the most qualified person be
appointed to the job; that appointments not be based on any other factors such as political activity or patronage; and that incumbents are protected from the political whims of elected officials.
https://burbank.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=1689&meta_id=89402
There already is a civil service – the ST staff, including the executive team. To me, converting the Board to full time civil servants is just duplicating the executive leadership team at ST. The civil servants still need to report to politicians somewhere.
The civil servants still need to report to politicians somewhere.
No they don’t. Judges get appointed and then are completely independent. There may be politics involved when it comes time to the appointment, but they don’t answer to the people who appointed them. There are three models:
1) Serve under an elected official.
2) Appointed by an elected official(s) but are independent.
3) Are an elected official.
ST goes with the last model, but the board was elected to different offices (no one ran for ST representative). That is the problem as I see it. The easiest thing to do is follow the third model. Run for ST board just like people run for any other office. The second works as well for similar reasons. Even the third would be an improvement, as it is at least likely that the person who is appointed knows more about transit than the typical politician elected to a completely different office.
I think one of the big problems with ST is that the people in charge think they know a lot about transit, but don’t. There are other problems (like the idea of a spine) but they go together. If you don’t know much about transit then a spine sounds fine. If you know a lot about transit you wonder why the hell we are building a spine. So even just appointed officials serving under the politicians would likely improve things. Maybe someone writes a report that basically explains why Tacoma Dome Link is a bad idea and is then replaced. But at least it would be out there. In that sense it would be like Kirkland when they looked into transit for the Cross Kirkland Corridor. The independent consulting firm made it clear that the best possible project would be BRT. Sound Transit ultimately ignored the findings (and the interests of Kirkland) but at least there was the report, which (under different circumstances) might have swayed public opinion enough to choose a different path.
“The civil servants still need to report to politicians somewhere.
“No they don’t. Judges get appointed and then are completely independent. There may be politics involved when it comes time to the appointment, but they don’t answer to the people who appointed them”.
Ross, you are confusing Article III of the constitution with an administrative agency which has no constitutional provision, and misunderstand the scope of a federal judge’s power. You fundamentally misunderstand the Administrative Procedure Act (many do).
At both the federal and state level each administrative agency has a director or secretary appointed by the Governor or President and at the federal level confirmed by the Senate. These then oversee policy at the agency. The Director or Secretary is the legal face of the agency. You can’t sue an “agency”. You can only sue the director or Secretary because legally only they can determine discretionary policy.
Even federal judges who have lifetime appointments are not some kind of rogue or independent actor. They are bound by the laws adopted by Congress and the President. Their decisions are subject to appeal, and any administrative agency decision or rule making is subject to appeal to the courts.
Congress appropriates the funds and allocates it. Not the agency. The administration and agency head have a lot of say in the use of the funds, mostly because Congress shirks its constitutional duty to specifically allocate the funds, which would be very time consuming. Generally, the funds are allocated in blocks, and then a state’s Senators and governor have input on specific uses of the money, within federal rules that are adopted in a very precise manner under the Administrative Procedure Act that Congress or the Courts can amend or block. The agency’s specific civil servants have very little discretion or authority, which is critical because of the restrictions on terminating their employment.
In fact, the Supreme Court recently rolled back an agency’s authority by repealing the Chevron deference doctrine it held in 1984 required courts to give deference to an agency’s legal interpretation of a vague congressional statute, and in another case found unconstitutional the SEC’s use of its own administrative court system, and held those charged with civil infractions were entitled to a jury trial.
Civil servants like Sound Transit don’t want to make the kinds of decisions you want them to make without appeal or court review or political approval, and the cities and subareas actually paying the taxes that fund the agencies would never stand for it. If there were no ST Board we would see many more agency decisions appealed to the courts, and many more agency decisions overturned, because the Board serves as the political filter so courts tend to show some deference to those political decisions.
Whether Board members should be elected directly is an interesting question. My guess is no for two reasons: 1. I doubt the elected members from the different subareas would make different decisions than the current Board (and any Board decision needs a majority of votes); and 2. You would set up a competition between elected Board members and the elected officials from the subarea who are always going to have more power than an elected ST Board member. Cities like Seattle, Bellevue, Issaquah, Kirkland, Redmond, Tacoma and so on are not going to accept whatever a civil servant decides at ST, and they are not going to accept what an elected Board member decides if it conflicts with the local elected representatives.
There is a common saying that ST Board Members’ day job is not transit. That is how it should be. Transit at the macro level is just politics like everything else. Some times you like the decisions, sometimes you don’t, but the key is there is no faceless dictator, and in the end the voters really decide because they pay the taxes and vote for levies and their elected leaders.
ARTICLE SCHEDULING:
There are three articles left in the RapidRide series: 165 (Kent), 181 (Auburn), and miscellaneous other things in the report. I’m hoping we can get them out this week but we don’t have dates yet. Beyond that there are five articles in various stages of writing or planning that I expect will go out in the next few weeks. So a bunch of articles are coming; I’m just not sure when. The Wednesday and Sunday columns will continue as usual.
For Rainier Valley, instead of doing it intersection by intersection, might it be possible to do a bypass tunnel for cars and trucks, reduce the traffic lanes on MLK to one each direction plus turn lanes, much more space for pedestrians and bicycles, and give the trains and pedestrians signal priority? So, turn that stretch of MLK into more of an urban main street than a surface highway/stroad that happens to have a train. Yes, you could bury Link, but then you’d also have to build underground stations. You could do cut-and-cover, but I doubt it would fly given what the neighborhood went through to initially build Link, and the issues that came up with the second CID station. It just seems that doing anything to re-grade what is already at grade there is a monumental and very expensive task and possibly politically impossible. Of course the tunnel would NOT be cheap or easy, but it seems you might get more bang for your buck, it would truly be transformative.
“ So, turn that stretch of MLK into more of an urban main street than a surface highway/stroad that happens to have a train.”
As long as there is about 100 feet in a full MLK crosswalk I think it’s going to always feel like a stroad rather than an urban street.
We already have a car-only bypass for MLK; it is called I-5.
But to your broader point, yes MLK could simply get a redesign to be less of a stroad. SDOT simply needs to prioritize the pedestrian experience over car throughput.
Open thread? Allright. I am so tired of always following the rules while riding transit and getting treated like garbage while those who disobey the law are not subject to real accountability or consequences.
I’m curious what you mean by being treated like garbage? I’ve ridden transit around here for a very long time and haven’t really ever experienced that.
When someone is breaking the law on transit, I speak up and I am told to shut up about it. I pay my fare and the guy after me doesn’t pay. I say something and the driver says I am wrong. Anytime something like that happens. I take it personally.
South Bellevue P&R report. As I wait on the train I can see 7 cars on the first floor of the P&R, 2 cars on the second floor, and no cars on the third and fourth floors. There may be cars on the other side I can’t see, but wouldn’t they all park closest to the train?
You can see a bit of Lake Bellevue from Link; it’s just a block northeast of Wilburton Station.
I think there’s a lot of potential for development around the station. On the north side of NE 8th, it’d be nice if the Whole Foods site got redeveloped. Same with the one-story Design Market complex just to the north of Whole Foods. It’d be nice if the Porsche and Mercedes dealerships just to the east of Wilburton station were redeveloped, but I don’t see that happen in the near or far future. Around Lake Bellevue, I’m not sure how much could be redeveloped. It seems like surrounding the lake, it’s about half condos, and half office buildings. The office buildings could probably be purchased and redeveloped easier than the condos. But, south of the station/south of NE 8th, is probably where the most development is going to happen.
What’s amazing to me is I remember how packed the old South Bellevue P&R used to get on weekdays. Pretty much filled to capacity M-F. And now there are hardly any cars in the new garage. I know that will change some when Link crosses the lake, but still. WFH put that much of a dent into park and riding?
I did a light search for you on wsdot. The two-way traffic counts for I-90 just east of the intersection for bellevue way has:
2023: 91k
2022: 84k
2021: 82k
2020: 74k
2019: 102k
2018: 102k
2017: 101k
2016: 101k
2015: 99k
2014: 94k
https://wsdot.public.ms2soft.com/tcds/tsearch.asp?loc=Wsdot&mod=TCDS
location id CS03534
Basically how I’m interpreting it is that once it reaches around 100k that is the saturation point and people start using transit and park and rides much more. Assuming that is the case for 2024 it’ll probably start nearing the 100k count as well and by 2025 a lot more people might use the park and rides once it can’t go any higher?
At least that is with my naive simple prediction, perhaps sound transit has a more complicated formula somewhere.
WFH is definitely putting a dent into park and ride ridership, particularly on Mondays and Fridays. However, it’s also worth nothing that the new garage has much higher capacity than the old lot, so the same number of cars that filled the old lot would translate to a mostly empty garage.
Wow, WL, thanks for the great research. Very interesting for those of us who use I-90 a lot.
Tying into Sam’s comment about empty eastside park and rides and your data, my observations are more trips on I-90 today are not commuting to work, especially to Seattle that 1. has high parking costs; and 2. is dense enough that when you get off the bus you are there.
More of these Eastside I-90 trips are errands, and so a car is necessary, and parking is often free for multiple stops. The trips are spread out more so even though the number of car trips are recovering there is less congestion, which was always peak on I-90.
What we see is a big decline in transit ridership but recovering car trips. Those trips are not all day commutes but shorter errand type trips (often by someone working from home), so a park and ride doesn’t make sense.
I am surprised however by the lack of cars at S. Bellevue park and ride because that used to be popular among Seattle workers and eastside workers who worked in downtown Bellevue but didn’t want to pay for parking in downtown Bellevue and would catch the 550 from S. Bellevue straight to Bellevue Way. Maybe they are working from home too.
Re: eastside mobility, the number one issue is 405. 405 is a critical highway north/south, but is just clogged all the time especially south of Bellevue. 18 is little help because it enters I-90 too far east. This causes problems on I-90.
Probably the biggest issue (other than the huge growth south on 167) are the exits from I-90 going westbound onto 405 N/S. The exit lane on I-90 is only one lane, so every car wanting to go north OR south on 405 must wait until the fork in the exit lane at the very end, and there is ALWAYS congestion in one direction on 405 so the cars back up, which backs up cars entering from Eastgate.
Same with the exits from I-90 going eastbound onto 405, but at least those split before the north or south 405 exits so you don’t have to wait even if the direction you want to go on 405 doesn’t have the peak congestion (congested north in the am and south in the pm).
405 simply has to be widened and is being widened. Based on the demographic (which naturally hate HOT lanes “for the rich”) of 405 south/167 I don’t think STRIDE will make much of a difference, which is why Link on this route made little sense. Neither end of this Stride is really walkable or has good park and ride capacity.
But the exit(s) N/S from I-90 westbound to 405 has to be changed to one lane exits onto 405 N and one separate lane onto 405 S so cars don’t have to wait if they are going in the direction without traffic congestion on 405.
Finally, I have my doubts East Link across I-90 will increase park and ride usage or cross lake trips on transit. I think work from home, free parking on the eastside, the general feeling the eastside is safer and offers anything Seattle has, and just a cocooning post pandemic, are the main reasons trips from the eastside to Seattle are down. At the same time some of those factors apply to Seattle as well. Unless it is work why go from Seattle to the eastside? That may be part of the reason so few cars use S. Bellevue today. Fewer Seattleites going to downtown Bellevue for work so parking isn’t free.
If those trips return the first place you will see them is the park and rides. We eastsiders like one seat rides and don’t like transfers, and a park and ride really isn’t a seat or transfer. But the destination truly has to be walkable (because the origination usually isn’t on the Eastside). At least that was how it was before Covid when the park and rides were bursting.
Um, IR, this is the Seattle Transit Blog. I think you want the Eastside Freeway Blog.
Your post is quite well thought-out,but this just isn’t the right “target audience”.
It’s like if someone gave a speech about the evolution of Primates to the Republican Convention. Everybody would be “Say what?????”
Any traffic improvement from widening I-405 is going to be temporary until induced demand swallows it up. 405 has already been widened by Totem Lake, yet still backs up.
IMO, IR’s comments on topic; freeway design and the resulting congestion certainly impacts transit ridership, much like how we talk a lot about land use decisions in/around transit stops.
IR correctly splits transit into 2 trips. “Long” trips, in particular commuting into Bellevue CBD or into Seattle (at least the parts of Seattle within Link walksheds), are we served by eastside transit. These are the trips Stride and the various I90 freeway express routes are optimized for. OTOH, for short trips, such as running errands in a local neighborhood, are poorly served by local transit due to land use and the resulting low density.
Connecting to WL’s comment, as freeway congestion returns & extends throughout they day, that should push riders into transit (via P&Rs and otherwise) as ‘long’ trips become superior to SOVs in terms of time and/or reliability, but ‘short’ trips will generally remain overwhelmingly skewed towards SOV becomes trips to shift to avoid chokepoints, notably the cross-lake freeways, which was IR’s point about the lack of “need” for eastsiders to travel into Seattle for daily life.
Thanks AJ, I was going to post the same. I apologize if my comments about 405 were not clear about 405’s impact on transit.
The original sub thread began when some suggested Issaquah Link should be converted to some kind of BRT. Buses run on roads, often with cars, and congestion affects transit choices. I would argue traffic congestion on I-5 has dominated westside transit decisions from HOV lanes to Link to Lynnwood for over 50 years. 405 is the same on the Eastside.
If effect every bus that leaves Issaquah is an express/BRT bus. They run for a distance on I-90 with few stops (Eastgate P&R, Mercer Island, Seattle, Bellevue). Although peak congestion on I-90 is less today most believe this area will continue to grow in population and number of trips, all of which begin on I-90 if leaving the Issaquah region or going to it. I believe population growth is the prime driver on the eastside in number of trips rather than “induced demand”, and growth along 405 to the north of Bellevue, and south and along 167, has exploded, but the current number of lanes on 405 south of Bellevue is around half of I-5. Taking transit south on 405 is awful just like driving.
405 is a problem for I-90. I-90 has a quirk in which going west the left hand HOV lane ends around 1-2 miles before the exits onto 405. This means all vehicles in the HOV lane (which includes a lot of SOV’s) have to move into the adjacent lane, which backs up both lanes.
At the same time, traffic is backing up (or is always backed up) in the far right lane that exits onto 405 N/S. But since drivers in the lane next to the far right lane try to cheat and merge at the exit they stop in that lane and wait with their blinker on when no one wants to let the cheaters in, backing up that lane for a very long distance.
Hence you have four westbound lanes on I-90 basically stopped at this point.
I oppose converting Issaquah Link to a BRT for the same reason there is Link from Lynnwood to Seattle, which is almost the exact same distance from Issaquah to Seattle. I would rather get on Issaquah Link with a latte and my laptop with 100% frequency reliability and excellent frequency and know I have a smooth one seat ride to Bellevue or Kirkland, or an easy transfer to East Link and access to Redmond or Seattle, UW, Lynnwood, Everett. I don’t believe 405 no matter how wide it is, even if the exits from I-90 onto 405 are fixed, will ever not have congestion spilling onto I-90.
So for me it is simple, and why ST included Issaquah Link in ST 3. This area is booming, and it needs grade separated Link to the other regional areas. BRT will have the same issues as buses have today on I-90 during peak times, and those will likely get worse as population grows. So not only is there no legal mechanism to change Issaquah Link, it is the best use of those ST 3 funds in the subarea, voters voted for that, and this area has paid a lot of ST taxes for Link in other areas, many of which today have no density, retail or commerce.
If there is a later article on Issaquah Link I will post why I think Stride will be a bust on the eastside, and how I would change it considering how expensive it is becoming that the affected cities will accept, which is why I don’t want something like Stride instead of Issaquah Link.
Once Issaquah Link is built transit riders from Issaquah won’t have to worry about traffic congestion on 405 that is only going to get worse and worse south of Bellevue, which is means it will impact I-90 more and more.
> I oppose converting Issaquah Link to a BRT for the same reason there is Link from Lynnwood to Seattle, which is almost the exact same distance from Issaquah to Seattle
The problem is that issaquah link provides poor coverage with only one stop in issaquah, basically you still need to use a local bus to get to it or park and ride. And then on top of that is poor travel time to reach Seattle given the backtracking from east main
> If there is a later article on Issaquah Link I will post why I think Stride will be a bust on the eastside
For stride 1 and 2 they’ll use the express toll lanes so I’m not worried about their speed. Rather for Stride 1 it has a differing problem of skipping too many destinations.
> I oppose converting Issaquah Link to a BRT for the same reason there is Link from Lynnwood to Seattle, which is almost the exact same distance from Issaquah to Seattle.
I’ve written a draft article on issaquah freeway brt but I could never figure out how to get a bus from bellevue way or i-405 over to i90 center median lanes effectively.
> I-90 has a quirk in which going west the left hand HOV lane ends around 1-2 miles before the exits onto 405
Are you talking about the construction for the fish culverts? Normally the hov lane doesn’t end.
“I’ve written a draft article on issaquah freeway brt but I could never figure out how to get a bus from bellevue way or i-405 over to i90 center median lanes effectively.”
Because the 2 Line is planned at high frequency, as long as it gets to a Link Station it’s doing its job.
Even Mercer Island could work. The HOV through lanes on I-90 don’t seem to ever be congested so a Stride system ending there could be at the edge of Issaquah in 10 minutes even with a median stop at Eastgate. Of course, that then touches on the MI bus hating.
As you note, I think that the real challenge is the 90/405 area around Factoria. It’s so difficult that even Stride on 405 ignores the Factoria area. I don’t think I’ve seen any comprehensive ideas put forth on how to connect there.
“I oppose converting Issaquah Link to a BRT for the same reason there is Link from Lynnwood to Seattle, which is almost the exact same distance from Issaquah to Seattle
“The problem is that Issaquah link provides poor coverage with only one stop in Issaquah, basically you still need to use a local bus to get to it or park and ride. And then on top of that is poor travel time to reach Seattle given the backtracking from east main”.
How is that different than Lynnwood which supposedly feeds all of Snohomish County? Or different than some kind of BRT?
Most Link stations outside Seattle do require first/last mile access by bus or park and ride, including some in Seattle like 130th St. We are talking 2046. I expect the Issaquah region to be one of the fastest growing and to densify in the town center.
As I have noted before, I think Issaquah will need at least two light rail stations, but not massively expensive ones like 130th St.
The travel time to Seattle on Issaquah Kink (and not everyone is going to Seattle although some think that; most from Issaquah will be going to Bellevue) with a transfer at E. Main is much better than coming from south of Seattle, like from Federal Way, for approximately the same distance. I doubt a bus from Issaquah to S. Bellevue to transfer to East Link to Seattle would be much quicker.
What would be quicker would be a one seat bus from Issaquah to Seattle and SLU when East Link opens across the bridge plus the 554 to Bellevue Way. Depending on ridership to Seattle from Issaquah I could see a push for that. It would depend on congestion on I-90. Then the question is whether two BRT’s from Issaquah — one to Bellevue and one to Seattle — is better FOR ISSAQUAH than Link. Both would still need feeder buses and park and rides like today.
I still think political momentum will be for Issaquah Link and only Issaquah can change that. Link is a status symbol of the future. It would be hard for a future council to convince Issaquah and surrounding communities differently. We would think we are getting gipped.
The ridership on the 554 when East Link opens will be interesting but I don’t know if that will tell the future of the area or ridership. Probably just whether future riders are going to Bellevue or Seattle. My guess is more and more Bellevue which won’t require a transfer.
“We would think we are getting gipped.”
If 4 Line is not a rail line, then only three East King cities get light rail — Mercer Island (26K), Bellevue (155K) and Redmond (80K). Of the remaining cities, the most populous is Renton (108K) followed by Kirkland (96K), Sammamish (68K) and then Issaquah (42K).
And there are several more cities much bigger than Issaquah not getting any light rail in ST around the region.
If Issaquah wants to claim that it’s shortchanged, get in line!
“Even Mercer Island could work. The HOV through lanes on I-90 don’t seem to ever be congested so a Stride system ending there could be at the edge of Issaquah in 10 minutes even with a median stop at Eastgate. Of course, that then touches on the MI bus hating”.
Al S., although I am not sure I agree that the I-90 HOV lanes are never congested, and won’t be in the future, I think you miss the key: skip Mercer Island. Run the bus into Seattle up 4th Ave. S. to SLU where it would turn around on Denny and back on 2nd Ave. And continue the 554 to Bellevue Way in downtown Bellevue.
You will never get Issaquah to abandon Link if there is a transfer from a bus to Link, whether at S. Bellevue or Mercer Island. That is why the 554 will continue to Bellevue Way when East Link opens across the bridge. To avoid a transfer. It is why the 554 won’t go to Mercer Island. To avoid not only a transfer but backtracking. If Issaquah rejected the 554 going to Mercer Island that included a transfer to BOTH Seattle and Bellevue what are the chances Issaquah would give up Issaquah Link with a one seat ride to Bellevue for the same thing on a bus, no matter what you call it.
Don’t waste time trying to figure out a way to get a bus from Bellevue Way to the I-90 median. It will never happen.
The only way to get Issaquah to give up Link is to offer something better. I am not sure there is. Issaquah Link will be a one seat very comfortable ride to Bellevue and Kirkland where most are going with perfect reliability and great frequency. If there is going to be a transfer to Seattle much better to have it from Issaquah Link to East Link than a bus on Mercer Island to East Link, and have a one seat ride to Bellevue on Issaquah Link. My guess is Bellevue would prefer that too because it makes it much easier for those from the Issaquah region to get to Bellevue than Seattle.
I think these ideas to get Issaquah to abandon Issaquah Link are far fetched, but unless they offer something BETTER than Issaquah Link they have zero chance. Instead, what I see on this blog are proposals to save money. Issaquah won’t give up Link to save money any more than West Seattle will. And why when the subarea has plenty of money for Issaquah Link and it is in ST 3?
@ Issaquah Resident:
You do understand that Link can’t exceed 55 mph according to the specifications, right? It will take about 18 minutes to get to East Main Station on the train. Then to get a train to Seattle, a Link rider will have to walk down to the end of the train to cross over to the trains running in the other direction — and then wait for that second train. Plus, the projected ridership is so low that even 15 minute service would be quite empty.
I’ve been surprised that there isn’t yet an express bus in the 99 tunnel between SLU and I-90. With a Mercer Island stop, an Issaquah Stride bus could continue on to a stop near the stadiums and then run through the 99 tunnel to SLU and end at a planned Link station there.
> . Issaquah Link will be a one seat very comfortable ride to Bellevue and Kirkland where most are going with perfect reliability and great frequency
The problem is that it really isn’t? It’s alright to reach Bellevue, but for kirkland you still need to transfer to a bus.
For Seattle you’ll need to back track to east main first.
I mean like versus with east link restructures from issaquah highlands to downtown kirkland it’s get on the 554 to bellevue downtown then take the 250 to kirkland. With the issaquah link you’d take some bus to issaquah station or drive, then take the issaquah link over to south kirkland station, and then take another bus over to kirkland.
To Seattle one has to take the bus to issaquah station, link to east main then transfer and link towards seattle.
Like just because issaquah link is a train doesn’t make it automatically useful, the very few stations and alignment make it very hard to actually benefit riders.
How is that different than Lynnwood which supposedly feeds all of Snohomish County? Or different than some kind of BRT?
I already explained that. Lynnwood Link connects to several stations in Seattle. Issaquah Link would only connect to a handful of places — the same places a BRT line would connect to. But a BRT line would connect to more places. BRT is simply better.
It may be easier to think of typical scenarios. The first thing to do is assume that all the I-90 buses stop at Eastgate. This is the plan once Link goes over the water, so that part is easy. Now assume that Metro and ST runs some buses to Downtown Bellevue and some buses to Mercer Island. Again, that is the plan. Next assume that WSDOT (or ST) builds an HOV connection between I-90 and 405 (Issaquah to Bellevue and the reverse). This doesn’t look particularly difficult, and would be much, much cheaper than building Issaquah Link. This means that a bus could run express from Eastgate to Downtown Bellevue (and be just as fast as a train between those two places).
Now compare some trips. There are bunch of potential starting points, like Downtown Issaquah, Issaquah Highlands, North Bend, Issaquah Headquarters or Sammamish. Since some buses would go to Downtown Bellevue and other go to Mercer Island, the trips vary. Now consider the destinations and the options:
* Eastgate:
1) Get on a bus and ride it straight to Eastgate.
2) Get on a bus and ride it to Issaquah. Then wait for the Issaquah Link train, which eventually gets you to Eastgate.
Obviously the BRT option is better. Every rider gets a direct connection to Eastgate/Bellevue College. OK, next up:
* Downtown Bellevue
1) Take a bus that goes directly there. This would be similar to the future 554, but it would skip Bellevue Way (it would run express via HOV lanes from Eastgate to Downtown Bellevue).
2) Take a bus (headed to Mercer Island) to Eastgate, and then transfer from there to the bus described above.
3) Take a bus to Eastgate and then take Issaquah Link to Downtown Bellevue.
The first option is the best option and it is available to more people. The second and third option are basically identical. You have to transfer, but once you do, the train is as fast as a bus. So a lot of riders come out way ahead with the BRT option, while the other riders have a very similar experience with BRT or Issaquah Link. OK, another destination:
* Downtown Kirkland
1) Take a bus that goes directly there. This would be a continuation of the bus that went from Eastgate to Downtown Bellevue. It would get back on 405 (in the HOV lanes) and then go to 85th, where it would then exit (via the HOV lanes) and go quickly to the main part of Kirkland. It would then continue (following the path of the 255) to Juanita and Totem Lake.
2) Take a bus to Eastgate, and transfer to the above bus.
3) Take a bus to Issaquah. Transfer to Issaquah Link. Transfer a second time to a local bus (that is not particular fast) but eventually gets you to various destinations in Kirkland.
Clearly the first options is best, the second option is second best and the Issaquah Link option is much, much worse. One final destination:
* Seattle
1) Take a bus to Mercer Island and transfer to Link there.
2) Take a bus to Downtown Bellevue and transfer to Link there.
3) Take a bus to Issaquah, transfer to Issaquah Link, take that to East Main, then that back to Seattle.
Again, the best options are ranked, in order. The worst option — by far — is the one involving the train. You can’t say that with Lynnwood Link. I’m not saying Lynnwood Link was worth the money, but it is a very different dynamic. Someone in Everett will be able to take a bus to Link and then ride it to Northgate, UW, Capitol Hill, Downtown Seattle and SeaTac. Issaquah Link doesn’t offer anything similar. Not at all. It is simply inferior to service that could be provided by buses, running about as often as they plan on running them (let alone as often as they could if you put the money into service).
[Ed: Fixed boldface with what I assume was intended.]
” Issaquah won’t give up Link to save money any more than West Seattle will”
It’s not Issaquah’s decision and Issaquah’s own pot of money. It’s the East King subarea’s decision. That includes the larger cities mentioned: Renton and Kirkland. (I won’t count Sammamish because it’s too low density for Link: it has no regional center to go to. I could see an extension to the Issaquah Highlands. That would be a much smaller center than Everett or Tacoma, but similar to Tacoma Mall.
I don’t expect East King will change its mind, since it had years to do so before 2016 and before 2024. But it’s a theoretical possibility. We don’t know who will be on the ST board or what their attitudes will be in the 2030s when it comes time to really decide on Issaquah construction.
“If there is a later article on Issaquah Link I will post why I think Stride will be a bust on the eastside”
Is that specifically about an Issaquah Stride line, or all Stride? Stride 1, 2, and 3, while they may not be the most transformative possible (due to station location and car congestion in the HOT lanes), are better than nothing. If ST is not prepared to build light rail in those corridors, it needs to do something to make regional trips feasible for people who aren’t dedicated transit fans.
Did I miss an announcement of changes from the final proposed KCM Lynnwood Link bus connections to the service changes coming on 9/14?
Some proposed changes that seem to have been eliminated:
* 45/75 decoupling, 45 to UW station and 75 to U District station via campus
* 72 replacing 372 and going to 148th Station
There’s a link in an open thread comment on the past week or so, near the end of the comments. The 372 is probably waiting for Stride 3, and the 75 may be waiting for 130th station.
What I don’t remember is what the 512 will do. My friend in North Lynnwood is freaked out she’ll lose frequent service from Ash Way P&R to Lynnwood Station. I told her the Orange, 201, 202, and 512 or a similar route will still be running.
512 will continue to serve Ash Way P&R.
I am curious how many will continue to use that stop. Lots of car parkers will just keep going to the ample still-free, covered, more secure, shorter-walk parking at Lynnwood Station to avoid a bus transfer, no matter how much service there is between Ash Way and Lynnwood TC (including the peak-direction 513 as a fourth direct freeway option).
If Lynnwood Station garage fills up, most car parkers will switch to parking at Mountlake Terrace Station, and so on.
Ash Way P&R has a TOD walkshed, but 201/202 stops up Ash Way do too, and they’ll just stay on the bus to Lynnwood.
ST Express 510 will continue to serve Mountlake Terrace Freeway Station until the Great Conjunction.
That is a good point, Brent. I would expect ridership of the 512 at that stop to go way down. Right now it not only offers a one-seat ride to Seattle (for those in the neighborhood or those who parked there) but it offered a good two-seat ride. Currently that two-seat ride involves mostly the Orange Line (a bus that also goes to Lynnwood TC). There will a few buses that end at Ash Way, but not that many riders will head there if they want to go to Seattle. Meanwhile, even if you drive or take a bus to Ash Way, the 512 will have a lot of competition. Not only do you have the 201/202 (which runs express between Ash Way and Lynnwood, like the 512) but also the Orange Line. That is the slow way to get there but not that slow. Sometimes people just get sick of waiting.
In the past there were very few people headed to Everett. About 350 riders a day (from Ash Way) boarded heading south, and about 35 heading north. Overall I think 512 ridership at that stop will go way down. It has been a while since ST reported stop data though, so we many not know the ridership there.
We will be able to see what the 512 does though. On the one hand it should make travel better from Everett. The Lynnwood transfer will be much better than the Northgate transfer. On the other hand if hardly anyone is using the Ash Way stop then it becomes simply the three Everett stops which have never been a big portion of the ridership. It will compete with the 201/202 even the 201/202 is a bit slower. My guess is it settles in somewhere close to 1,000 riders a day, or 2/3 of what it is now.
One caveat about Mountlake Terrace park and ride, you cannot get directly onto 236TH SW from from SB I-5, or from the street directly to NB I-5. Those ramps only face south. You’d have to use the ramps at 220th or Ballinger Way, which means you have to deal with slow surface roads and red lights. Additionally, there is a lot of congestion on I-5 both SB in the morning and NB in the evening. Technically, in the evening you could use the SB I-5 ramp, get right off at the Ballinger exit, and get back on I-5 NB, but that ramp has a queue signal that is usually backed up. So will parking at MLT be better than taking the bus from Ash Way or another convenient park and ride further north? Perhaps if you really hate busses yes, but for the most part, I kind of doubt it.
Even Lynnwood station itself will not be entirely seamless between the station and I-5 north of it, unless you (legally or illegally) use the carpool ramps, and those ramps might back up at the red light at the bottom of the ramps. Then, it takes additional time to drive around to the garage entrance, get up to whatever floor has a spot, walk to the elevator/stairs, and get back down to the station entrance level, you might as well have just parked at Ash Way. And you’ll likely have to pay a $2 parking fee at Lynnwood starting next year. If there’s one thing about Ash Way, it is easy to get from the highway to a parking spot coming south bound in the morning (and it’ll be free for the foreseeable future). My expectation is for park and ride at MLT and Lynnwood to be like Northgate: Much more people coming in from the east and west to avoid the highway entirely, than those diverting from I-5 to the north.
There are quite a few homes within walking distance of Ash Way park and ride. I know someone who lives in one. Losing the express to Link would be a big loss for anyone who lives there without a car.
Yes, even if the 512 didn’t stop at Ash Way anymore, the 201 and 202 still would. But those buses are slower, as they make stops at Alderwood Mall. The 512 just gets straight on the freeway and doesn’t mess around.
One caveat about Mountlake Terrace park and ride, you cannot get directly onto 236TH SW from from SB I-5, or from the street directly to NB I-5.
Good point. If Lynnwood Park and Ride fills up, it isn’t that easy to just go from one park and ride to another (in order). I’m not sure if there is a way to gauge how full a lot is dynamically. Is there a website for that? I’m thinking of an event. For example a football game. Someone drives to the Lynnwood Park and Ride and it is full. What next? Drive to 145th? Northgate? Backtracking to Ash Way may be the best bet.
And you’ll likely have to pay a $2 parking fee at Lynnwood starting next year.
That would certainly change things. Not for an event, but for every day use. Otherwise your point about getting from Ash Way to Lynnwood is a good one. But I think a lot of people just skip the freeway (if they are driving). For example let’s say I live at 156th and 60th (https://maps.app.goo.gl/TcCdMQpYpdH7M3Jb7). I’m headed to Seattle. Right now I drive to Ash Way. In the future I drive to Lynnwood, but I don’t get on the freeway (https://maps.app.goo.gl/cvYx9hrWSBSc2nSTA). So yeah, it might be closer to go Ash Way, but I’m already in my car, and the idea of taking a bus a relatively short distance just doesn’t seem worth it (even if it is frequent). On the other hand, if I live at 164th and 36th I’m just taking the Orange Line to Lynnwood Link and taking the train from there. No reason to get my car out of the garage (if I have one). Ash Way seems close enough to Lynnwood that drivers will keep going instead of just parking and taking a shuttle bus. But if the Lynnwood park and ride lots fills up — or they start charging — it definitely changes the dynamic.
Yes, even if the 512 didn’t stop at Ash Way anymore, the 201 and 202 still would. But those buses are slower, as they make stops at Alderwood Mall.
Wait, what? I thought the 201 and 202 ran express from the Ash Way Park and Ride to Lynnwood TC. That is what the schedule says: https://www.communitytransit.org/route/201/table
On southbound I-5, there isn’t an offramp to Mountlake Terrace station, Shoreline North/185th station, or 130th station.
Metro service changes
ST service changes
Comments
The 512 will be truncated at Lynnwood and will keep its number.
I don’t think there was any fanfare, but the bus only lanes with the southbound queue jump is now open on Rainier Ave under I-90 at Judkins Park. The station was done last year — but the lanes only opened very recently.
The north King County Metro restructure feels like an austerity restructure, not just by the elimination of routes, but also the frequency reductions in others.
Route 49 is dropping down to 20-minute headway, to fit its ridership. There must be some north-end routes getting investment to improve access to the Spine.
And yet, my route 60 appears to be one of the largest winners, expanding its period of 12-minute headway to all day on weekdays, expanding the period of 20-minute headway to late night, and bumping weekend headway from 30 minutes in the morning and 20 minutes in the afternoon, to 15 minutes all day. Wow! The investment is credited to the Seattle transit measure, not diverting hours from the north.
But the most dire need on the 60 is missed: more service before first bell and after final bell. That is the only time I see crushloaded 60s (and 107s) and passengers (overwhelmingly students) getting left behind.
The Metro scheduling department ought to be able to figure out shifts overlapping during those very real peak overcrowding times that have existed for years on the 60. I appreciate all the money being thrown at the 60, but it whiffed at solving the one real problem in the 60’s schedule.
The north King County Metro restructure feels like an austerity restructure, not just by the elimination of routes, but also the frequency reductions in others.
I’m not sure which restructure you are talking about, since you then mention the 49 and 60. If you are talking about the RapidRide G restructure, it does feels a bit like austerity. But it also just weird. It seems focused way too much on tradition and getting riders downtown. There seems to be no interest in creating frequent corridors, as buses often run a block or two from other buses. The end result is austerity-type frequency for many buses, while others are going to be fairly frequent. The 10, 11, 12 and 49 (as you mentioned) will get service only every 20 minutes. The replacement for the 47 (the 3 stub) will be even worse, and get buses every half hour. This is basically coverage type frequency despite having probably the highest potential transit ridership anywhere in the state. That feels like austerity, yet it is happening in a world where the G runs every six minutes, the 3/4 every seven minutes and the 60 at least runs every twelve. It isn’t quite austerity, it is just weird (and not in a good way).
I will say that various aspects of the Lynnwood Link restructure are weird too, but without as much austerity. Either way the result is the same though — the buses don’t come as often as they should (even given our limited funds).
“The north King County Metro restructure feels like an austerity restructure, not just by the elimination of routes, but also the frequency reductions in others.”
“Route 49 is dropping down to 20-minute headway, to fit its ridership. There must be some north-end routes getting investment to improve access to the Spine.”
It is austerity, but there was a partial rebound at the end. The 49 is not part of the Lynnwood Link restructure. The Lynnwood restructure and RapidRide G restructure just happen to occur at the same time.
Metro intended to have more frequency in the Northgate, Lynnwood, and G restructures, but when they were going through proposal/feedback rounds, the pandemic recession and/or driver shortage swallowed most of the additions. The recession was more prominent in Northgate Link which went first, and the staff/parts shortage was more prominent in the G restructure which went last.
I talked with Metro spokesmen about the G restructure. They presented the minimum they were sure they could fund, assuming Seattle’s TBD would not be applied to those routes, the shortages wouldn’t get better, and the economy wouldn’t boom. So it was particularly austere, and the Lynnwood restructure was too. So I always knew there would probably be some additions at the end and it wouldn’t be quite that bad. In other words, that some TBD funding would come through, the shortages are gradually diminishing, and the economy has been OK.
And sure enough, there were some last-minute additions, so it’s not as bad as in the final round of proposals.
The last G proposal shifted TBD hours away from the 10 and 11 to the 49, 60, and 125. But in the actual service change, the 11’s contribution is restored and added to, the 60 and 125 are still getting boosted. So it’s like having your cake and eating it too. That’s probably because the shortage is diminishing and the economy has remained strong, so Metro was able to release some hours it hadn’t committed to before. The loser seems to be the 49.
The Capitol Hill situation is surprising: the map at bus stops especially so. Besides the G, the only Frequent route on Capitol Hill will be the 60. The 10, 12, and 49 are downgraded to Local, joining the 11. The threshold is 15-minute weekday frequency. The 10, 11, 12, and 49 will all run every 20 minutes maximum. The 49 has never done that since I started riding it in 1979 (when it was part of the 7). But they all overlap along with the 3 to increase east-west service on Pine Street to 15th. And when more hours become available someday, it can increase any of those.
“The replacement for the 47 (the 3 stub) will be even worse, and get buses every half hour.”
It’s the 47! It was never frequent, at least going back to 1979 (when it was part of the 14). It was half-hourly until one of the recessions, then ran every 40 minutes, then was suspended. So half-hourly service is better than the 40 minutes it last had, and is in-line with its long-term tradition.
OK, but that just shows that the network was messed up back then, too. The 47 runs through a very high-density area. It is one of the highest density areas in Seattle. It is also very close to other density. Thus you have density and proximity. It is extremely walkable. The route is also fairly linear. It makes a turn but only a slight one, and one that is inevitable. If you go down Bellevue Avenue you can’t keep going straight; you either turn right or left 45 degrees and it turns right. Thus you have density, proximity, walkability and linearity. What is the one missing piece when it comes to the transit ridership recipe? Frequency! Run it more frequently and you get a lot of riders.
It also makes sense when you look at the overall network. The 49 (which runs on 10th/Broadway) should just keep going straight. That makes it extremely linear, with no turns from Roanoke to Yesler (an extremely urban strip with no rival in Washington State outside of Seattle). Then it should continue being as linear as possible and head towards Beacon Hill. Riders at the north end of Capitol Hill gain a one-seat ride down Broadway and all the way up Beacon Hill. They lose the one-seat ride to downtown but more than make up for that with frequency. To get downtown they can transfer to Link (the bus runs right by it) or several very frequent buses (or sets of buses). But mostly this means very frequent transit on Broadway as the 49/60 would run opposite the streetcar for six minute headway down Broadway. Does this sound like austerity? Hell no, yet it wouldn’t cost a dime! With this bus running straight north-south, the 47 complements it really well. Run it at least every 15 minutes, maybe more often. It — not the 49 — becomes the bus you take when you want a frequent one-seat (surface) ride from this very dense neighborhood to downtown.
But instead the buses don’t compliment each other, they seem to be in a bizarre competition. If you are in the Summit neighborhood do you take the 47, 49 or walk a long ways and just catch Link? If you are trying to go up Broadway you can take the 60 or the streetcar, but they use different bus stops and different pathways, so you better make up your mind before you start walking. If you are at 15th & Union and want to go downtown you can walk over to catch the 2, or walk over to Madison and catch the G. Then there is my favorite. If you are at 17th & Harrison you have three buses all very close to you, all of which go downtown, but they run on different pathways and each one runs every 20 minutes! That is just crazy. You shouldn’t have to check OneBusAway and figure out at the last second which way to walk. It should be obvious. If you want to go north on Broadway you should just go to Broadway, find the stop and catch either the 60 or streetcar, whichever comes first. The same is true with all of these scenarios.
Overall the network is just weird. It makes no sense at all unless you know the history of it. Someone who doesn’t live here would look at and wonder what the heck is going on. Then you have to explain that “it was always kind of like that”. That is just not a good excuse for really poor routing.
“The 47 runs through a very high-density area. It is one of the highest density areas in Seattle.”
What it doesn’t have is major retail. The bulk of riders are going to Broadway or beyond, and the 47 doesn’t help with that. The only people going to Summit are residents and their visitors; there’s no additional set of people going to nonexistent businesses.
“The 49 (which runs on 10th/Broadway) should just keep going straight”
I’m puzzled that Metro proposed a 49 restructure and is now pulling back from it. But it won’t say definitively it’s dead. I think 20-minute frequency is a step in that direction though. Metro just takes a long time to do things.
“But mostly this means very frequent transit on Broadway as the 49/60 would run opposite the streetcar for six minute headway down Broadway.”
The streetcar stops at different stops. You have to know ahead of time which one will come first, or you have to cross the street at the last minute and you may not be able to.
“If you are in the Summit neighborhood do you take the 47, 49 or walk a long ways and just catch Link?”
I used to be in that position from 2005 to 2010. I took the 14 if it was coming, or if it wasn’t I’d walk further to Pine Street where the routes converge, or further to Convention Place Station if I was going to take a tunnel bus (as I usually was). You wouldn’t take the 49; that was a steep walk up the hill.
“If you are at 17th & Harrison you have three buses all very close to you, all of which go downtown, but they run on different pathways and each one runs every 20 minutes!”
Yes, those are the tails that lose out. But it’s a pretty short distance between Harrison and Roy; it’s not miles and miles like the 42 was in Rainier Valley. So the number of people affected is limited by the short distance, and they can walk to Pine Street for more routes.
One thing to keep in mind, in the next recession the frequencies will be lowered. People have already been through that twice in the past decade, and that makes them more reluctant to depend on transfers. When the 43 was deleted, transfers from the 48 were supposed to make up for it. But the stops are a block apart, and when one or both routes is running every 30 minutes, that just makes it unfeasible. So if people aren’t sure they can trust your claim that restructuring the 49 would yield enough hours to make all the routes 15 minutes or better, they’re also thinking in the next recession it will drop again. So we could end up with more transfers plus 20-minute frequency.
The 47 runs through a very high-density area. It is one of the highest density areas in Seattle.”
What it doesn’t have is major retail.
There is retail only a couple blocks away (on Broadway). The main reason the 47 has suffered with ridership is because the 49 does the exact same thing (and more often). Send the 49 to Beacon Hill, run the 47 at least every fifteen minutes and watch the ridership of the 47 soar.
The streetcar stops at different stops.
Only because the 60 leaves the corridor. That is my point.
There is really only one problematic stop, and that is at the northern end of the streetcar line. Even then it isn’t terrible. Imagine you get out of the station and see the streetcar there. You assume it is leaving, so you head towards it. But as you do, you see the bus approaching from the north. You know that they are designed to offset each other. You catch the bus. At worst you walk up to the streetcar, see that the driver isn’t there, and figure it isn’t leaving for a while. Then you look north and see the bus coming and catch that instead.
That could probably be improved just with some reader boards. Have a sign there outside the station showing when the streetcar and 60 leave (heading south). Those should be the only transit vehicles going that direction (unlike today when you have the 9, 43, 49, 60 and streetcar — holy cow!). So a reader board showing the two options going south would do it. Even without the board it isn’t terrible (if they are timed opposite each other).
Everywhere else the streetcar stop is the same as the bus stop. I think that is the case currently all the way to Yesler, it is just that the stop serves other (far less frequent buses) until at Yesler it serves both the 60 and streetcar. It isn’t until 14th that the streetcar doesn’t share a stop with a bus, and by then the 60 would be heading towards Beacon Hill. So SDOT/Metro really doesn’t have to do much (other than maybe add that reader board).
Yes, those are the tails that lose out. But it’s a pretty short distance between Harrison and Roy; it’s not miles and miles like the 42 was in Rainier Valley. So the number of people affected is limited by the short distance, and they can walk to Pine Street for more routes.
It is not that short a distance. For my example the best option is to just walk to the G (straight south) as heading to Pike/Pine (where the two buses converge) is farther. But it is still about 750 meters (or 2,500 feet). You could also walk to Link, but that is even farther. This means a walk of over 10 minutes to get transit that is more frequent than every 20 minutes.
Obviously my example was a bit contrived. I picked the spot that happens to be very close to three buses, all of which go downtown and all running every 20 minutes. But is by no means is this a low-density, coverage type area. I get why the tails of each bus lose frequency, but they branch way too soon. This is not the south end of Interlaken. This is still the heart of this very urban area. This includes Kaiser (what was once Group Health). From there the 12 is useless, but you have the 10 or 11 both of which go by the hospital and share a tiny section of their route. But unless Metro and SDOT have quietly added a stop there, they don’t share a single stop. You have to choose between two buses, each running every 20 minutes. Or you basically say “screw it” and walk quite a ways to any transit that is frequent. It is over 500 meters to Link, Pike/Pine or Madison. Basically these routes are dead to you unless you happen to be close to the sections where they converge (which is a tiny portion of the area) or you are mobility challenged. Oh, and where they 10 and 12 converge happens to be very close to the G.
There is a concept of “coverage holes” when it comes to transit. These are areas that don’t have any service at all. In this case I would call this a “frequent-service hole”. There are big frequent-service holes in this area, and there shouldn’t be.
So we could end up with more transfers plus 20-minute frequency.
What transfer? The service savings don’t come from truncations. They come from consolidation and following shared corridors. It is about efficiency.
For example something as simple as sending the 2 up to Pike/Pine. Is the 2 running more often? No. But by combining buses on that corridor you add frequency to it. Same goes with the 60/streetcar. I’m proposing — based on current service levels — that they run them both every 12 minutes. This means that they combine for 6 minute frequency. This combination of service would still be great if frequency got worse. Same goes with the 10. Keep the 10/12 split if you must, but make it much later (at Thomas, or better yet Aloha). Or give up on the 12 and just run the 10 twice as often. Twice as often means it is a lot more frequent, no matter the funding level.
Of course we have to make certain assumptions with every network. There is an expected range of service. For example, Link will be frequent. I think this is a given. The train runs every 10 minutes by Capitol Hill now, and will run every 5 minutes very soon. But it wouldn’t shock me if twenty years from now it slips to every 6 minutes (with 12 on the branches). The G will run every 6 minutes to start and will likely continue to run every 6 minutes. If for some reason it drops to 7.5 minutes it still works.
Same goes with every proposed change I’ve suggested. I want a combined 49-60 running every 12 minutes initially, to go with the streetcar which also runs every 12 minutes. If both drop to 15, that is still much better than what exists now. Same idea with every other change. Likewise, it works the other way around. If the 60 runs every ten minutes (along with the streetcar) then great!
There is no reason to assume things will get worse from a funding standpoint. It is worth pointing out that the reason we aren’t running buses more often is because of the recession. The pandemic is over, but the cuts linger. The city decided to pass a tinier tax package then they should have. Partly this was due to Eyman and the lack of a tax on car tabs. But it was also due to a tax-averse city council (and mayor) during the pandemic/recession. It is quite likely that the next time this comes up they will have a combination of car-tab sales tax that increases the funding for transit. Likewise, it is still possible that the county chooses to increase funding for transit.
The network I have sketched out is resilient — it works with a wide range of funding levels. In contrast, the current plan does not. Things are already really bad — if it gets worse it becomes terrible. If it gets a bit better it is still not very good.
“So we could end up with more transfers plus 20-minute frequency.”
“What transfer?”
The transfer at Broadway & Pine when you split the 49. Isn’t that what we’re talking about?
“That feels like austerity, yet it is happening in a world where the G runs every six minutes, the 3/4 every seven minutes and the 60 at least runs every twelve.”
Those are major advances! Advances usually come to one route at a time, not to every route all at once. We have to pocket this gain and then work on the next improvement. We can dream that Metro will hire Jarrett Walker and he’ll design a full ultra-frequent grid and cut off most of the one-seat rides to downtown, but dreaming doesn’t make it happen. In an environment like Metro and our politicians, incremental steps are the most likely to succeed and stick. These are incremental steps, with a major advance in the G and 60. (Is the 3/4 on First Hill really increasing, or just staying where it was?)
Advances usually come to one route at a time, not to every route all at once.
Yet they have in the past! U-Link was amazing. Keep in mind, with U-Link the train only went to the UW Station (by Husky Stadium). It did not go to the U-District. Several people suggested that Metro be conservative and not change the express routes that connect the UW with downtown (71, 72, 73). Metro decided to be bold and truncate all of those. They then put the money into running the buses more often. Fifteen minute frequency in the area became in the norm. Not half hour — which was the standard for decades — but fifteen minutes. Getting to the UW from the northeast part of Seattle was suddenly much, much easier. It was a bold step that recognized — if not exaggerated — the benefits of Link.
And it worked! It worked extremely well. Ridership shot up and Seattle was the star of the transit world.
But now, faced with something very similar, Metro has decided to be timid. Extremely timid. The 2 runs right next to the G and they make no changes at all. The 10 and 12 are moved, but the fundamental weakness in the routes (lack of consolidation) is ignored. Hell, they even keep the 43! Here you have a huge improvement in transit for the area — a bus running very quickly and very frequently down Madison — and Metro basically ignores it. This is your opportunity to make big changes and build a very good, frequent network in an area, but they completely blow it. It is the opposite of the U-Link restructure. This is as if we are still running buses like the 71, 72 and 73 every half hour. Not with U-Link, but now!
Imagine the G isn’t even there. This restructure makes just about as much sense. The 10 skips the station and stays on 15th longer (didn’t it used to do that?). It basically trades places with the 11, which now stays on Thomas/John longer, and then goes downtown. The 12 is moved to Pike/Pine, but still covers part of Madison. Other parts of Madison are essentially covered by the (very nearby) 2. The 43 and the 49 remain and are infrequent. This is such a nothing burger when it comes to a restructure, and it shouldn’t be that way. It is almost as Eeyore was doing the planners (“Oh well, I guess we have to move some buses from Madison. Could be worse.”). This is a rare opportunity to make some very worthwhile changes in a very important area and they simply blew it.
I get the idea of incremental change, but I’m not talking about redoing the buses in Ballard, I’m talking about the buses in this very area. Of course some of the changes are long overdue, but now is the time to make the change. There are potential changes (like combining the 8 and 11) that would be difficult if not nonsensical now, but become an obvious improvement with RapidRide G. The G is huge. It effects the neighborhood network in ways that even Link doesn’t. But the Metro planners chose to be very timid overall, refusing to recognize this big addition from a network perspective.
Having been a Route 2 rider, I can say that lots of the riders get on or off East of 14th Ave. Many of those riders also are headed to places south of Seneca and Spring.
RapidRide G is nice for transferring from trips combined with longer distances on Link or ST Express or other RapidRides. However, the routes that run through Capitol Hill and First Hill aren’t that. Plus, the RapidRide G stations are not located in places conducive to transferring to other local routes. Riders often will have to cross at least one or two streets as well as walk a block. So its ridership won’t improve by a surge of riders transferring from other routes in the hill. Its value is likely going to float or sink based on corridor travel itself — and not from riders transferring to and from Route 2.
There are lots of things happening at about the same time. The RapidRide G restructure was a bit more ambitious than just Madison Street service.
It may be that Metro needs several weeks to see how RapidRide G affects ridership patterns on other routes. Will riders move to it or not?
Philosophically, I’ve felt that restructures should be tweaked after 6-18 months of operation. With route choices available in this area, riders will try out different things to determine what works best for them, and eventually settle into a preferred path.
Plus, Metro has major changes happening in Shoreline with East King and South King changes being planned soon. That’s lots of staff effort. Those new Link extensions easily could result in First Hill express routes losing riders, among other things. But more importantly, staff will need to tweak things in every restructure. There is lots happening!
The arrival of 2 Line between Lynnwood and Downtown (and contouring on to Judkins Park and East King) will make Capitol Hill Link Station service feel almost continuous through Downtown and to UW and North Seattle. That will mean that some riders will change paths.
I’m personally disappointed that more direct services aren’t yet going to First Hill from Judkins Park Link. Only Route 8 is being moved. I think that one route with decent frequency should connect Judkins Park Link with Harborview.
In sum, I see the need to review things in 2026 to see how all the system changes affect transit travel. We can all speculate now, but it’s been decided. Plus, it’s best to finalize plans once we see how things perform and what tweaks are needed.
Metro does make adjustments but on a longer time scale. The 10 was moved from Pine to John in 2016. Riders responded by switching to the 11 and complaining about losing frequent service to 15th & Pine. Metro is correcting it in 2024 — eight years later. At other times corrections wait until the next major line increase, which may be ten or twenty years later, especially with Link extensions opening three years late. You’re right that the full 2 Line may trigger another restructure on Capitol Hill, I hadn’t thought of that.
We think Metro still wants to replace the 49 with a north-south route, and reroute the 8 to Madison Park, which would then trigger deleting the 11. But Metro won’t commit to anything beyond this restructure now, so we don’t know what or when. The full 2 Line may be what triggers the 49, or it may not. In the meantime, increasing service on Pine Street seems to be preparing for a possible future deleting of the 49, since its Pine Street service would have to be replaced, and Metro could now do it by shifting its hours to the 10 and 12.
We think Metro still wants to replace the 49 with a north-south route, and reroute the 8 to Madison Park, which would then trigger deleting the 11.
Who thinks that? To be clear, I’m sure there are people at Metro who want that, but obviously some who don’t, otherwise it would happen now. The people tasked with this restructure either never proposed it or were shot down by higher-ups. The higher ups either shot down the idea or never pushed it.
The only chance that this happens in the future is if different people are in charge when they make the next restructure. Unfortunately it could take decades before the area sees a restructure, as there is nothing going on in the area for the foreseeable future. East Link won’t trigger a restructure here (why would it)? Ballard Link doesn’t either. Maybe some sort of RapidRide proposal (or “RapidRide+” proposal) but that seems unlikely as well.
I guess it is possible that Metro will take a look at the restructure and change things based on the ridership. But even that looks bad, especially if the same approach was taken. People are bound to draw the wrong conclusions. For example consider the 73. Of course it wasn’t going to survive running every half hour. It is silly to run a bus on 15th NE and a much more frequent bus on Roosevelt (on Maple Leaf). But that doesn’t mean that the 67 is the right approach. They got it backwards. The 73 should have been shifted to Roosevelt (on Maple Leaf) and extended to 185th and we should have gotten rid of the 67. That is far more efficient.
Likewise they are setting up the 47 to fail. They will run it, see poor ridership and basically say “we tried”. We connected it to the 3, what else can we do? Let’s eliminate the route and add service to other routes. Then, of course, eventually the 49 gets treated more and more like a coverage route as people flock to more frequent options. Would it shock anyone if five years from now the 47 is completely gone, the 49 runs every half hour, the 10 and 12 still split at 15th and run every twenty minutes? Of course not.
I think the only hope is that a different group looks at the area. Or the group has learned a thing or two along the way. Or leadership changes within Metro. Or the county hands this over to an outside group (like Walker’s) because it is clear that the last couple restructures were terrible.
@ Ross:
Metro has committed to running Route 8 to Judkins Park and Mt Baker next year when 2 Line opens through Judkins Park. I don’t see that changing at the last minute.
And I think it’s good to have a Route 8 that does that. Garfield students use Route 8 to get places and Capitol Hill goers live in the CD.
I have also heard past Madison Park residents complain that it takes too long to get to their office jobs. Running Route 8 to Madison Park won’t help that.
The obvious change that I predict is that RapidRide G will simply get extended to Madison Park instead. Without wires as part of the deal, those Madison Park nimbys will embrace a faster direct bus route to get to their Financial District jobs. Plus I don’t see RapidRide G sustaining ridership for 6 minute headways, and extending it to Madison Park and running 8 minute headways would be about the same number of service hours but attracting more riders.
“Likewise they are setting up the 47 to fail. They will run it, see poor ridership and basically say “we tried”. We connected it to the 3, what else can we do?”
The problem isn’t low ridership, it’s a limited number of service hours and competition for them. Metro/Seattle know what the ridership will be because that corridor has run for decades. It’s being reinstated because of non-athletic people who can’t walk up the steep hill to Broadway. Metro didn’t suspend the 47 because its ridership was too low to justify; it suspended it because it had to cut somewhere in a recession/driver shortage. Attaching it to the 3 allows it to run more efficiently, with less resources.
Metro ASKED the community whether it would prefer the 47 or redistributing its hours to the 10, 11, and 12. That was two alternatives in the restructure. The majority of feedback was for the 47. I was divided on it because both have tradeoffs.
Yes, the 47 in the past has been suspended at least partially due to low ridership.
Anyone know what happened to the South Lake Union Streetcar? Metro website just says “South Lake Union Streetcar continues to have service suspended until further notice.” It’s been out for a few days.
“Service on the South Lake Union route of the Seattle Streetcar is suspended while crews address mechanical issues with the two substations that power the streetcar due to an unplanned outage.
King County Metro’s Power Distribution group is working as quickly as possible to develop a repair plan and schedule. While there is not yet an exact estimate for how long the repairs will take, we expect service to be suspended for several weeks.”
In ye olde days, the streetcar lines had portable substations mounted in boxcars that could be put on a location temporarily to work around such problems.
One is preserved at Western Railway Museum in California:
https://www.wrm.org/visit/car-roster/maintenance-support-cars/item/90-sacramento-northern-1
Did losing the SLUS disrupt anyone’s commute?
Under what conditions is SLUS advantageous?
Every time I’ve gone somewhere along its route, the various trip planners always suggest the 70.
The SLUT is so unnecessary Metro isn’t even putting in a bus replacement. It’s just directing people to empty seats on the 40, 70, and 62. And it can always add runs on those lines if it needs to. The 70 is getting upgraded to RapidRide anyway, although that won’t be in time for this disruption.
So there’s at least a possibility that after the streetcar is suspended for several months due to the power-infrastructure failure, some Seattle politicians could argue to just eliminate it. Especially if they’re leaning against the CCC. The SLU line’s operational money could fund more miles of bus service and serve more people’s trips than the streetcar can. The money could go to the 70 and 40 in particular, or to routes in general (like the 8, or elsewhere in the city).
If I had a choice between the SLU streetcar vs 5-7 minute service on the 70 and 40, I’d go with the latter. The streetcar’s operational money wouldn’t be enough to fully accomplish that, but just the possibility is telling. The biggest thing people didn’t like about the bus routes and wanted a streetcar was the limited frequency of the bus routes. But if a route has 5-7 minute frequency and transit-priority lanes, what’s not to like? That’s kind of like a train.
“How is that different than Lynnwood which supposedly feeds all of Snohomish County?” -Issaquah Resident
That’s a good question.
My answer is that southwest Snohomish’s population and trips are oriented in a north-south direction. The line reaches most of the largest cities: Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood, Everett. A lot of their trips are south to North Seattle, downtown Seattle, and the airport. (A lot of others are southeast to Bellevue or east-west within the county, but south reaches the single biggest chunk of them that a line could serve.)
The two biggest cities left out are Bothell and Edmonds. Bothell is too far east, and will get Stride instead. Edmonds is too decentralized: it has a small downtown on the far-off shore but most of the population is around 99 without a center.
In contrast, with a Seattle-Issaquah light rail line there’s nothing really large between Seattle and Issaquah. (And I’m being generous with Issaquah’s emerging largeness.) Eastgate has Bellevue College, which is worth a station but not an entire line. Factoria is larger but still not comparable to a downtown. An Issaquah-Belleuve light rail corridor (or Stride or the 554) has the same Eastgate and the same missing of Factoria. There’s just nothing large between Bellevue and Issaquah.
There’s nothing large beyond Issaquah either. To the north is Sammamish, whose population may look large on paper but it’s all low density, and can arguably be just as well served by an express bus to Marymoor Village station. East of Issaquah is a rural low-population area. South of Issaquah is little until Renton. There’s nothing like Lynnwood there, or Everett, or Marysville, or Mill Creek, or the fringes of Bothell.