A 5-minute drone (sUAS) flyover of the Federal Way Link Extension construction progress in May, southward from Angle Lake to Federal Way. Some observations with timestamps:
0:02: The path of the SR-509 Completion Project, one of two highway expansion projects in the region, is visible as something that could be mistaken for a riverbed.
1:05: Kent-Des Moines Station
1:30: Midway Landfill, a former potential site for OMF-S that would have cost an extra ~$1B to build but would have had zero business or residential impacts. The current preferred location of OMF-S is the Christian Faith Center, south of Federal Way Downtown.
1:53: The last-minute long-span bridge which delayed FWLE over a year.
2:15: Star Lake Station
4:00: Federal Way Downtown Station, with a fun fly-around afterwards.
As Metro is struggling to meet their plans to build out their battery bus fleet and charging infrastructure, Reece Martin looks at the tradeoff between decarbonization efforts and transit expansion.
The flyover confirms that South King County has been slow to urbanize compared to Shoreline, Lynnwood, and the Eastside. South County is still very car-centric with single-family homes and stroads. Some of the areas look semi-rural, for f**k’s sake! Sound Transit has no delusions about getting people out of their cars down there since the new Link stations all have massive parking garages. I can’t believe people would still question the value of Link coming to West Seattle after watching this video. There’s no comparison.
South King County’s urbanization is markedly less than Seattle or the Eastside. Lots of it seem stuck in the 1970s, like Kent East Hill or much of the 99 corridor. What growth there is comes in the form of big box stores. There are some compact apartments, like in The Landing, 216th & 99, 144th & TIB, etc, but it’s just a few isolated buildings and not much walkable retaail around them. Central Burien has more of a cluster, and I should check central Kent again (west of the Sounder station and the Commons mall; there wasn’t much much east of it last time I was there). Downtonwn Renton has just a few blocks of small streets and restored buildings, and then it just ends in big box hell. The Renton transit center will be moved to the South Renton P&R, but what will be around it? Southcenter has one street with compact apartments, but does nothing about any of the other big box blocks. At least stack the big box stores into multiple stories like Northgate North… at least a few blocks around the mall… somewhere… please? This flyover is no different from the previous Kent – Des Moines flyover we’ve seen. Kent is apparently planning an urban village on its side of 99 around KDM Station. Des Moines is planning a few token buildings, but explicitly rejected anything further south. That rejection and lobbying ST to route Link to I-5 instead of 99 go together. I live in hope that Federal Way will somehow get its act together for something around its station. I’m sure it will have tons of parking and wide streets, but maybe something walkable, please?
This stagnation in car dependency is what makes people without a car suffer and feel like second-class citizens. It also generates a stronger nimby component to keep it that way. It paradoxically even causes some lower-income people to resist transit and walkability improvements. They tell Metro and ST, “We’re too poor for more transit taxes”, even though more transit could lower their costs, and this car-dependent layout itself is the reason for a significant part of their cost of living and not having enough time.
There’s also a bifurcation in what’s getting developed now. That’s happening everywhere including Seattle and the Eastside and South King County. On the one hand are single-family houses, close-together houses (which are at least denser, but not as dense as townhouses), and strip malls. On the other hand are large wide breadbox apartment buildings. Everything in between has gotten lost, due to the nature of the regulations and the limited amount of multifamily land.
Another factor is the desirable areas. Christopher Leinberger has a model that seems pretty accurate. American cities started as industrial cities, with industry on one side of downtown. The opposite side, or at least another side, became the “favored quarter” for desirable housing for the well-to-do. In Seattle the industrial quarter is south, and the favored quarter is east. (Central Seattle and near-north Seattle are also part of it.) Two radial freeways go out to the favored quarter, and the richest CEOs live between them and build their headquarters further out between them so they can reverse-commute (Bill Gates in Medina and Microsoft). This was all in the mid 20th century, so it doesn’t account for back-to-the-city headquarters like Amazon in SLU, which started arising in the 1990s. But still this pattern generally continues. Developers and well-to-do residents want to fill up the favored quarter before spreading into the unfavored quarter. So there’s less developer demand in South King County. So it’s a combination of less demand from developers, and less willingness to be walkable by cities.
Central Lynnwood and the Alderwood Mall area aren’t much better than South King County in terms of walkability. Lynnwood says it will do much better in the future, but when? What Lynnwood does have is a row of apartments between downtown and Edmonds College, and clusters of apartments along 164th around Ash Way P&R. That’s something. And north Bothell has several-story apartment buildings along the Bothell-Everett highway, but they’re like towers in the park: you can sort of walk to a bus stop maybe, but not much else. Further north Mill Creek is somewhat better, but only somewhat.
Have you seen a flyover video of the Lynnwood Link Extension? You’ll see a few more apt buildings around some of the stations, but other than that, there is little difference from a flyover perspective between the two extensions. Take away 6+ apt buildings from the LLE, and the two extensions are almost mirror images of each other.
First of all, two wrongs don’t make a right. It is pretty easy to argue that both projects are a waste of money. But they are also very different projects.
The main value of Federal Way Link is as a bus intercept. Not so that buses can be truncated there (although some will) but so that express buses from Tacoma can serve the station and then keep going to Downtown Seattle. That way riders get the best of both worlds. They connect to Link destinations along the way (SeaTac, Rainier Valley, etc.) while also keeping their one-seat express to downtown.
West Seattle Link may offer the same thing. The problem is that there is very little along the way (SoDo and Stadium — that’s it). Thus it doesn’t offer much value compared to what the buses offer now. The other issue is that even if connecting to those destinations was the priority, it can be achieved far more affordably (and simply better) by adding ramps to the Spokane Street Viaduct to connect it to the SoDo busway. That way the riders wouldn’t have to transfer to get to SoDo or Stadium — they could go directly there. This would offer the best of both worlds for West Seattle — a connection to Link and a one-seat express trip to Downtown Seattle — at a much reduced price over West Seattle Link.
In the case of Federal Way Link it is pretty easy to argue that we spent too much money on the project. It cost over 3 billion dollars and it is highly likely that they could have found a much cheaper Link intercept station for the freeway buses. That being said, while probably not worth the money, what they built is clearly better as it serves Highline College.
In contrast, West Seattle Link is not clearly better than connecting West Seattle buses to the SoDo Busway. Some riders are better off with West Seattle Link, while a lot of riders would be better off with the connection. Put it another way: Imagine we built the ramps connecting the Spokane Street Viaduct to the SoDo busway. Would we now consider building West Seattle Link? Of course not.
Federal Way Link is a worthy project that was much bigger (and expensive) than it should have been. West Seattle Link is just the wrong project for the area.
Sure, West Seattle Link is better than South King Link. It’s all relative. I can think of a few other routes I’d prioritize over either of them, though: Aurora, Lake City Way, and Rainier, for example. I really wish we had simply picked the highest-ridership bus routes and converted them to rail, instead of the apparent goal of reducing bus traffic on the highways.
Not reducing bus traffic on the highways, but giving people an alternative to buses caught in highway congestion. That’s what so many suburban residents and politicians clamored for, and why the Spine is being built.
Not reducing bus traffic on the highways, but giving people an alternative to buses caught in highway congestion.
It was both. They sold the spine as a way to reduce traffic. The problem — in so many ways — is that they focused on light rail as the only solution. They never seriously considered simply changing HOV-2 to HOV-3 and running more buses. It is a fundamental miscalculation of the advantages and disadvantages of a metro.
At the risk of oversimplifying, a metro works really well if you have lots of people traveling between every stop combination. We have some of that (e. g. lots of people go from Northgate to UW or Roosevelt to Capitol Hill) but once you get into the suburbs, you lose that. Only a handful of people will ever take the train from 148th to Mountlake Terrace or 185th to Lynnwood. So for the suburbs what makes sense is express buses connecting to the urban system — that way they can enjoy the same benefits as those in the city (as d. p. put it handing them the keys to the city). They will be given that, but it will only open a handful of doors in the city.
For example imagine if Link served First Hill, but ended at a freeway interchange at 155th. Buses could run in HOV-3 lanes right to the station and then turn around (or go onto the surface streets, e. g. connecting to Shoreline Community College). Now imagine someone from Lynnwood trying to get to First Hill. They ride the bus for a little bit longer, but their overall trip is much shorter. There is a trade-off. Getting to the other suburban stops takes a bit longer. That is a very small price to pay, given how many people head to First Hill (or other places in the city).
Simply put, ST used the wrong tools for the job.
“Sure, West Seattle Link is better than South King Link.”
Federal Way Link is along RapidRide A, which in my (limited) experience is busy, slow, and would be great to have a higher speed alternative for longer distance trips. It also allows those along the corridor a single seat ride to many different potential transfer locations.
The reasonably good ridership estimate illustrates this.
West Seattle Link, does the opposite. It takes an assortment of single seat trips, and turns them into three seat rides, just to go the few miles between almost anywhere in West Seattle and downtown Seattle.
The dismal ridership estimates reflects this.
I really wish we had simply picked the highest-ridership bus routes and converted them to rail,
There is more to it than that. First thing to consider is ridership per mile. The E gets a lot of riders because it is really long. But it is by no means the best in terms of ridership per mile. But one of the key things is potential ridership and for that you have to consider the overall network and the speed of the subway compared to the speed of the bus. RapidRide E is quite fast. Then there is the cost. To run rail across the Aurora Bridge would be really expensive. To provide additional value (compared to a bus) you would have to run elevated — and that makes the stations really expensive. Meanwhile, you really haven’t altered the network (because it isn’t that much faster).
In contrast, a bus replacing the 44 would perform well. Yes, it is expensive, but it would be dramatically faster than a bus. It would even be faster than driving — at noon. It would change the network (because the north-south buses are much faster than the east-west buses and we are very limited in terms of potential east-west buses). The 44 does well in terms of ridership per mile, but it is the other factors that put it over the top.
Likewise the east-west part of the Metro 8 would perform well, given the very good ridership per mile of that route, and the famously very slow bus. It isn’t quite as good from a network perspective, but it is still quite good.
But I agree with you, it is seems silly to build West Seattle Link next. But I think the biggest problem is that the cost is so insanely high given the benefit — especially compared to what you could do with the existing infrastructure (like connect the bus lanes of the Spokane Street Viaduct with the SoDo Busway).
“They never seriously considered simply changing HOV-2 to HOV-3”
Sound Transit doesn’t have authority to do that or fill in HOV lane gaps; only WSDOT does. WSDOT has refused to for two decades, so what’s the chance WSDOT would do it if ST asks? It seems to be willing to only when it adds lanes, as in 405.
“They never seriously considered simply changing HOV-2 to HOV-3”
Sound Transit doesn’t have authority to do that
Not directly, but so what? But that is just passing the buck. The legislature created Sound Transit. It is lead by local representatives. If they wanted to change the HOV lanes it would happen. A non-binding ST resolution (passed by the board) asking the state to change the HOV lanes would carry a lot of weight. Holy cow, the I-405 “BRT” project is being done in cooperation with the state. It is the same basic idea, but they never seriously considered it for I-5, because they favored the spine.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say we are building this because it is what the leaders wanted and then turn around and say that what the leaders want is meaningless.
“the I-405 “BRT” project is being done in cooperation with the state. It is the same basic idea, but they never seriously considered it for I-5”
The 405 project was primarily adding lanes for cars. BRT got to partcipate as part of a complete street approach. It wouldn’t have been done just for buses.
> Sure, West Seattle Link is better than South King Link. It’s all relative. I can think of a few other routes I’d prioritize over either of them, though: Aurora, Lake City Way, and Rainier, for example. I really wish we had simply picked the highest-ridership bus routes and converted them to rail, instead of the apparent goal of reducing bus traffic on the highways.
I agree, with ST3, Sound Transit has slowly morphed into a freeway transit rail only organization. For Aurora, Lake City Way and Rainier and other avenues Sound Transit has relegated all the transit to buses. Which by itself isn’t that bad — except it also holds all the capital funding and king county metro is left to fund it themselves.
Or to word it differently, “Avenue Transit” is being ignored by Sound Transit. And every time discussions of building rail on these avenues, people are too afraid of any at-grade alternatives, elevated is scorned for the view blocked, cut-and-cover as too disruptive, and deep bored tunnel would be too ludicrous of an expense. So we are left building near freeways only.
This is why I see Sound Transit’s announcement a couple years ago they will never build anymore at-grade / street alignments are really the death knell for light rail throughout Seattle past ST3 if not revisited. Not the exciting news that others viewed it as.
[The 405 project] wouldn’t have been done just for buses.
So what? That would be the case for I-5 as well. I’m not asking for bus lanes, I’m asking for HOV-3 lanes. That means that cars can drive in the lane, as long as they have three people. But they could take the 405 approach and convert them to HOT. Fine. Whatever works.
The point is, the second they started the BRT projects for 405 they were on the phone with the state, working together. It was essentially a joint operation — both groups worked together and both groups helped fund it. Maybe they would have added those HOT lanes anyway — who knows? But I don’t think it is a coincidence that the state did it when it became clear that ST was going to run buses there.
In contrast, the state has done very little about I-5, even though they know it is a problem. That is because ST isn’t putting any pressure on them at all. ST is focused on the trains. Not to be too cynical, but it is also quite likely that a lot of people in ST don’t want to see the buses go faster, since that takes away one of their arguments for the spine. Again, if ST wanted HOV-3 lanes (or HOT lanes) on I-5 the state would likely respond very quickly.
If we wait for HOV-3 lanes until they widen I-5, we may be waiting forever. I-5 widenings have been way out in the exurbs like south of Lakewood, which don’t help inner Pugetopolis transportation at all.
Im fine with west Seattle link going down delridge to white center for 1 billion dollars. But for it to go to alaskan junction for 4 billion dollars — the same cost as east link — is a different matter
Yeah, it should have gone down Delridge (assuming that was affordable). If it somehow managed to be faster than a bus then it would likely get enough riders to justify the cost of rail (rather than BRT).
I rather agree with you on this, WL. The benefit of boring a half mile for the end station in particular is just not there compared to how it adds cost to the project — and adds up to 2 minutes of extra time in the station because it’s as deep as UW Station.
Plus — now that SDOT is floating the of closing Alaska St to cars — the deep tunnel seems pretty ridiculous extra expense to me. ST3 never promised a tunnel for West Seattle. It was only supposed to be added if an additional local funding source — and that was stated by ST as recently as 2020.
If Alaska Street was closed to traffic as now planned to facilitate construction , the last station could have been cut and cover, and the station platforms could be built much closer to the surface.
And ST has not been forthcoming about how the added cost was not only in ST3, but the deep tunnel station was quietly moved from “needing additional funding” to be part of the baseline project.
+2. Make the junction walk or transfer. Eat the rich. serve the poor.
Lots of great comments here regarding this matter. I really appreciate Mike’s post regarding the history of South King County and its role in the region. That clears a lot of things up for me how we got here. And I know Ross has put a lot of thought into improving West Seattle access with buses only. I get that, but we need to stick with what’s been approved by the voters.
Getting Link over the Duwamish is the hard part. Once the line to Alaska Junction is complete, the next step is sending it down to White Center and Burien. I’ve said many times that the C Line is a slow slog through downtown in the afternoon, going down 3rd, then Columbia, and often standing room only. And now that RTO is really ramping up, it will get worse. West Seattle deserves a quick alternative. It’s a legacy city neighborhood (former streetcar suburb) where people actually take public transportation. From the ST open house I attended, TOD will be massive once the stations are built.
Getting Link over the Duwamish is the hard part.
Agreed. It is especially hard to get it over the Duwamish and up to Alaska Junction. It would have been much cheaper to stay low and go on Delridge, although the cost would not have been trivial.
Once the line to Alaska Junction is complete, the next step is sending it down to White Center and Burien.
Which will likely never happen. First off that wouldn’t be cheap. It would probably be underground — it certainly wouldn’t be on the surface. The cost would be enormous and you wouldn’t get that many riders. There are a lot of other projects in Seattle that are more worthy. Once West Seattle “has Link”, other areas will argue they are next in line, based on the same argument (regionalism). That is the only reasonable argument for West Seattle Link right now. In terms of cost, ridership, time saved, improvement to the network or any other metric it performs very poorly. But that corner of the city has nothing, so now it will have something. But once it has something, the same argument applies to other places — places where the value of a light rail line is much higher.
It is also quite possible that nothing else gets built. At least not for the next 100 years or so (maybe building subways becomes really cheap — who knows?). But as of right now it is very expensive. I think Ballard to UW is likely — just because it is relatively small and a major regional mobility improvement — but that might not happen either. A Metro 8 seems unlikely, despite being a better project. Service to Belltown or First Hill probably won’t happen, even though these areas dwarf anything in West Seattle. No, it is highly likely that the West Seattle Link line will be it for West Seattle, which is why it is such a poor value.
@ Ross:
Yes I agree that a Westwood and/or White Center Link extension is very unlikely for quite awhile, if ever.
Let’s not forget that both WSLE and the BLE with a second Downtown tunnel with stations are both way short on needed funds. North King will be lucky to have funds to add Graham. The official opening date of BLÉ is already December 31, 2039 and I don’t see it opening as planned until 2045-2050 already mainly due to its cost (and underestimated construction time).
And there isn’t much density in West Seattle south of Edmunds Street (literally just a few hundred feet of the Alaska Junction station). It pales in comparison to many other Seattle areas not served by Link.
Since ST has now planned all three Seattle Link lines to be so long (all over 20-30 miles), I see upcoming improvements being feeders to the main system. That’s especially true if ST doesn’t build and operate it since they’re projected to be cash strapped. Whether it’s streetcars, funiculars, gondolas or RapidRides I think that it’s likely to be an outcome created by the City from local funds rather than a regional package.
“It is also quite possible that nothing else gets built. At least not for the next 100 years or so (maybe building subways becomes really cheap — who knows?). But as of right now it is very expensive.”
I can’t imagine a more erroneous statement. A statement that completely ignores the fact that Seattle loves trains and transit. This isn’t an engineering decision. This isn’t about value added. This is politics and democracy. Unless Seattle turns conservative, public transit will win.
Ballard is planned for 2039. Issaquah for 2044. That’s not even 20 years away.
Sound Transit 4 will be proposed in the next two decades and it will pass.
It really bugs me when transit nerds completely misunderstand democracy.
@ Confused:
The political reality of ST 3 was that Seattle support carried it. The rest of the region was pretty evenly split. It failed in many cities including Everett, Federal Way and Kent — and ST3 had stations funded in these cities!
And keep in mind that there will no longer be large swaths of population that are eager to get light rail nearby in the district anymore that aren’t already getting something nearby in ST3.
> Once the line to Alaska Junction is complete, the next step is sending it down to White Center and Burien.
At the sound transit CID meetings and at the urbanist I’ve talked to a couple Sound Transit officials. Around 75% of them do not even know about the west seattle burien extension light rail and I have to show them the 2016 pdf for them to believe me.
For the other 25% that I talk to, they say it will probably not happen as the high cost of tunneling makes it very prohibitive given that Sound Transit now wants to be completely grade separated.
Maybe I am not talking to the right people, but it generally is not looking too supportive of an extension there.
Notably this is in comparison with the kirkland/totem lake extension where most have said it could be extended.
> Sound Transit 4 will be proposed in the next two decades and it will pass.
Sound Transit 4 was effectively already passed. Sound Transit 3 goes on for 25 years — and the delay to 2044 means it will actually go on for ~30 years.
Perhaps many here don’t realize but when the Sound Transit Board say ‘delays into future years’ it is actually taking money from potential future st measures. Sound Transit 3 tabs keep continuing until the bonds can be paid off. If say ballard link has further overruns it could take till 2050 to pay it off.
> When the voter-approved capital projects in ST3, ST2 and Sound
Move are completed and implemented, the Board will initiate two
steps to roll back the rate of one or more of the taxes collected by
Sound Transit
If the projects aren’t finished then ST2/ST3 taxes are still in place. If you passed ST4 it would be on top of all of the existing taxes — unlikely to be passed.
https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/project-documents/st3-system-plan-2016-appendix-b.pdf#page=6
>> “It is also quite possible that nothing else gets built. At least not for the next 100 years or so (maybe building subways becomes really cheap — who knows?). But as of right now it is very expensive.”
> I can’t imagine a more erroneous statement. A statement that completely ignores the fact that Seattle loves trains and transit. This isn’t an engineering decision. This isn’t about value added. This is politics and democracy. Unless Seattle turns conservative, public transit will win.
Unfortunately it is a very common American transit pattern. The transit agencies have a very hard time of building near density or once they get extra money waste it on trying to avoid any community impacts. Alternatively they give up building near the core and only on freeways.
1. transit org starts out with not enough money and builds some light rail or metro , but generally higher community impacts. (SF market street/ Seattle 3rd avenue / DC metro cut and cover) with that success =>
2. transit org gets some moderate amount of money and builds some larger project and also trying to avoid some community impacts (SF to airport / DC orange / silver line extension)
3. transit org gets large sum of money and now prioritizes community impacts above all else losing the ability to build anything but deep tunneled and expensive mined stations, or suburban freeway expansions. (BART to far flung suburbs/ DC metro suburban freeway expansions)
4. new downtown core segments are never built: SF never built the geary ave subway and DC has talked about the WMATA loop idea but it is too costly given they all assume deep bore tunneling
@Confused. Just about every city in the US is liberal. Many are extremely liberal. Yet it is quite common for new development to basically stall. New York City is extremely liberal and has a very effective, very popular transit system. Yet the only major improvement in recent years was to build the Second Avenue Subway, a project that was initially approved in 1929. Chicago has focused on renovation. In DC there has been some development in the city, but mostly it has been an extension out farther into the suburbs. Same goes for the Bay Area. It took decades for any major change to Muni, and the improvement (although a big deal) is still pretty small. These are all cities that are much bigger than Seattle, with a lot more density. Smaller cities (like Portland) have added some stations, but not that many, and mostly in the suburbs.
It is just very common to have a boom in construction and then nothing for years. Maybe at some point they add something they probably should have done before (in our case that would be Ballard to the UW) but it often takes decades to build that (which would be true in our case as well).
What you are suggesting would really be unprecedented. We are currently spending way more per capita on transit than any other city (by a pretty wide margin). It is quite likely we will spend more per capita on our rail system than anyone. To then continue with a bunch of major, very expensive projects would be very unusual, especially given the fact that our bus system is so underfunded.
The solution to Confused’s lament is to end the connection between subareas. Let each subarea vote on projects for their subarea (and end subarea poaching like DSTT2).
With subarea equity it makes no difference for Seattle whether one or five subareas vote yes on a ST 4. Uniform tax rates are set to fund the most expensive subarea projects which means other subareas have to fund bad projects with the additional ST revenue they don’t need although some on this blog think there is no bad transit funding no matter how much it costs per rider and rider/mile.
Plus it never made sense for Seattle to spend so much to run Link to the Snohomish and S. King Co. borders. That money would have been better spent on urban rail in the dense areas of Seattle with Link funded by Seattle ending at Northgate and SeaTac.
Mike likes to point out the other subareas demanded the spine. Of course they did — at least SnoCo and S. King — because Seattle paid for most of it (especially LLE and S. King).
I doubt Everett, Tacoma and Ballard Link can be funded with ST 3. So let each subarea decide separately whether to increase subarea funding to complete ST 3 projects and any “ST 4” projects.
My hunch is only Seattle would vote yes. Confused confuses “Seattle” with the ST taxing district and all five subareas when he extolls the love of all things transit. Link (when ST 3 is finished) will account for maybe 1% of all daily trips. That doesn’t sound like love to me.
Transit fans were very supportive of ST1 and 2 all they way to opening and beyond. With ST3, a few transit fans were against but most were for, and it was our enthusiasm in the first place that got ST to accelerate Ballard and then the rest of the cities came onboard, and our championing of it that helped get it passed. Since then ST has made WS/BLE so much worse than in the ballot measure that transit fans are now divided on ST3. Outside the transit-fan world people continued with their previous attitude: those who were always against Link still are, and those who were always for it still are. That all adds up to a net change in support for ST3 and a potential ST4.
Once Link reaches Everett Station and Tacoma Dome, the subareas’ interests will diverge. Pierce and Snohomish may just want short cheap extensions to Everett College and Tacoma Dome, or they may decide they’ve spent enough money and don’t want those sufficiently after all. North King will still want more likes. It’s unclear how much momentum the West Seattle – Burien – Renton extension still has. ST is a single tax district so the tax rate must be uniform throughout it. That worked when the suburbs wanted an expensive Spine and Seattle wanted expensive city service, but it may break down after ST3.
“So let each subarea decide separately whether to increase subarea funding”
That would require splitting the tax district. The state constitution requires that everyone in a tax district be taxed equally. So everyone in all subareas gets a vote, and the tax rate and duration is the same in all subareas.
I’m not sure how turning the subareas into tax districts would affect the board. Would it have to split into five boards? Would only subarea boardmembers be able to vote on taxes and projects affecting the subarea? What about systemwide projects that benefit all subareas: how could that work if some subareas vote to contribute, others vote against, and others don’t want to hold a vote? Would the entire agency and staff have to be split?
I have to wonder if West Seattle would rather spend several hundred million more for the Alaska Junction deep station or if they would rather have it just end at 35th/ Fauntleroy but have a 2000 space parking garage for less total project cost. The cost savings would seemingly be the equivalent of parking garage spaces for 3000-5000 vehicles depending on real estate acquisition cost.
I understand that it’s a hypothetical and very unlikely outcome — but it is an interesting question to pose.
Seattle prohibits new P&Rs. This came up in Rainier Valley: people in Seward Park and Rainier View wanted a P&R at one of the MLK stations saying, “How can we ride light rail if we can’t get to it?” But ST couldn’t, so it wasn’t considered.
Mike, do you have a link or citation to the Seattle code that you claim states “park and rides” are prohibited in Seattle and under what circumstances. Certainly private parking lots are allowed and often encouraged in new development, or required by the lenders.
I am not sure what jurisdiction Seattle would have over ST on ST property when it comes to park and rides which ST considers “essential public facilities” which override local regulations.
Angle Lake and Northgate certainly have large park and rides, and all four LLE stations, so I am assuming ST believes park and rides are critical to Link access, assuming ST has the land and budget for the park and ride. East Link has huge park and rides for stations with the land and budget for a park and ride. Are you sure you are not confusing urban Link stations with land for a park and ride or the budget for one with a Seattle code provision prohibiting any new park and ride.
There was a thorough article on STB by Sherwin Lee on April 25, 2023 questioning whether park and rides made sense post pandemic due to very low usage, but he never mentions Seattle prohibits new park and rides. My understanding is ST hopes or expects that park and ride use returns if ST has any hope of meeting its future boarding estimates and farebox recovery that future O&M funding depends on.
A common misperception on this blog is a park and ride serves only all day work commuters. A park and ride, especially if it has adequate space to accommodate cars after 9 am, serves all transit users who need first/last mile access by car, no matter how long the trip is.
I don’t understand why a transit advocate would oppose a park and ride for someone who needs a park and ride to access transit and has paid decades of ST taxes. It would be like objecting to feeder buses by those who don’t use feeder buses (although some on this blog do advocate for dedicated bike lanes over transit lanes for stations like 130th).
“Mike, do you have a link or citation to the Seattle code that you claim states “park and rides” are prohibited in Seattle”
It’s what I heard at the time during previous P&R debates.
“Angle Lake and Northgate certainly have large park and rides, and all four LLE stations”
Northgate already had a P&R so it doesn’t apply. It’s about not letting new P&Rs proliferate and ruining the walkshed. At 145th I think the existing P&R was on the Shoreline side, and 148th is definitely within Shoreline. Angle Lake is outside Seattle.
“I don’t understand why a transit advocate would oppose a park and ride for someone who needs a park and ride to access transit and has paid decades of ST taxes.”
P&Rs are the most inefficient way to generate ridership. A surface lot costs $35K per space, and a garage can cost $130K per space. Only a small fraction of riders can fit in a P&R. P&Rs push things apart and make it harder to walk to them — the opposite of what we should be doing. Why do people need P&R spaces? Because transit isn’t comprehensive. So use the money to increase bus service. In car-dependent suburbs P&Rs may be the only way for people to access transit, but that’s putting a band-aid on the problem. The general compromise is for suburban stations and terminal stations to have P&Rs, and that’s what we’re doing. Cities like Shoreline and Lynnwood are demanding P&Rs regardless of how much they need them, simply because of their mindset.
> Mike, do you have a link or citation to the Seattle code that you claim states “park and rides” are prohibited in Seattle and under what circumstances.
I don’t think it’s quite “prohibited” but heavily discourage and Seattle itself will not be spending money on it.
Here’s one document I’ve seen similar referenced in others as well.
> LU 6.15 Discourage the development of major stand-alone park-and-ride facilities within Seattle. Additions to park-and-ride capacity could be considered
* at the terminus of a major regional transit system,
* where opportunities exist for shared parking, or
* where alternatives to automobile use are particularly inadequate or cannot be provided in a cost-effective manner.
but it still allows it, though the opposite of other cities not nearby light rail stations.
* Allow park-and-ride facilities (operated or approved by a public transit agency) within garages as a permitted use in selected multifamily zones, and in commercial zones, except not in a Station Area Overlay District (certain light rail station areas), Downtown and South Lake Union
This is an older document there’s probably a more updated guidance somewhere
https://seattle.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=5710620&GUID=8B033456-6FEE-4EA8-B5AB-9516A0BD7F11
Here’s the legislation (2018) CB 119173
https://seattle.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=5735747&GUID=4F51781A-D122-4CC4-AB5B-EED0626DB605
> Station Area Overlay District, Parking Garage prohibited, Parking lot Prohibited
Though I was curious about northgate, apparently it’s not in a station area overlay district?
https://hub.arcgis.com/datasets/dc119b86637d4967b50b14df106ebefe/explore?location=47.655696%2C-122.316578%2C12.77
@Mike Orr,
“Seattle prohibits new P&Rs.”
Seattle actually discourages them.
Seattle isn’t perfect, but at least we try to prioritize people and housing over cars and parking lots. And I have no trouble with that.
As to how people are supposed to get to a Link station if they can’t drive and park there, well there are all the usual options: walk, bike, use the Kiss&Ride, or maybe just…..wait for it….wait for it….maybe use Metro?
Northgate also had the issue that some of the parking spaces are owned by the mall and contractually obligated to mall tenants, so ST had to replace the spaces it displaced for construction. So a garage was inevitable; it was just a question of whether to make it bigger than the existing P&R. ST asked the community; the community said, “Don’t make it bigger than the existing one; the only reason we use it is because bus/bike/ped access from the west and east is so bad; we’d rather have a ped bridge and more feeder buses and better sidewalks and bike lanes.”
Thanks for the excellent research WL. I didn’t see Northgate, 130th, UW, the downtown stations, Graham St., or any along MLK or BLE or WSLE in the graph of overlay stations. I imagine those will be added. If the legislation was adopted in 2018 it really applies to ST 3 or post 2018 stations. Many of the stations other than Northgate don’t seem to have the land for a park and ride. But personally I don’t have a per se objection to park and rides although as Mike notes they are not cheaper (neither are underground stations) if there is as the legislation notes excellent feeder bus service.
“If the legislation was adopted in 2018 it really applies to ST 3 or post 2018 stations.”
There must have been something earlier because MLK was built in the 2000s and it goes back to then.
I don’t think there will be much political support for more light rail in Puget Sound after West Seattle. Once people realize how much worse it makes transit travel times, at such huge expense, even good projects will likely be unpopular.
@Glenn in Portland,
“ Once people realize how much worse it makes transit travel times, ”
Wow. Where did you come up with that one?
Things have gotten substantially better since Link opened. Not only are travel times significantly lower, but reliability is much higher. Everything is getting better. Substantially better.
So what is missing? Coverage. And that is exactly why future ST transit measures might pass — to increase coverage!
@Lazarus
Glenn is referring to the West Seattle stub line not all the light rail extensions in general.
I don’t understand why a transit advocate would oppose a park and ride for someone who needs a park and ride to access transit and has paid decades of ST taxes.
The objection to park and rides at major transit stations is based on:
1) Cost.
2) The inability of park and ride lots to scale.
3) They can only be used one direction.
4) It takes away from other uses (that could lead to a lot of riders).
In contrast, feeder bus service is generally applauded for the opposite reasons.
It is worth nothing that this generally doesn’t apply to cheap park and ride lots. If Link had hundred of stops then I don’t think it would be much of an issue. For example I haven’t heard anyone complain about the park and ride lots on the RapidRide E. Partly this is because those lots were cheap to build and can easily be converted to other uses as a neighborhood grows.
This exact thing happened with the 41. When it started it was mainly park and ride users taking a quick bus downtown. But over time the neighborhood grew, and most of the riders just walked to the bus stop. Some of the lots were used for other things. A few remain, but they tend to be small, and are leased from churches. The cost is minimal and it is unlikely that the church would do anything else with the land. If the church decides to move, then it is all the more likely that the land be converted to another use that quite likely leads to higher overall transit use.
If you’re going to build a giant park and ride for West Seattle Link, you may as well put it in SODO, rather than West Seattle itself, and avoid enormous construction impacts, plus the cost of building light rail over the duwamish.
The problem is that what’s left becomes nothing but a glorified parking shuttle for downtown Seattle. The downtown business interests would probably love it, but a system like that makes for terrible transit.
@WL,
Transit times are already substantially improved along the line, and they will continue to get better as the system expands in coverage. Adding West Seattle to the system isn’t going to change that, and it won’t crater support for LR across the region either.
Speaking of TOD, Kirkland is opening a new affordable-housing building. It’s attached to the Totem Lake mall/apartment complex, is within walking distance to the 405 transit center and a park-and-ride, and includes units that have as many as four (!) bedrooms. Rents range from $1,300-2,700, compared to a median Kirkland rent of about $3,000 per Zillow (https://www.zillow.com/rental-manager/market-trends/kirkland-wa/).
https://www.liveatgrata.com/floorplans/
@Lazarus
> Transit times are already substantially improved along the line, and they will continue to get better as the system expands in coverage. Adding West Seattle to the system isn’t going to change that, and it won’t crater support for LR across the region either.
I’m not quite sure why you interpreted Glenn’s statement in the oddest interpretation. You’ve been on here enough times that you’d know Glenn is referring to the multiple transfers one has to take with West Seattle Link.
It might not quite crater support, but I’m hesitant to how it would bolster support for a ST4 so soon without some heavy reforms. West Seattle Link currently has a bad design for transit and is overbudget in the design phase before construction has even started.
And again most of us are for lynnwood and federal way extensions, I’m not sure why you keep trying to cite the extension that make sense to defend the ones that don’t. That line of reasoning only works if most of us here are also against the lynnwood/federal way extensions.
“[3 seat ride West Seattle Link] might not quite crater support, but I’m hesitant to how it would bolster support for a ST4 so soon without some heavy reforms. ”
I picture a pretty massive lobbying and propaganda effort from the anti-tax crowd aimed at repealing ST3 once the 3 seat ride version of West Seattle link is in operation. Lackluster Orange line ridership has been used as part of an effort to kill future MAX expansion here.
I don’t see the minor change in travel times or ridiculous costs for building WSLE affecting support for an ST4.
First of all, by extending ST3 longer, ST4 won’t happen anytime soon as a regional measure. The Board won’t risk sunsetting ST3 if they don’t have to — and it’s the need to come up with more money for the ST3 plan that was supposed to trigger a chunk of ST4.
Second, there won’t be any new major regional destinations to reach. There will be minor wants for light rail extensions but even those are not major regional destinations — and rapid buses would work fine for those. By creating Stride, ST already has set themselves up to take on more regional bus services anyway.
Can someone tell me a major regional destination anywhere (except a community college or Harborview) that won’t already be served by ST3 Link?
So the ability to get an electorate of the entire region excited is a huge mountain. It would take something quite ambitious like an Olympic Games bid — to get enough voters in board with a yes vote.
The only other trigger I could see is if ST went full-speed to automation. But given how technology advances, that may be affordable with state of good repair funds.
Al. S, you talk about automation a lot. Frankly, I don’t see it happening in our area in any of our lifetimes. But, if it were to ever happen, at least for one initial line, how and why do you think it would happen? For example, would someday a powerful member of the ST board begin to push for it, and then the idea would gain momentum? Or, do you think the idea might come from a powerful local tech company that might even help with financing, because the line would somehow benefit them? Or, maybe ST one day hires a CEO from another agency that had an automated line, and they suggest it for ST? Basically I’m asking, how does it go from a thing that people at ST rarely or never even think about, to an idea that becomes a topic of discussion and exploration at the agency?
It would be a forward-thinking politician who keeps bringing it up and starts convincing other people. It doesn’t have to be somebody in a powerful position per se, just somebody who can champion it effectively. Like McGinn with Ballard Link and the Westlake streetcar study, or Juarez who kept calling Rogoff every day to see if there was any movement on 130th station (as he described it at a meetup), or perhaps the mayor of Issaquah who kept pressing for Issaquah Link for years.
Can someone tell me a major regional destination anywhere (except a community college or Harborview) that won’t already be served by ST3 Link?
I would consider Downtown Tacoma, First Hill and Belltown as major destinations. In contrast it is actually difficult to find major destinations that are added with ST3. Maybe the Denny Triangle (it is similar to Belltown). Seattle Center/Uptown for sure, but that is already covered by the monorail. Downtown Everett and the Tacoma Dome seems like a stretch as major destinations. They are also really far away from the major population centers, which makes them hard to serve well with a metro (and we won’t).
ST3 is filled with secondary and tertiary destinations, on par with various neighborhoods in Seattle that won’t have Link (Fremont, Central District, Wallingford, Greenwood, Lake City, Central Ballard). It is also worth considering not just destinations, but pathways (e. g. the network). The beauty of a Ballard to UW Line is that it connects lots of people to a major destination (the UW). Not only those along the way, but connecting north-south buses as well. It could work as a good way to get from Ballard to downtown, but we decided to serve Interbay instead.
Anyway, I get your point, but I think you could say the same thing much earlier. You could easily make the case that we are basically done serving major destinations after we build ST2. Yes, we missed a few, but overall that is it. I would keep building — I think that Ballard to the UW is vital — but pretty much everything in ST3 is extensions to areas that aren’t major destinations (and often manage to miss the mid-level destinations even though it comes tantalizing close to them). Yet we voted in favor of it.
I think the key was timing. ST2 wasn’t built while they planned ST3. This made everything they were working on more attractive. If you are in Lynnwood you might just assume that a “no” vote means they don’t run the trains to Lynnwood. ST was in no hurry to dissuade people. They routinely compared the travel time from Everett to Seattle (not Everett to Lynnwood). By the time they start planning ST4, ST2 will be done and much of ST3 will have started. It is hard to see anyone outside Seattle being excited for any of the extensions.
Depending on what they actually do with the buses, some riders may be a bit pissed off. Mike and are were talking about this the other day. One of the key mysteries in the next couple years is what happens to the 594. It was supposed to run every fifteen minutes, but because of the driver shortage, they are still running the bus every half hour. If they do run it every fifteen minutes when Federal Way Link is complete, what then? Do they just truncate it? That is much slower for riders at that hour. Any increase in frequency won’t make up for the loss in speed. At that point you will likely have a lot of people questioning the value of Link extensions.
Regardless of what happens with the buses, I just don’t see ST4 being popular outside Seattle as ST2 gets built out. I think the only chance of anything being built after ST3 is if Seattle gets the right to build its own thing. But I also don’t see any reason why West Seattle (having already jumped in front of the line) sees an expansion before all the other places in the city that have more worthy projects.
@Sam
I don’t see automation happening any time soon, but I could see it potentially happening when trains get replaced in a few decades. I think by then it will be possible to automate the at-grade sections and mix automated trains with non-automated. I suspect that at-grade/mixed automation needs to become commonplace, affordable, and mostly drop-in before ST even considers it.
“ Basically I’m asking, how does it go from a thing that people at ST rarely or never even think about, to an idea that becomes a topic of discussion and exploration at the agency?”
It’s a good question.
I think it will naturally flow from vehicle replacement. Just like our car models are getting better technology every year (does any new car not have a backup camera or electric windows at this point?) train cars do too.
The Rennes metro video mentions a Siemens signal system already available that can achieve arrivals with a 125 second arrival and even 67 seconds possible. Siemens will no doubt offer this to any upcoming vehicle order as an option going forward. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=njzpqrqXqLk
Vendors will go to key staff to pitch the idea. Some may pitch it to elected officials.
In some cities, driverless taxis are rife everywhere already. I was in San Francisco a few weeks ago and saw lots more Waymo driverless taxis than I did police cars. They were very common!
The technology is no longer speculative. It’s here. The fact that ST is even planning lines to open in the 2040’s without is obviously already embarrassingly antiquated. When ST made the decision to not go automated a decade ago, the technology wasn’t there. Only a Luddite would cling to that decision. 20 years ago (2004) no one carried a smart phone and 40 years ago (1984) feels like the dark ages.
So will an elected official push for the modernization to happen? I think so. Seattle is proudly a tech hub. Tech interests will be elected to future boards. So it’s just a matter of when.
Think of its advantages:
1. High frequency train service. The trains can arrive closer together. We don’t need DSTT2.
2. Longer route lengths. An Everett to Tacoma line is possible without the worry of driver breaks.
3. Longer span of service. Running 24 hours is possible (with single tracking available for overnight maintenance).
Related to this is the eventual installation of platform gates or screen doors. We’ve had them at SeaTac for decades already. It’s just a matter of when ST has the money, but their installation will enhance automated train safety.
The biggest advantage that FW Link has over WS Link is its likely surrounding redevelopment opportunities. Because West Seattle Link station areas are mostly now built upon with residential (much of it lower density) there just isn’t the opportunity to build something different.
Angle Lake station area has several new 5-7 story apartment buildings around it already. Kent adopted a denser outcome strategy for KDM a decade ago. Federal Way has been planning for years about how to redevelop that station area into a walkable downtown. The only FWLE Station without some ambitious plans for density is the Star Lake (272nd) station (which I would argue is the “problem child” station among the three) which is the only one actually right next to I-5.
Generally, it’s lots easier and more profitable to demolish a one story cheaply built commercial building surrounded by a sea of parking and build something denser than it is to shoehorn in dense redevelopment for a station area already carved up into small lots with many having single family houses on them.
And having non-residential destinations like office buildings and colleges nearby adds riders in the off-peak direction so it’s added ridership and revenue to ST with very little impact to operating cost.
And there are no tunnels with FWLE that were bored and no deep stations either.
And I’m not even going to mention how FWLE adds over 2000 parking garage spaces compared to WSLE with 0.
I think the area around the West Seattle stations will look similar to the area around the Federal Way Link stations. The biggest differences will be that West Seattle has the Junction (a cultural center) and Federal Way has Highline Community College. Other than that, I expect similar development (a fair number of 5-7 story apartment buildings with ground floor retail.
Good point about parking. West Seattle won’t have any, Federal Way Link will. I’m sure this will be an issue for a lot of people in West Seattle who hope to take Link (someone is bound to ask “How am I supposed to get there if I can’t park?). As it is, parking isn’t that hard if you are willing to walk a ways. It will probably get harder as time goes buy (and they add those 5-7 story apartment buildings with ground floor retail).
Well, Psycho Train, I for one have advocated stopping at Midway (Highline CC) for a decade now. And only that far because it offers an excellent opportunity for a major bus intercept by building a bus-only bridge at 240th, widening the freeway a little bit for a quarter mile to the south, and adding HOV-only south ramps to the bus-bridge.
I lately have come to the conclusion that BLE as proposed has a similarly fatal flaw: it replaces a fairly long “express” section between downtown Seattle and its primary catchment area with a train that probably won’t get through the gap any faster than the buses do. Yes, SLU needs grade separated transit, but a short bus tunnel from Republican and Elliott to Third and Cedar with tunnel stops at Third West and next to Climate Pledge would be a very efficient replacement for the overkill that is BLE.
So my hands are clean when I try to knife WSBLE in the back.
Highline CC would be solid terminus for Link. That would probably shrink the cost by 2/3 (if not more). It also means the transfer point is a significant destination. If buses terminate there (or at the very least stop there) you would get a fair number of people walking from the stop to the college. It would be a ways, but not unlike Northgate Link — a stop used by thousands of students (from what I can tell).
Fare checkers on Westlake mezzanine Sunday at 1:20 pm. 5th & Pine bus stop is closed, and street is closed beyond that. Some fifty people got out at the station and filled the escalators, so downtown shoppers or visitors are in force.
I had to drive a friend from Des Moines to Fife yesterday. (He said transit would take him over 2 hours with two transfers.)
I noticed that the catenary wires and poles were being installed! It appears to be on schedule! I only hope that we don’t get some last minute surprises. The East Link delay of over 2.5 years at the 12-month-from-opening date (after pushing back the new opening date at least twice) really destroyed my trust that they can keep on schedule. That was after the long Hilltop delay earlier.
Please ST! Don’t be late again!
Riding Link yesterday, one of the upgrades I wish we’d do is make the lighting better at International District/Chinatown because it’s just so dark on the platform at night with some spots on the platform having no light at all.
The station needs a serious refresh! It opened 34 years ago in 1990.
At the very least, it needs new lighting, more vertical devices and better weather protection. The upgrade should have been part of the East Link project.
Also, clean and well-lit Link stations and transit centers, perhaps on a subliminal level, seem safer. A callback to an earlier conversation about people who perceive transit to be unsafe.
Yeah I can speak to this when I was in Albuquerque in June and used ABQ Ride. Some of the buses in their fleet felt ancient and worse for wear despite being from 06 or 07. If the lighting was better on said buses it’d probably feel less dated and uncomfortable to ride, as it definitely lended to feeling uncomfortable riding the bus there.
I honestly think is partly why I dislike PTs ugly pink night bus cabin lights. It’s not pleasant or comfortable as it’s just this ugly saturated pink-purple hue that is more distracting (makes the space feel more like a nightclub or brothel than a bus) and seems to not serve any purpose from a practical standpoint.
Huh, apparently pink lights might be used because it’s easier for night driving for bus drivers but not sure.
People are sensitive to blueish light as meaning morning/daytime sunlight, so having blueish light at night screws up their circadian rhythm and makes it harder to sleep. That doesn’t happen with red light, so that may be why PT has pink lights at night.
Red light preserves night vision. That is why some flashlights (especially for camping/backpacking) have a red light setting. https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/questions/8082/my-head-torch-lamp-has-a-red-mode-why
Not sure if this is open thread, but…
Millar gets it:
https://www.theurbanist.org/2024/08/23/wsdot-head-wants-150-million-annual-stroad-fund/
You need money for this work. And unsaid is coordination with various transit agencies to add transit to give people alternatives while making the road safer. For instance route 7 BRT on the cheap by taking a lane and slowing everyone the fuck down.
All Sunday Movies and news roundups are open threads, even if we forget to mention it in the article.
Yeah, this is good stuff. I feel like the state (and the city) have plenty of people who want to do the right thing, but inertia (or politics) often get in the way. The DOT heads in particular seem to get it right. I’ve been very impressed with Millar as well as Spotts.
Sound Transit ridership data for July is now posted, and it includes data for ELSL. And the numbers appear to be even better than ST has been stating publicly, and much better than what the naysayers have been speculating.
Ridership appears to be above the 4000 to 5000 weekday boardings that ST has been stating publicly, and actually appears to be near the 6000 boardings per day that ST had estimated as the high end of the range for potential ridership on the ELSL.
This is very good news, and should increase confidence in ST ridership estimates going forward. And ridership on the ELSL probably still hasn’t peaked due to the newness of the line and the impact of summer vacations on ridership (my microsoftie neighbor has been in England for 5 weeks now with his family. So his ridership has gone to zero. I’m sure he isn’t the only one).
Congrats to ST. Now on to the really big events — the opening of Lynnwood Link, Full ELE, and FWLE.
The transit world is changing. Finally.
@myself,
Oh, and I just checked Metro’s ridership data for RR B.
Earlier this year RR B had been posting steady improvements in ridership compared to last year, but with the opening of ELSL that trend has been reversed.
RR B ridership was down again in July as compared to the previous year. This is undoubtably due to riders simply switching to Link.
I would expect this trend to become even more pronounced when RLE opens in 4 to 5 months.
FWLE extension will have a similar effect on RR A ridership. And of course with LLE a lot of the parallel bus routes are simply being eliminated.
“similar effect on RR A ridership.”
I doubt this will be the case.
TriMet’s green line caused ridership on the 72 to increase, rather than decrease, even though there’s only two places to transfer between them.
Eastside Link Starter provides very few places where it’s beneficial to take the B and then Link. It’s better for a few B riders to switch to Link, but that’s it.
Federal Way link provides a time advantage to almost everyone on the A, including everyone trying to get from the A to any other route. I expect this synergy to lead to ridership increases on both.
Once the Eastside Link line opens over the lake, I expect a similar thing to happen to the B.
@Glenn in Portland,
Ridership on RR B had been running approx 25% higher than last year on a month-to-month basis. But when ELSL opened that shifted to a slight decline in ridership month-to-month. That is not just “a few B riders”, that is a significant shift in ridership patterns.
Ridership on the ELSL is now running about 20% higher than ridership on RR B, despite the fact that the ELSL is new, has fewer stops, has somewhat less coverage, and hasn’t fully established its ridership base yet. That is impressive.
Will that same pattern exist on RR A? I suspect so. RR A is slow and unreliable, and basically just shadows the eventual FWLE. The advantages of simply switching to Link will be substantial on this corridor.
But you are correct in one regard. Rail does generate a lot of new ridership that didn’t exist before. If that level of new ridership is high enough, then Metro has an opportunity to boost its ridership too by providing last mile type service and intersecting service.
Metro has a lot to gain by working synergistically with ST. But will they?
Lazarus (or anyone), can you provide a link to the RapidRide B Line summer of 2024 ridership data?
At every 2 Line station, ridership decreased from June to July. But, at most 1 Line stations, ridership increased from June to July.
@Sam, King County Metro’s Ridership Dashboard is here: https://kingcounty.gov/en/legacy/depts/transportation/metro/about/accountability-center/rider-dashboard
You have to navigate to “my route” and then select the route in question.
Thanks, Nathan.
Lazarus, the B Line’s ridership has increased since the opening of the 2 Line. Boardings on the B Line in July are higher than they were in May.
Sam, there’s a bit of trend analysis that’s still worth doing for the B line; you’ll notice in previous years that ridership increases significantly in summer, with a typical increase of about 10-15%. This year, with the 2 Line opening at the end of April, B Line ridership has been roughly flat from the spring.
@Sam,
“Boardings on the B Line in July are higher than they were in May.”
LOL!
You are comparing apples to oranges. In order to get a clearer picture of the trend lines you need to compare same month data.
So you’re saying the B Line’s ridership in July of 2024 is lower in, for example, July of 2023, whereas many other routes saw an increase from July 2023 to July 2024. Yes, that was to be expected. Everyone knew certain B Line riders will switch to the 2 Line. Redmond Tech to Bellevue Downtown is a no-brainer, for example. Just like when the Downtown Redmond Extension opens, even more B Line riders will switch. That’s obvious.
It does look to me like Link poached some of the B riders. When East Link goes across the water, the B will be more complementary. Right now it isn’t.
For example let’s say I am at Crossroads. Link is pretty much irrelevant right now. If I’m headed to Downtown Bellevue, Microsoft or Overlake I just take the B. Even when East Link adds Downtown Redmond, it seems unlikely that riders will make the transfer (they are more likely to stay on the bus). The only combinations that work now are trips to Spring District, Bel Red and South Bellevue (all minor stations at this point).
In contrast, once Link goes across the water, everything changes. If you are at Crossroads you take the B, then transfer to Link. Link will be quite a bit faster to Seattle than the 550 (since the 550 is not an express). Thus the trip to Seattle is much faster, even if it involves a two-seat ride. What is true of Crossroads is true of most of the B. The B complements Link.
The exception are the areas close to the stations. This is where the poaching is occurring. A few months ago, if I wanted to go from Microsoft to Downtown Bellevue I took the B. Now I take Link. The same is true as Link gets to Downtown Redmond. There will be additional poaching (i. e. I expect ridership of the B to go down a little). As of now the shift seems to be fairly minor, which is a good thing. It suggests that the B is not dominated by trips that have now been replaced by Link. It may take a big hit with Downtown Redmond, but my guess is won’t (it will lose a few hundred).
Once Link goes across the water it should go back up again. It may never reach pre-pandemic levels, but that is true of a lot of buses. But I could easily see it reaching the levels from before the East Link Starter Line.
“The advantages of simply switching to Link will be substantial on this corridor.”
Yes, but many locations are too far away to just simply switch to Link. If I’m at Angle Lake park, it’s faster for me to take the A to SeaTac and transfer to Link than to try to get to Angle Lake station.
A bunch of places will be like that. Sure, a bunch of A riders will switch to Link, but a bunch more will find A plus Link preferable to some other mix they were doing before, because Link makes the A have better reach.
The B is slow and people have been wishing for something faster for years. So for long trip pairs that can be done on Link like Bellevue Downtown to Redmond Tech, of course they’re going to switch to Link. The primary purpose of the B is for trips that start in the middle, especially Crossroads. Link doesn’t compete in that space.
For the thousandth time, Link doesn’t replace shadow buses like the A! You still need the A for in-between stops or short trips. When you have a frequent local bus route and add a frequent limited-stop overlap like Link, the net result is that ridership goes up on both. Because the entire network is better, and people can choose the appropriate level of service for their trip. There may be an initial period where people switch to Link and ridership goes down, but they’ll eventually be replaced by other riders.
Of course, it also depends on how strong the destinations on the bus route are. If there are a lot of strong destinations and housing areas, and some of them don’t have Link stations, then of course people will ride the bus. If there aren’t much destination attractors or they aren’t unique (I can go to Safeway there or Safeway in the other direction, or the pho restauant there is no better than other pho restaurants), then the city has a land-use problem that’s depressing bus ridership.
FWLE extension will have a similar effect on RR A ridership.
If you mean a very minor decrease in ridership that is fine. But you don’t want a big decrease. That would be bad. Likewise if ridership on the B doesn’t go up when Link goes across the lake it would probably be bad (as it would most likely mean that East Link ridership isn’t that good). For these Link extensions to be successful we need the buses to provide a lot of the ridership.
Of course in some cases the buses are simply operating independent of Link. I can take a trip from Crossroad to 87th Street & Redmond Way. Link doesn’t do anything for that trip. Likewise if I’m on Pacific Highway South at 216th and I’m trying to get to 260th then Link is irrelevant and will always be irrelevant. I’ll pass right by a station and it won’t matter. But if I’m at either place and want to get to Seattle then the station being closer (at least for 260th) should help.
There are other interesting things of note. I think you’ll see a decrease in ridership at Angle Lake once Federal Way is extended. Riders who used to take Link to Angle Lake and transfer (to the RapidRide A) there will now transfer closer to their destination (if they transfer at all). The same thing happened when Link was extended from SeaTac to Angle Lake. Ridership at SeaTac went down. Of course it won’t be just the buses. Riders who drive north to the Angle Lake park and ride will switch to other park and rides.
Overall it is tough to tell exactly how the patterns change, since we have very limited data. How many people (on the B) even board at Downtown Bellevue or Microsoft, let alone travel between there? I have no idea. It is hard to get data from Metro and my source retired. Likewise, how many people take the A south from Angle Lake? How many are headed to the college? How many people drive north and use the park and ride at Angle Lake? I have no idea.
The people likely to move from using the A to Link in big numbers relative to A line ridership will be Highline College students. I can speak to this as I was one from 2016 to 2019. The A was often crowded at 1 or 2 in the afternoon when students left for home, errands, meetups, or work. The other crowd to move to link from the A will probably people who work in and around SeaTac Airport.
Huzzah! Glad to see the full ridership dashboard back in action. They also added the ability to change the y-axis of the plot! Very exciting updates to the dashboard. Now if only they’d make the data selectable for download…
And they’ve added a plot of “forecast” ridership, which is very interesting.
Yeah, downloading the data would be huge. The other bit of data I would really like is to be able to filter by direction (with Link and Sounder). For example, it would be interesting to see how many people go north or south from Capitol Hill. I’m sure they have the data (it is how they gather it in the first place) and it should be pretty easy to add. While it is a shame that East Link is not going across the water, we are at least are getting an idea of the ridership within the East Side. This would be hard to calculate if East Link was connected to Seattle unless we could filter by direction.
Another thing I would like to see is ridership per stop. This involves a lot more data, so I would not display this as an option unless you filtered by bus. For example if you chose the 512, you would then see a drop down box on the right, listing all of the stops of the 512 (with each item having a checkbox). This would require more work though.
With flat fares coming, the tap-off data is about to get even more anecdotal.
I would think that directional data would be available. The automated door counters of ons and offs seemingly could be sorted by direction.
Is ST planning a comprehensive rider survey in 2026? The system will be pretty constant until 2035. Only 130th will open as WSLE and TDLE face delays and Graham will involve both full design and property acquisition before construction can start.
Not only is entering/exiting pairs needed, but many other things are needed too. How do riders get to and from the stations (especially bus transfers by route)? What time of day are trips made? What is the purpose of each trip — work, school, shopping, medical, nightlife, special events? Aggregate data is great but it paints only a blurry picture.
ST has never released trip data. You are right, Al, it seems like something they could calculate based on tapping on and off. This would likely be a bit inaccurate because of the folks that forget to tap off but it would give a rough idea. You could produce a matrix like the ones that BART releases, even if a lot of the data isn’t true (e. g. ridership to Angle Lake would be much higher than ridership from Angle Lake).
ST used to release Service Implementation Plans (or SIP). For example: https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/2020-service-implementation-plan.pdf. This at least has directional data for all modes (Sounder, Link and ST Express). This means it also has stop data for ST Express. It also shows the load per period on each route (as well as Sounder and Link).
There was a lot of information in there, but they haven’t released those in years. I’m not sure why, but it is disappointing. It is nice that they release some of the data more often, but disappointing that a lot of the data is no longer available at all.
“it would be interesting to see how many people go north or south from Capitol Hill.”
It seems pretty even to me. I mostly go north from Capitol Hill and south to it, and to a lesser extent north to it. I see more on/offs there than anywhere north of it, and the same number of people getting on or off and going every direction.
@Mike — Yeah, that is what I would guess. If not for the pandemic we could also calculate the numbers (based on how much it increased) but we have two counteracting forces (the pandemic which reduces ridership and the extension that increased it).
The hyperlink is no longer listed on the System Perfotmsnce tracker, but is still available by searching for “ridership” on the web site.
https://www.soundtransit.org/ride-with-us/system-performance-tracker/ridership
I find it interesting that Redmond Technology has over 1733 average weekday riders to Bellevue Downtown at 1221 and South Bellevue at 1073.
BelRed is 300.
East Main is 259.
Overlake is 449.
Spring District is 415.
Wilburton is 323.
So the boarding total is the 8 stations combined at 5773 for average weekday riders if I did my quick calculating correctly.
It appears that 1 Line usage has fallen. It’s was an average weekday of 90,670 in July 2023, July 2024 is reported as 87,855 minus the 5773 (2 Line counted above) for a drop to 82,082 average weekday boardings. This is rather concerning — but it may be related to July events in 2023.
Al. S, are you surprised by the 2 Line station ranking order in terms of boardings? I would have guessed Bellevue Downtown would be higher than South Bellevue. If I’m not mistaken, it looks like this:
1 – Red Tech
2 – South Bellevue
3 – Bellevue Downtown
4 – Overlake Village
5 – Wilburton
6 – Spring Dist
7 – BelRed
8 – East Main
I frankly didn’t know what to expect, Sam. I’m a bit surprised that Redmond Technology is so much higher. I’m not sure how much is from bus transfers versus Microsoft efforts. I’m also unsure if Downtown Bellevue employees are now giving out more free parking since Covid hit.
The ranking of the bottom five stations appears pretty close to the amount of walkable development open around each station. East Main is lowest here but the buildings getting built will shoot that number higher over time, for example.
Wait, you have Bellevue Downtown boardings higher than South Bellevue?
Sam, South Bellevue is lower than Bellevue Downtown. Not by much though.
I’m thinking that there are a decent percent of trips riding the full length of the early 2 Line — from South Bellevue to Redmond Technology.
Bellevue Downtown Avg. Daily Boardings:
Weekday/Saturday/Sunday
May: 1,107/837/795
June: 1,367/735/670
July: 1,221/552/639
South Bellevue Avg. Weekday Boardings:
Weekday/Saturday/Sunday
May: 1,189/1,418/1,532
June: 1,302/1,286/1,092
July: 1,073/965/885
Interesting trends, there.
Thanks Nathan. It’s hard for me to copy data on a mobile phone.
I will note that SeaTac has vaulted to be the #2 station after Westlake in the July 2024 data. Angle Lake is pretty healthy too.
The data for September after Lynnwood Link Extension stations is going to be interesting.
It appears that 1 Line usage has fallen.
Ridership is fairly volatile. It goes up and down during the year quite a bit, and while there are various patterns (some months are better than others) I don’t think it is particularly consistent. Hard to say why, but I could definitely see events having an impact. Not only the various sports but also concerts (and festivals, at least on the weekends). It is difficult to figure out if there is a trend one way or another while things are actually happening. It is much easier to look back over a few years and note the trend for that particular period.
“I’m a bit surprised that Redmond Technology is so much higher.”
Redmond Tech and South Bellevue have the best bus transfers. In my 2 Line Trip Report article I wrote about how getting to Crossroads or further south, Overlake Village is the closest station, but the transfers at Redmond Tech are so much better that it’s often worth going one more station to it and backtracking.
At Redmond Tech the bus stops are either next to the Link entrance or a 3-minute flat walk to 156th, both the B and 245 are frequent at least part of the time, there’s also the ST Express routes, and the bus stop on 156th has a bench and shelter.
At Overlake Village you have to walk 3 minutes up a small hill, stand in the sun because there’s no bench or roof, the only frequent route is the B (the rest are coverage routes), the B will be moved away from it in the next restructure, and even though “Overlake businesses” are theoretically close (e.g., Safeway or 24th), in practice it takes several minutes to walk to them.
So Redmond Tech is getting both Microsoft riders (for whom it’s the closest station) and some of the bus transfers (for whom it’s not the closest station but the transfer experience is better).
@ Mike:
Yes Redmond Technology is just about the optimum bus transfer situation I’ve seen at a Link station. No stairs. No busy streets to cross. South Bellevue is the next most optimal. Bellevue Downtown is hampered by crossing 110th and by no down escalators.
Could this be an argument to prioritize bus transfer convenience — with level transfers being the optimum?
I’m a bit surprised that Redmond Technology is so much higher. I’m not sure how much is from bus transfers versus Microsoft efforts.
Good point. The 245 and RapidRide B (both relatively frequent) serve it from the north. Redmond Tech also has a parking lot, and it isn’t crazy to think of someone parking there and taking Link to Downtown Bellevue. It wouldn’t surprise me if ridership goes down a little bit as the line is extended to Redmond. But I don’t think it will drop as much as say, Angle Lake. If this is all (or almost all) Microsoft (or people in the neighborhood) then this minor shift will be offset by people riding from Downtown Redmond to Microsoft. I like to write about the “terminus effect”. So far, almost every station that is no longer the terminus (when Link has been extended) has seen a decrease in ridership. The exception was Westlake. Redmond Tech Station may be another exception.
Speaking of bus connections, that explains the high ridership for South Bellevue. I’m sure some people like to park and ride, but my guess is most of the riders at that station are from the 550. For now, the combination of the 550 and the train is East Link. It requires a transfer, but at least the slowest part of the 550 (travel along Bellevue Way) is avoided. If you are headed to Downtown Bellevue you probably just stay on the bus, but if you are headed to a lot of other places you transfer there.
I find this interesting since it means that this isn’t entirely ridership within the East Side. It could be that 1,000 riders of East Link are going to or from Seattle (already). It might not make sense from Downtown Bellevue and it certainly doesn’t make sense from Redmond Tech (might as well take the 245) but from the other places it does.
It’s going to be a busy week.
Supposedly Tuesday there will be a VIP ride on LLE, and Wednesday there will be a Media ride. Expect lots of press coverage of both events.
Unfortunately this time I have not scored an invite to either event, so I plan on riding on Friday with everyone else. And the wife wants to check out the station events anyhow. So she wins.
It’s going to get busy!
I think that having all these pre-opening events makes ST look more elitist and bad. The media and VIPS should see it when the rest of us do.
@Al S,
It is not “elitist” at all. Far from it, it is pretty much SOP across multiple industries of various sizes, both private and governmental.
It’s sort of like a soft open in a restaurant, although the scale between the steps is significantly different.
Having these pre-open events allows for staff and planners to fine tune procedures and potentially uncover minor issues with infrastructure and signage. It’s why there is a down day (Thursday) between the media day and the larger public open. It gives ST time to correct any issues that are discovered on Tuesday and Wednesday. And it gives staff a bit of a dry-run before the big day.
So it is a good thing, even if it means most of us still have to wait for the official open.
Madison Street survey ahead of RapidRide G, for those with destinations within walking distance of Madison Street. Deadline is September 14. I can’t figure out why Metro is doing this. I haven’t seen this kind of survey before, and it’s too late to do anything before opening.
I think it’s just a before and after survey for comparison purposes not to change the design. they’ll point to the statistics after rapidride g.
The Seattle Times has an excellent article on the impact of LLE on housing along the LR extension to Lynnwood. Housing is way up after years of stagnation.
The Times reports that already 10,000 new units are under construction or in the pipeline. And they also missed a massive new building in North City that is under construction right across from Frank’s Lumber on 15th.
This is the kind of impact LR makes. It’s very good news. And it will only get better with time.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/lynnwood-light-rail-route-brings-a-housing-boom/
It’s good that some housing is being build and the neighborhoods are starting to density, but I had to look amusedly at the big deal over the number. 10,000 is what Seattle builds in a year. The backlog is over ten times that, so this may help keep up but it alone won’t markedly improve the housing situation. But at least 10,000 more people will be able to live within walking distance of a Link station.
@Mike Orr,
“ but I had to look amusedly at the big deal over the number. 10,000 is what Seattle builds in a year”
Dude, Seattle is 750,000 people with 88 square miles of land area. A place like Mountlake Terrace is 22,000 people and 4 square miles of land area. So of course Seattle is going to add a lot more housing in a year than a place like Mountlake Terrace. We are just bigger.
But that doesn’t mean that what is happening along LLE is insignificant. It is hugely significant.
Mountlake Terrace is looking to add 6600 new housing units. In a city with a population of only 22,000 people. That is a 30% increase in population, which is hugely significant. Especially in a city that is already more dense than Bellevue.
And that 30% increase? That is about the same percentage population increase that Seattle has seen over the last 25 years.
And whereas Seattle’s growth is spread all over the place, most of the growth in a place like Mountlake Terrace is being concentrated along the LR line in walkable neighborhoods where people can live car free. Exactly the sort of development that Seattle should be building — but often isn’t.
And all up and down the line the politicos credit Light Rail for this building boom. I have no reason to doubt them, just look at what happened in North City — complete stagnation until LR arrived.
And this is only the beginning. LLE isn’t even open yet.
I didn’t explain it well but the housing need is regional. Seattle is doing most of the heavy lifting, followed by the Eastside. Seattle’s 10,000 per year is mostly keeping up (it was absorbing 75% of Seattle’s new jobs in the 2010s; not it’s probably higher but below 100%). But that’s just keeping up with the increase, it’s not closing the gap on the 150,000 unit backlog in King County, or at least not much. I forgot that two of the four stations are in Snohomish County, so they’re not directly relevant to King County’s backlog.
Naturally Shoreline can only build a small fraction of the housing units Seattle can. But whatever its share of the backlog is, it will probably need more in a few years, so hopefully it’s thinking about the next upzone after this one.
I am looking forward to taking Link to Lynnwood. I have never been north of Northgate. I have a few questions and comments.
1. Ross beat me to it when pointing out the areas Link does not and will not serve. I will be able to take Link to four stations with TOD in Snohomish Co. but I can’t walk to a station from my place in Belltown.
2. Lazarus is correct about the housing along the four stations. Regional policy is to consolidate housing near transit (TOD), and to upzone areas that are already dense, ideally near high-capacity transit. That is now King Co. policy. The problem is the three county area Link serves is around 5200 sq. miles and most of it has been zoned for development/housing with roads built to those parcels. Unfortunately, Link will serve a tiny fraction of the area. According to the Seattle Times around 1% of all regional trips will be on Link once ST 3 is completed. It isn’t that people love driving over transit (although safety is an issue, and there were two more incidents on transit the other day including a shooting and stabbing). It is just that most zoned areas require first mile access to Link, and if that is in a car the momentum is to avoid a transfer and stay in a car until the destination. That is why ST’s pre-pandemic plan to charge for park and rides was so misguided. To really work regional zoning would need to restrict new or more intense housing in these huge outer areas, but it is too late for that now. The goal now is to simply create some more walkable TOD. This region just is and always will be very undense, with pockets of modest density and a mostly empty urban core. I tend to believe the Census Bureau’s population growth figures so growth is flat. I have just come to accept that is the kind of density most people from this region like, maybe because they started with rural density.
3. Can anyone recommend any bars or restaurants within walking distance of any of the four Lynnwood Link stations. The Seattle Times article indicated there are few, and it is quite a walk to any retail or restaurants from the stations. Real TOD means you can WALK to transit, and ideally it means you can walk for most of your your daily needs without transit, like a beer. . Otherwise, you have a housing desert. One problem with excellent TOD is the transit if like Link and walkable means local retail must compete with retail along the transit line. For example, any retail along East Link will have to compete with both downtown Seattle and downtown Bellevue when the marginal time of trip to get to these destinations is small once you are on the comfortable train. Much easier to zone for and build housing than vibrant retail.
While I am glad to see this kind of planning and densification along Lynnwood Link, doing it in Snohomish Co. when retail and housing density is pretty poor in Seattle and the urban core is a head scratcher for me as I take Uber to the Westlake Station to catch Link to Lynnwood Link where there probably won’t be any retail within walking distance of the stations, so why get off.
The general stat’s are a bit better
> In 2007, the year before voters approved light rail, Mountlake Terrace began working on what it calls “Town Center.” When, and if, the plan is fully built out, 6,600 more people will live in this town of 21,350, in a mix of six-, eight- and 12-story buildings within walking distance of the station.
> Shoreline is seeing explosive growth, too, with 2,400 units under construction that will increase the number of apartments there by nearly 44%. In all, this community of 58,700 people could see 33,000 new units on just 7% of the city’s land.
> In Lynnwood, with a population of 39,900, the “City Center” area around the station is zoned for 6,000 units. Not that long ago, there were just 128 in the area, mostly older apartments surrounded by “old, tired buildings from the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s,” said Karl Almgren, Lynnwood’s community planning manager.
Though of course I’ll caution a bit, the statistics listed above are the “max” allowable which the actually developable number is a bit lower.
YouTube video of somebody riding local transit all the way from Canada to Mexico: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VH1dwz5usVQ
Somebody was shot ($) Monday on RapidRide A near 216th and died in the hospital. Authorities had no information on the shooter.