Midweek Roundup – Lynnwood Link Edition

73 Replies to “Midweek Roundup – Lynnwood Link Edition”

1. Supposedly yesterday’s VIP ride on LLE had a full 4-car train of VIP’s at standing load. I didn’t know we had that many VIP’s in this area. Sort of scary.

   Report is that the ride is silky smooth except at some of the switch points (to be expected). And that bus-rail transfers will be easy and intuitive.

   Can’t wait for Friday.

   Also, I drove the in-laws to the airport on Monday. They live in North City not far from North Shoreline Station. The sister-in-law will return first, and she will now be able to take Link directly to her home. They don’t drive, so the world will have changed for them while they are out of town. And will have changed in a very positive way.

   1. Yeah North City will be one of the biggest neighborhoods to benefit from Lynnwood Link. It is reminiscent of Rainier Beach, in that the train doesn’t go to the heart of the neighborhood, but it isn’t that far away. It is a long (but pleasant) walk or you can take a fairly quick (and fairly frequent) bus. Right now those riders have to go all the way down to Northgate. Making matters worse, the 347 and 348 are squirrelly. They both go on 175th, but they go different directions and take different paths before they finally just head south to Northgate. The future 378 (running twice as often) will be much better.

      185th is an interesting station. Shoreline upzoned around the station fairly aggressively. Yet there hasn’t been that much development yet. In terms of walk-up ridership, I think it has the biggest potential of any of the Lynnwood Link Stations. Every other station takes a big hit because of the freeway and some sort of greenbelt. I don’t expect that many riders initially, but over time (as the area develops) it may pass a lot of the other stations.

      1. It would be great if the 185th station becomes known as a bike-up/bike friendly station, like the large bike parking structures at train stations in the Netherlands. So convert the main level car parking to secure bike racks that would greatly increase ,”bike”-and-ride capacity. Just dreaming. But with the nearby amenities at North City and Aurora, achieving bikeability is more realistic than walkability around this freeway aligned station.

      2. @Edgar S,

         North Shoreline Station (185th) will indeed have both bike racks and bike lockers. I just don’t know how many. But hey! We find out Friday!

         The parking garage at NSS is designed to accommodate 500 cars. I sincerely doubt that there will ever be enough bike storage demand to convert even a fraction of that to more bike storage.

         As for amenities near the station, there are at least 3 large apartment buildings going up immediately next to the station itself. And more nearby. I’m just not sure what kinds of amenities they will have.

         But things are really looking up all along the line. It’s about time.

      3. There’s a decent sized development on the west side of 1st Ave NE. A couple other areas have seen at least some infill SFH. It doesn’t sound like much, but it’s something.

         Except for 185th itself, and to some extent Meridian, some of the streets between Aurora and I-5 in the area around the 185th station are lightly traveled and would make decent bike routes.

         If it were me, I guess I’d add a bike parking plaza above I-5. TriMet has a small one on Bybee Blvd by the north elevator down to the platform:
         https://maps.app.goo.gl/NbKEudfyjwTJNCg79?g_st=ic

         Bikes are light. There’s no reason for a huge truck weight bearing structure over I-5 for such a purpose.

      4. It would be great if the 185th station becomes known as a bike-up/bike friendly station, like the large bike parking structures at train stations in the Netherlands.

         UW Station should really be the bike/Link station. It is right on the Burke Gilman! Not in a low-density part of it either — right in the heart of the city. There should be a large fenced off area for bikes (like in the Netherlands). The monthly cost should be minimal — a signup fee and a tiny monthly charge. If you don’t use it in a month you lose your spot and have to signup again.

         There should also be a city-run bike-share system like they have in cities like Boston. Unfortunately the timing of our bike-share system was off. The initial plans were poor — not enough stations and not a big enough area. Then we just brought in private companies, crossed our fingers and hoped for the best. We have bike-share now, but it is extremely expensive.

      5. The Urbanist has a nice rundown on development near the station (https://www.theurbanist.org/2024/08/22/shoreline-north-station-sees-new-urban-connection-form/). It is an interesting article. Most of the development on 185th is not near the station — it is well to the east (North City) or to the west (close to Aurora). There are several reasons for this (it is complicated).

         The good news is that 185th will be well connected to those areas (via bus service).

      6. I read the Urbanist article. It focuses almost exclusively on housing. It doesn’t tell me why anyone will use Link to go to these stations unless they live nearby or transfer to a bus.

         And there are plenty of similarly dense housing projects in similar areas around the region. It’s great that Link is nearby — but it appears to be more of a market coincidence combined with broader city upzoning than it does something primarily driven by Link itself.

         Is there any new destination that is worthy of someone in South Seattle to travel here that wasn’t already easily reachable on transit already?

         Maybe the best destination change are places along the Swift lines that will connect to Link and maybe Stride when it opens.

      7. > Is there any new destination that is worthy of someone in South Seattle to travel here that wasn’t already easily reachable on transit already?

         Practically no, not yet besides Lynnwood City Center. It’s why the urbanist articles are talking about the future. It’s also one of the flaws of not choosing aurora avenue.

         Or another way to ask the question are there any yellow “areas of interest” near the stations on google maps.

         * Mountlake Terrace there’s a strip mall around 10 minute walk and the city hall
         * Shoreline North there’s the Senior Center
         * Shoreline South one can walk to 15th Ave or take the future bus up to SR522 to kenmore/bothell

         Lynnwood unsurprisingly has the most interesting stuff. I’ll probably head there in the future for korean food/markets or maybe take the bus over to the mall

      8. > Maybe the best destination change are places along the Swift lines that will connect to Link and maybe Stride when it opens

         Yeah if it is expanded to the blue stride connections it’s better and there’s a lot more reachable there on aurora.

      9. Is there any new destination that is worthy of someone in South Seattle to travel here that wasn’t already easily reachable on transit already?
         

         The Seattle Times mentioned some ideas here: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/lynnwood-light-rail-is-opening-heres-what-youll-find-at-4-new-stations/

         If you are willing to take a bus a ways I would consider Downtown Edmonds or maybe Downtown Everett. I could see doing the loop like those guys from New Jersey (I think they were from New Jersey). That means taking Sounder up to Everett then the 512 back to Link. Parts of Everett are interesting and worth checking out. This is a website listing some old buildings in Everett: https://www.everettwa.gov/1864/Historic-Buildings-Walking-Tours (the link for the short tour doesn’t seem to work, but the long tour has a nice map). In between some of the old buildings there is some newer infill as well. Last time I was up there I went to the Children’s museum and there were not only plenty of places to eat but good pockets of urbanism.

         By the way, this sort of trip may account for the relatively high ridership of Redmond Tech Station. People are riding East Link end to end. I could see them then wandering around the campus, especially if they used to work there. It makes for an interesting outing.

      10. I didn’t know there was anything at the Microsoft campus that non-employees or meeting visitors are allowed to, or anything to see except the buildings and setbacks.

      11. Microsoft has a visitor’s center, so there is that. It is no museum of flight, but I could see someone visiting it just for historical reasons (Microsoft changed the world). I’m also thinking of how someone would check out East Link and check out Microsoft at the same time.

      12. O/T, but we will be needing a Scandinavian-style bike & ride facility at the end of the new line in Ballard when the time comes. I hope ST is planning that.

   2. It’s brand new! It’s expensive! It’s supposed to be silky smooth! If it wasn’t silky smooth this month, it would be a huge failure!

      1. @Al S,

         It is actually pretty cheap. Try adding a lane in each direction to I-5 for anywhere near $3B. Not possible.

         And that extra lane on I-5 between Northgate and LCC would do nothing to “solve” traffic or improve travel times. All it would do is funnel more traffic into the mess that is I-5 through DT Seattle. I-5 in DT Seattle would set up solid like a bucket of cheap concrete.

      2. To be clear, most of the construction work that would be needed to add a lane to I-5 is the same clearing and grading needed to build Link. Maybe less, with no stations, train bridge from one side of I-5 to the other, or overhead wire. Nonetheless, another lane on I-5 would just quickly clog up with traffic, and once you reach the ship canal bridge, any widening there to downtown gets really, really expensive.

      3. @asdf2,

         A lot of the cost in expanding a freeway has to do with dealing with fixed structures. Basically expanding, modifying, and in some cases replacing existing overpasses and underpasses.

         This cost doesn’t exist with adding rail because the new rail tracks don’t have to be laterally contiguous with the existing freeway lanes. Rail doesn’t need to be immediately adjacent to the existing lanes or even at the same local elevation. Rail is free to go over, under, or around these structural impediments, and that design freedom is used to reduce costs.

         Additionally, when adding rail both tracks will be placed adjacent to each other on the same side of the freeway. Meaning construction itself only occurs on one side of the freeway and construction issues only need to be dealt with once.

         This is in contrast with adding lanes to a freeway where construction needs to occur on both sides of the freeway. So things like staging, grading, and remediation need to occur twice – one time for each side of the freeway. This drives up costs.

         So, ya, adding a freeway lane in each direction would be very costly. And try adding a freeway lane through downtown Seattle. Ain’t going to happen! To costly!

      4. The rough figures we were using as ‘budget’ amounts in the I-405 Corridor Program back in 2000 per lane mile were:
         $10 million – at grade
         $40 million – elevated
         $100 million – tunnel

         However, the cost really jumps when the project goes out of the WSDOT right-of-way.
         (Time to buy out property owners)
         Then it ends up being cheaper to tunnel.

         And the cost is only higher now.

      5. @Jim Cusick,

         Railroads build tunnels to save money. It’s simply cheaper in certain circumstances to go through an obstruction rather than around or over it. And that can be true both in terms of construction costs and operational costs. It’s been this way for centuries now.

         The same is true for building LR in an urban environment. If you need to go cross-grid to provide service to a prime destination, just about the only affordable way to do it is to deep bore tunnel under the built environment.

         And costs have gone up substantially over the last 25 years. However, on a comparative basis the cost of tunneling has improved substantially for DBT’s. Today’s TBM’s are really efficient. And surface disruptions and associated costs are very low.

      6. A major difference is that a light rail project need stations compared to a freeway tunnel. Light rail tunnels can be cheap too — however one still needs to reach the surface. That’s a large difference between elevated versus tunnel where the stations are much easier to build in the former case.

         Of course property acquisition is expensive, but outside of downtown Seattle, there’s plenty of single family homes that it it’s just a rounding error or an elevated alignment

      7. Of course, running rail in previous rail corridors At Grade would be the cheapest.

         There used to be all kinds of those, weren’t there?

         The Interurbans, the Burke-Gilman, the Woodinville Subdivision…

         Silly me.

2. LYNNWOOD LINK OPENING ATTENDANCE:
   STB is not organizing a formal meetup, but a few of the editors and some commenters are planning to attend the opening. As noted in this Roundup and last week’s, the Urbanist is hosting a formal meetup at Hemlock State Brewing near the Mountlake Terrace Station, and we may find ourselves there.

   UPCOMING ARTICLES:
   We are assembling an article summarizing the festivities planned for the Lynnwood Link Extension opening on Friday, which is an unusual weekday opening featuring a ribbon-cutting at 11am, a break, and then a “Night Market” at each station from about 4-8pm.

   We’ll then have opening day impressions and station area discussion articles following the opening.

   1. To be clear, LLE will open for the riding public shortly after the politicians get done yapping sometime after 11ish. But they will probably go long, so I expect something more like 12ish.

      It is only the night markets that won’t start until 4:00.

      1. On a recent local news segment they made a point of stating that the actual ribbon cutting and first ride won’t be until 12:30pm. Not sure if this got this from some official schedule that media has or what. But it makes me less interested in showing up at 11am.

      2. That’s because the 2 Line Starter Line speeches went longer than expected so the opening was delayed by an hour or so. ST never starts service at the beginning of an event; only when the primary speeches are over, because the VIPs get the first ride. So the only reason to show up at 11 is if you want to hear the speeches or see how large the crowd is. Otherwise I’d just wait until the afternoon.

         I don’t try to get in the first train or wait in a long like. With East Link I took the 550 to the South Bellevue terminus and started there. There had been a crowd waiting there, and VIPs who came by train and back, but that was all finished by the time I arrived so I didn’t have much trouble getting on a train. The trains were crowded but there was no line. There might have still been a line at Bellevue Downtown, but not at the other stations.

         With Lynnwood I’ll probably explore Scriber Creek and Park and then get on a train. If I’m well enough to go as I’ve been sick.

      3. The 2LSL had 5-minute service the first few hours, so maybe Lynnwood will too.

3. It’s unfortunate that in order to get RRG we has to lose the 3 here in Belltown and on Queen Anne. Access to Swedish and harbor view was reasonable with the 3/4. Now just the 4. I hope they actually increase service on the 4.

   [Ed: Fixed typos]

   1. The CD tail of Routes 3/4 is certainly awkward. Most Route 3 buses reverse at 23rd/ Garfield High but some go to Madrona at 34th / Union. Route 4 wanders on local streets on wire near Judkins Park but skips the soon-to-open station because that would mean adding wire for several blocks and missing some of MLK in an area where Route 8 will no longer run once it moves to Judkins Park Link.

      Because this is the only bus that almost connects Swedish Cherry Hill to both Judkins Park Station and Routes 7/106 south of Downtown, my personal hope is that Metro will ramp up Route 4 by increasing frequency and moving the wires to reach Judkins Park Link (providing the missing direct connection to Harborview from the station too) and even the Mt Baker TC.

      Others have wanted to fully delete Route 4, arguing that there are plenty of other CD buses to ride — only that a transfer would be required.

      Because Metro has committed to a post Judkins Park opening service plan, I don’t expect further route changes. So it will be interesting if and how Judkins Park Station opening will create any changes in Metro use in this area.

      1. Because Metro has committed to a post Judkins Park opening service plan, I don’t expect further route changes.

         Me neither. The time to make the change was with RapidRide G. They blew it. They made tiny changes, and the changes basically ignored the G. The G is a more “disruptive” change to the network than Judkins Park (my apologies to those that hate that word in this context). By that I mean it opens up the possibility for a lot more change. While the Judkins Park Station is great, it doesn’t really change the network. It will interface with buses along Rainier and 23rd, and that is about it. You could send more buses there, but then you make things worse — buses run less often.

         In contrast the RapidRide G changes the perspective of several routes and several neighborhoods. From Montlake all you really need is the 48. The G will be very frequent and very fast. So the 43 is gone. From Madison Park all you really need is a bus that heads towards Link. If you are headed to First Hill or Downtown you can transfer. The obvious choice for Madison Park is to just send the 8 there. East of 15th, the 2 is redundant — it should dogleg to Pike/Pine. That is a lot of changes, and it should have been the minimum. But with all that churn it gives you a chance to make long overdue changes, like combining the 49 and 60 (along Broadway) thus achieving 6 minute combined headways with the streetcar along Broadway (drool).

         Simplify. Consolidate. Make it more like a grid. We should ask ourselves, what would Jarrett Walker do? Pretty much the same thing as David Lawson. Run the buses more often with no more money. Really.

   2. Yes, they’re increasing service on the 4’s Queen Anne section to roughly every fifteen minutes all day on weekdays. Unfortunately weekends are still every thirty minutes.

   3. Metro added runs to the 4 to preserve Queen Anne’s frequency. The hours for the “3 Downtown Only” extension to Summit came out of the 10 and 12. Metro asked the public whether restoring the Summit segment was worth less frequency on the others, and the majority said yes.

   4. Metro has tried in the past to delete the 4’s 23rd tail (in the C/D/E restructures and the 2014 cuts), but that wasn’t part of this restructure.

   5. It is not fair to blame RapidRide G for the inability of Metro planners to build an efficient network. There is simply no reason for the bad frequency. RapidRide G would fit quite nicely in a more frequent network at no additional cost. It has been over ten years since this was published: https://seattletransitblog.com/2013/08/19/your-bus-much-more-often-no-more-money-really/. The message still rings true. We can run our buses much more often with no more money. Really.

   6. Having the 3 take over the 47 is certainly clever. I give them credit for that. But overall it just doesn’t work. I get that you want to run trolleys and when in doubt you most certainly should. But the 3/4 should just be one route: the 3. The tail of the 4 is silly. So too is the little turnback at Garfield. Just run a bus every 7.5 minutes from SPU to Madrona. If you can’t afford that then run it every 10 minutes. (That should only happen when we have major service problems, like … now. Note that the 7 is now running every ten minutes.)

      Meanwhile, if the 47 is shared with a trolley, then the 7 is a good choice. Yes, that means running a lot of trips up the hill to Summit. But it isn’t that far. When the 7 is running every 7.5 minutes then just truncate half of them downtown (if you must). If you then send the 49 south on Broadway (as you should) riders would quickly switch to the 47. It also just makes for a much better pairing. The 7-47 has a lot more one-seat rides — it makes a less abrupt turn. Again, I give credit to the planners for coming up with the idea of splitting the 3. But there are better ways to do it.

4. Seattletimes talks about Lynnwood Link extension skipping Aurora Avenue and placed on i-5 instead as well as the missed opportunities
   https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/why-is-light-rail-to-lynnwood-opening-next-to-i-5-and-not-on-aurora/

   Of course this is already too late to change it now — but hopefully for the future we can build light rail on avenues instead of freeways. Also for Aurora Avenue and International Boulevard since it’s unlikely we’ll be building light rail on them given the close proximity to the existing light rail, perhaps we could talk about center median brt instead on those corridors?

   1. Nathan already linked that article in his original post.

      But ya, the Aurora alignment would have cost $600M more, added 4 minutes travel time to every rider’s trip, and resulted in 8% fewer total riders on the extension.

      Pay more for a slower trip with less total ridership? What a bargain! Not…..

      Oh, and it would have destroyed businesses all up and down the corridor in the process. Perfect!

      Na, I’m not generally a fan of freeway alignments, but ST sure got this one right. And with the aggressive rezones around the stations in Shoreline and Mountlake Terrace, it hardly matters.

      1. > But ya, the Aurora alignment would have cost $600M more, added 4 minutes travel time to every rider’s trip, and resulted in 8% fewer total riders on the extension.

         Lazarus they adjusted the i5 alignment to have much more elevated segments that was the original increase in cost on the sr 99 alignment.

         > Oh, and it would have destroyed businesses all up and down the corridor in the process. Perfect!

         If you build a rail line and run into no opposition you’re building it in the wrong place with less density.

         > Na, I’m not generally a fan of freeway alignments, but ST sure got this one right. And with the aggressive rezones around the stations in Shoreline and Mountlake Terrace, it hardly matters.

         Hopefully the rezones pan out — but we shouldn’t build light rail depending solely on rezoning. There’s currently still a lot more density on aurora than next to i5

      2. It would have cost more, but it would have had a lot more riders. It would likely have saved those riders a lot more time as well. There is a big drawback with running trains close to the freeway that is rarely talked about: Buses can do it just about as well.

         Imagine we don’t build Lynnwood Link, but focus on the bus intercept. We connect the HOV lanes (from the north) to Northgate Transit Center so it operates just like Lynnwood Transit Center. Then change the HOV-2 lanes to HOV-3. Now run buses from the various neighborhoods to Northgate, “Blue Streak” style. For example Edmonds College to Lynnwood TC and on to Northgate. Thus riders going from Edmonds College to North Seattle College would have a fast one-seat ride. That could be combined with the 512 and a similar bus for 5 minute midday frequency. Or maybe those are the only two buses doing that, but they each run every 10 minutes. (A few billion dollars will buy a lot of bus service.) For a lot of riders this would be just as good as the Link extension. For some it would be better, for others worse. Overall it sounds like a wash.

         Now consider doing the same thing on Aurora. You can’t. That is because Aurora is slower than I-5. In fact, I-5 is just as fast as Link (the legal limit is 55 MPH, and the top speed of Link is 55 MPH). An express (skipping stops) could very well be faster. In contrast Aurora is never that fast (even though it is much faster than most roadways). The only part of Aurora that is close to being that fast is the part between Green Lake and downtown (which is why rail from downtown is not worth it).

         Then, of course you have the fact that SR-99 has bigger destinations. My guess is the three biggest destinations in South Snohomish County are Edmonds College, Swedish Edmonds and Downtown Edmonds. Two of these are on SR-99. None are served by Link. You would also have more stations on SR-99. Not to state the obvious, but the more stations, the more riders. None of the stations in Rainier Valley get that many riders. But collectively they do quite well (and will do better when they add Graham Street).

         The reasonable approach (of course) would be to do both. First build the intercept and slowly build out the system, maximizing ridership along the way. That means running along SR-99, with stations 1/4 to 3/4 of a mile or so apart. You know, like a normal subway.

         Unfortunately what we are doing is weird. Not by American standards, but when it comes to transit, what Americans do is weird. The U. S. is very good at some things (we have the best universities in the world) but very bad at others. For example, look at modal share (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_share). USA, USA, USA. Oh, we are at the bottom. Anyway, one reason for a dismal record in that regard is that we can’t seem to figure it out. We develop our own model (based on BART) and then ignore the fact that it performed very poorly compared to a more traditional model (DC Metro). Meanwhile we ignore models from similar countries (Canada and Australia). We build light rail because is sounds cool (hey, it is lighter!). We build streetcars with no idea why or where they make sense. We are now in our “BRT” phase and for the most part ignore where they make sense as well. It is as if we read a brochure and think “Oh, that sounds good” or maybe visited some foreign country and fell in love with the trams.

         Sorry for the digression but the point is, running a very expensive metro line in the envelope of the freeway is unusual, and for a very good reason. It just doesn’t get that many riders, and you can accomplish the same thing with buses. If you are going to go north of Northgate with a metro it makes sense to go where the people are — along SR-99.

      3. @Ross

         I mean that was the original plan. ST2 link light rail was supposed to be on the avenues of aurora avenue and international boulevard and along i-5 it was to be augmented with hov center ramps for the express buses.

         But we flipped it now with light rail on the freeways and buses doing the main work on the avenues.

         I do find it ironic that everett link is going to be built with elevated light rail along the avenues what lynnwood/federal way link should have been.

      4. “that was the original plan. ST2 link light rail was supposed to be on the avenues of aurora avenue and international boulevard and along i-5”

         I don’t know that the original plan specified streets beyond SeaTac. That was all in the far-off future, not a committed alignment. We assume Link would have remained on Pacific Highway to Tacoma Dome because the original International Blvd, MLK, and SODO alignments were to keep the cost down to the level of previous American light rails. But I don’t think ST ever said in the 1990s that future phases would definitely remain on Pacific Highway or go to Aurora north of Northgate. Those were to be decided later.

      5. “Then change the HOV-2 lanes to HOV-3. Now run buses from the various neighborhoods to Northgate, “Blue Streak” style.”

         Avoiding traffic using HOV lanes is just one party of the major problem of relying on highways. Car crashes are anotherc,ajor component, and seem like a daily occurrence.

         Highways are not a reliable substitute for dedicated rail. Period. Exclamation point.

         That’s not to say that 99 shouldn’t have been the route. It absolutely should have. And Pac Highway should be reconsidered as an option from Federal Way to Tacoma Dome.

         But selling me sitting in a bus on I-5 for 3 hours as the EMTs scrape some idiot or victim off the HOV lane is selling me unreliable, crap transit.

      6. “ Na, I’m not generally a fan of freeway alignments, but ST sure got this one right.”

         I think that we should give just as much credit to the cities involved for station area planning as could be given to ST. They all could have been doing less ambitious station area planning. It’s not perfect (needing more destinations near the new stations) but things could have been lots more restrictive.

   2. SDOT is considering center bus lanes on Aurora.

      1. Yes, but note it is SDOT not sound transit funding it. We’ve ended up in a situation where sound transit spends capital money almost exclusively next to freeways and it is king county at the avenues

      2. On a somewhat related note, I’ve been thinking maybe we more seriously bring back considering tram/”streetcar” as a mode. I know I’ve talked a lot about how brt’s can practically replace streetcars in most cases. But grade separated light rail is so expensive leading it to be far from density on freeways and on the other hand as Lazarus/Issaquah Resident and Mercer Island Resident? (forgot their exact username) noted about how the brt’s can be watered down. Also it’s hard for the latter to get some of the more expensive capital improvements. We’ve also never quite implemented “trams” as how say France or Sarcramento implemented them rather as neighborhood streetcars with much short stop spacing.

         Perhaps for say Kirkland to Issaquah we can implement them with trams at-grade it could reach downtown Kirkland and also issaquah highlands just running on newport/sunset way. also if it’s the shorter lighter vehicles then the stopping distance should be a lot shorter compared to link light rail, hopefully that could help reduce crashes.

         Or say a better burien to renton, if sound transit really isn’t planning on building there then perhaps a tram replacement of f line combining the former rail right of way and limited elevated structures to pass the freeway.

      3. Trams get watered down just as often as BRT. At least around here that is definitely the case. RapidRide G is not nearly as watered down as either of our trams.

         The fundamental advantage of trams is capacity. The main corridor where this is an issue in Seattle already has light rail (underground) and a spine (above ground). Adding a tram just saps service from either of those. You could force a transfer, but that proves to be very unpopular. For example a lot of people in Renton would be unhappy if the 101 ended in SoDo.

         There are a few corridors where I could see a tram making sense. The 7 and 70 come to mind. But SDOT rejected a streetcar for the 70 — it just wasn’t worth it. Same goes for the 7, really. It is nowhere near the point where trams start making sense. Even during peak it doesn’t run that often. Building them at this point also limits what we can do on the corridor. Maybe someday we want to run buses in the center (like RapidRide G). If the tracks are on the outside it costs a lot of money to move them. I wouldn’t rule out trams in Seattle in the future, but as of now I just don’t see it.

      4. Not next to freeways: SODO, Beacon Hill, Rainier Valley, Capitol Hill to Northgate, South Bellevue to almost Overlake Village.

      5. > Not next to freeways: SODO, Beacon Hill, Rainier Valley, Capitol Hill to Northgate, South Bellevue to almost Overlake Village.

         Well yes the problem is that sound transit has now refused to build any at grade which means stuff like sodo, rainier valley or south Bellevue to almost Overlake village wouldn’t happen. For Capitol Hill to northgate only the densest areas can justify a deep tunnel.

         Otherwise for example issaquah at grade there wouldn’t be that large of a problem to reach issaquah highlands

      6. ST is caught in the middle between people pushing for contradictory things. I was one of those pushing for full grade separation to make the trains faster and eliminate collisions. The argument that surface is better so people don’t have to go up or down to the platform exists but is hardly a majority view. Service was suspended or single-tracked at least four times in the past two weeks due to collisions or objects on the track in Rainier Valley. That’s hardly normal for a metro. And ST is now spooked about safety, so that means the end of considering surface alignments.

         I’ve kind of gone the other way: WS/BLE has gotten so bad and expensive that I wouldn’t mind surface in the Ballard and West Seattle tails, or Issaquah or Everett. It would only affect the few people in the tails, not the many people in the core.

      7. > Trams get watered down just as often as BRT. At least around here that is definitely the case. RapidRide G is not nearly as watered down as either of our trams.

         I guess I would use the word “light rail” if it wouldn’t mean link light rail already in Seattle. The reason why I choose trams is that while say RapidRide E, Seattle could probably provide center median bus lanes; I doubt many other cities would be willing to do so and also more expensive flyovers would be hard for them.

         Or to put differently trams/light rail do unlock a bit more political capital. I could see Issaquah perhaps giving a lane over for trams

      8. “ The fundamental advantage of trams is capacity. ”

         Somehow I think Seattle found a way to make this statement untrue. The single-car FHSC trams don’t seem to hold any more riders than an articulated bus does — and since Seattle chose to mix it with traffic so that they could have their precious undulating (compared to 12th Ave) bicycle track using transit dollars, it moves slower than a bus — reducing the system capacity further!

         I think I would have written “ The fundamental advantage of trams should be capacity. ”

      9. > “ The fundamental advantage of trams is capacity. ”

         I’m just using trams in this context for their ability to maybe* convert some car lanes and political will to build say an elevated bypass in certain sections that I doubt BRT would get. The capacity would probably be the same with articulated buses.

      10. I’m just using trams in this context for their ability to maybe* convert some car lanes and political will to build say an elevated bypass in certain sections that I doubt BRT would get.

          OK, but I think it is the opposite. Our BRT (RapidRide G) has more right-of-way than either of our trams. I think an elevated bypass (or something similar) is more likely with buses, particularly lots of buses. The bus tunnel is a classic example, but more recently the 520 project.

          I think people make a distinction between trams and Link (even though both are light rail). There is a commitment to grade separation with Link, at least for future projects. Rightly or wrongly, that is the commitment. That comes from the board, but groups like Seattle Subway pushed for it. In some sense it makes sense — if you are going to spend billions on a rail line, then it doesn’t make sense to cut corners. Go big or go home. With trams, however, they have been willing to be cut corners because the reasoning behind trams has never been solid. The South Lake Union Streetcar was an arbitrary project that is now clearly outdated. Metro isn’t even running a substitute service (they are just telling people what buses to take instead). The Capitol Hill Streetcar was supposed to be a substitute for a Link station. But it wasn’t built like Link. It has very little right-of-way. So even then — despite the extra cost of the tram — there was no focus on making sure it avoids congestion (the way there is with Link).

          I think it is because unlike trams in other cities, our trams aren’t seen as a major step up from the buses. They were never based on capacity needs, which means they don’t cover the major corridors. It is very common to see a route transition from regular bus to BRT to tram. That would be the next step for the 99-B Line in Vancouver. It carried 55,000 people a day prior to the pandemic. Convert it to a tram, and then eventually make it part of the subway system. They skipped that step though, and are going straight from BRT to metro. But in our case none of the trams were based on the demands of the corridor. Otherwise they would have replaced the 7 or 70. But again, they aren’t quite there yet (in terms of demand). As a result, our trams are not particularly important. If you were to ask someone in Toronto where they should focus their surface right-of-way efforts, everyone would say “the trams”. They carry a huge number of people. It makes sense to make them faster. In Seattle though, most people would probably say “The 8”, not either streetcar.

          In general I would say adding right-of-way for buses is easier, simply because it doesn’t come with everything else. Any streetcar project is going to be met with basic questions like why are we even building a streetcar here, instead of a bus? It stands little chance of iteratively adding right-of-way, like we’ve had recently on buses like the 7 and 40. These are major improvements, and I don’t think they are the last ones. The 44 for example, seems to get improvements in spurts. Every time it seems like it isn’t enough, but eventually it will be. It mostly just comes down to money.

          Which again is why I think that is bad strategy. Trying to build trams to get right of way is the tail wagging the dog. It is quite possible that there will never be service on First Avenue because people hitched their wagon to the wrong horse. If they had pushed for buses there, it is quite likely they would have shifted a few there. At worse the buses would run in BAT lanes (like 2nd and 4th) but since we already have buses with doors on both sides for the G, they might have gone with center running there as well. The added cost of a tram has stalled — if not doomed — service on First Avenue.

          To be clear, if they added a tram on Aurora, it would probably come with center running tracks. But it would also come with an insanely high price tag, which means nothing would be done for a really long time, if ever. People just don’t think it is worth it. In contrast center-running buses or adding BAT lanes from buses don’t have that problem. People may quibble over whether it RapidRide G was really necessary (or the right route) but the transit community is united in support (in as much as the transit community can be united around anything).

          A lot of it is just association. People really like light rail in this town, simply because it is the metro. It is much more of a subway than light rail. In Vancouver, on the other hand, people said they didn’t want light rail — they wanted SkyTrain. In Seattle we aren’t too impressed with RapidRide. They are just other buses. In Snohomish County they love Swift — it is a cut above. None of this is fundamental to the technology — it is just the way people view things. In this city there is no great love for the trams because they haven’t been very effective. The Capitol Hill Streetcar works, but takes a very odd route to downtown and is often stuck in traffic. The other one is irrelevant. I just don’t think another tram project would help us get right-of-way. I think it would be the opposite. We have to just keep doing what we are doing — keep fighting for red paint bit by bit, wherever we can.

      11. @Ross

          > In general I would say adding right-of-way for buses is easier, simply because it doesn’t come with everything else.

          I agree in Seattle we can more easily garner bus lanes and such a strategy doesn’t need to be taken, however that is not true for other cities.

          For instance if we needed to widen the road for transit lanes and require property takings, people are much more accepting for a tram rather than for brt

      12. I agree in Seattle we can more easily garner bus lanes and such a strategy doesn’t need to be taken, however that is not true for other cities.

          Agreed. I think some places get really excited about a tram, even if they could accomplish the same thing with a bus. The excitement allows them to push for improvements that would otherwise be considered too expensive.

      13. ST is caught in the middle between people pushing for contradictory things.

          Yes, and that has been a problem from the very beginning. Run a train line from Everett to Tacoma. Add a bunch of stops in between (like a metro). But somehow make it fast (like regional rail). This is fundamentally contradictory, unless you want to double track. But that gets to cost. We are supposed to build this extremely long subway line, but it isn’t supposed to cost that much money. That again is contradictory. The only way to reduce costs is to run on the surface or leverage old rail lines (which makes it slower). We do a little of that, but not much.

          Then there is capacity. Somehow it isn’t an issue when it comes to the actual trains we are using. Yet it will be an issue in the future, thus we need a second tunnel. It is quite possible that the second tunnel doesn’t address the actual section where it is most crowded, but we need it anyway.

          The end result is what you would expect: A system that doesn’t do anything especially well. It is a metro, but there aren’t enough stations, nor enough lines in the city. Nor will it be an especially good regional rail system. It will take a very long time to get from Tacoma to Seattle on Link (if it ever gets that far).

          Even the fact that it is light rail comes from this contradiction. To be clear, some of it is the fact that the US doesn’t really understand transit, and likes the idea of “light rail”. It suggests something a bit cheaper but quite effective (“we really don’t need heavy rail — light rail is fine”). But low-floor light rail was really the only option once we decided to share the tunnel. But that decision was again born out of this contradictory approach. It was considered essential that it eventually go really far away from the city (like regional rail) even though it also operated like a metro. If they simply focused on building a metro they would have started with a line from the U-District to Downtown (at a minimum). This would of course be grade separated, and include several stops. At that point, you can make a good case for kicking out the buses. If this is too painful, then build the first line from Northgate to downtown, thus achieving that tipping point (enough buses are replaced by rail that it doesn’t make sense to have dual operation). That means the trains would not be low-floor.

          If the trains are automated (a good choice) then any extension is grade-separated. If you run on Rainier Valley you run elevated or cut and cover. My guess is (like Vancouver) you go with cut and cover. You also don’t run down Rainier, you run down MLK. You have plenty of stops, and you end in Rainier Beach (by the high school, where the people are). You build it so that it can be extended, but you aren’t too worried about it, since there just isn’t that much density to the south. Eventually you probably get there, but long distance travel should not be the focus. You end up with a far more cost effective system that builds upon its past success. This is the way most cities around the world build these sort of things — including our nearest neighbor, Vancouver. They didn’t quite build things in order, but they at least built the right things.

5. Aurora Ave outreach details are posted on the project page (under Outreach Report): https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/current-projects/aurora-ave-project

   The most interesting chart is on page 60:
   – Very strong approval for all pedestrian improvements
   – General approval for bike lanes
   – General approval for bus lanes/shelters
   – Neutral approval for center-running bus lanes
   – Neutral approval for keeping the same number of vehicle lanes

   I’d prefer center-running bus lanes but I’d be happy with side-running plus a handful of crossings between Winona and Roy. Are there a lot of people that use the bus stops in that segment? I don’t see how you get across the street.

   1. > I’d prefer center-running bus lanes but I’d be happy with side-running plus a handful of crossings between Winona and Roy. Are there a lot of people that use the bus stops in that segment? I don’t see how you get across the street.

      Yeah you currently can’t cross except at the pedestrian bridges. A large interim step might be to just add traffic lights spaced out so people can cross Aurora Avenue more easily.

      1. Most of them are undercrossings. You go down a stair, across, and up another stair. When I did it once at night, it was so dark and narrow and potentially slippery that I didn’t want to do it again. They look like they were built in the 1930s and haven’t been updated since.

      2. Yeah, Mike beat me to it. The undercrossings are sketchy (although I haven’t done it in a while). I used to walk from Dexter up to the top of Queen Anne (there is a rough trail there).

         Anyway, the big change to Aurora — the idea of reimagining it — is to convert the freeway part of it to a regular road. Allow pedestrians, bikes and maybe even buses to cross at various points. This sort of thing happened with the tunnel, as the street grid extended a few blocks (although they have largely allowed cars to go across). It would make a huge difference north of Mercer (Roy, Valley, etc.). That is a very urban area on both sides and yet Aurora cuts it off (https://maps.app.goo.gl/Z5cDjdjHGN7UDsof6). You have the same issue further north, but it mainly effects bus riders, as not that many people walk through the greenbelt (since it is sketchy). It becomes a big issue again as you get north of the ship canal. There are some good crossings, but the gaps are still annoying (https://maps.app.goo.gl/Ab7mk2QhvRDuiDGR7). Being able to just walk across the street (the way you do north of Green Lake) would make a huge difference to a lot of people.

         So would running buses in the center. It would be a huge improvement. The ramps to and from downtown are actually set up for that. That is one of the reasons why there are no stops for buses near Mercer. The buses have to move from curbside to the middle to exit (and do the opposite going north). This also makes it hard to deal with congestion. You can’t easily add bus lanes. With center running buses everything changes (for the better). It would be a huge improvement.

         The challenge is that bikers want that right of way as well. They want to be able to bike (safely) across the Aurora Bridge. The same is true north of Green Lake. I heard from someone that they might compromise and run center-running buses to Green Lake, and then transition to running curbside after that (with bike lanes). I would be OK with that, even though I would like center-running bus lanes to the city limit (and to the county line when Shoreline is up for it). But I do think you get the biggest benefit from running buses in the center between downtown and Green Lake (along with allowing people to cross the street).

      3. If they followed the platform pattern of MAX on east Burnside, they could even have center running bus lanes with normal buses, rather than special buses with doors on both sides.

      4. @Ross

         Yeah the segment in SLU/lower Queen Anne seems the most egregious. Center running bus lanes for the bottom few segments seems like a reasonable compromise to me

         @Glenn

         Not sure what MAX looks like, but the plan is not to purchase new buses. The design is on page 10 in the document below:

         https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/SDOT/Projects/Aurora%20Ave%20Project/Aurora_Ave_Survey.pdf

      5. Yeah, what John said (about regular buses). I’m not sure what the term is for that. The bus stops are staggered and the buses take turns moving into the middle lane. It makes sense for a street like Aurora. It gets trickier for a street like Madison, which has a lot of tiny blocks.

      6. > I’m not sure what the term is for that.

         Contraflow?

      7. No, contraflow is when the bus is the only vehicle going that direction. For example Fifth Avenue downtown (https://maps.app.goo.gl/zaY6b41pB7bQogkU6). It is one-way for cars (they can only go south) but buses can go north or south.

      8. “Not sure what MAX looks like, but the plan is not to purchase new buses.”

         The areas I’m thinking of look like this:
         https://www.google.com/maps/@45.5222636,-122.5106014,192m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MDgyOC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

         It’s unfortunate they have one station for each direction, but so far (built in the 1980s) it seems to work OK. They use the slot created by the left turn lane on the other side of the intersection for the platform.

         The Page 10 plan looks very similar to what they did for MAX on Burnside.

6. Trimet is switching from late night MAX service to late night bus service for it’s last few runs to help expand MAX maintenance hours. The new bus lines will be starting from one the major stops in Downtown Portland (Goose Hollow, Rose Quarter, Union Station, and PSU) and shadowing their respective lines to their terminus. Blue the only line getting split in two due to its length.

   https://trimet.org/betterbus/servicechanges-fy25august.htm#maxbus

   1. For some reason, PDX airport gets a lot more early morning flights than late at night. So, the first red line train starts at 3:20 am, and the first blue line train at 3:00 am.

      With the last departure from downtown Portland still running at 2:30 am, the feeling was the night shut down just wasn’t enough time for maintenance work.

      Since there’s maybe a total of about 10 people at the airport after about 10:30 pm, they decided it was preferable to have the bus shadow in the early morning before shutdown rather than at the start of service.

      1. Before the pandemic, peak ridership to the airport on the 574 was at 2:00 AM (https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/2020-service-implementation-plan.pdf#page=159
         ). I always assumed it was people working an early shift, but maybe it was people catching early flights.

      2. The SeaTac airport seems to have a much different flight time popularity than Portland. I’ve gotten a few late night flights at SeaTac (cheaper than PDX for where I wanted to go), and it seemed like there were a fairly significant number of people even at midnight. It seems to be a true 24 hour establishment.

         Even before the pandemic, the TSA people at PDX seemed quite surprised to see a large group of people going through the exit at 10 or 11 pm. Their expressions seemed to say “You mean this place actually does have flights at this hour?” They looked very bored, as if they hadn’t run anyone through the line for half an hour or something.

      3. Interesting. Just shows there is a whole ‘nother world out there that most of us rarely experience (if we ever do). Maybe its because Seattle is more of an international airline. If you are flying from Japan, arriving at midnight is fine, if not ideal.

      4. “And it seemed like there were a fairly significant number of people even at midnight. ”

         EVA Air, Taiwanese Airline is the last flight of the day out of SEA usually at 1 or 2 in the morning for their early morning arrival into Taipei. Sometimes having two flights an hour apart leaving for Taipei during busy travel season. With a max load, that’s 684 possible passangers between 2 airplanes. Tho it’s probably more like 400 to 600 passangers on a normal day.

Comments are closed.