Midweek Roundup – Open Thread 65

161 Replies to “Midweek Roundup – Open Thread 65”

1. Just for grins, yesterday I repeated my ride of August 6th on the 402 from Lynnwood Transit Center to 2nd and Seneca in DT Seattle. I intentionally took the same bus, on the same day of the week, and selected the same departure time. Intent was to see the impact of an open LLE on CT commuter bus ridership before the restructure.

   Yesterday’s trip took 1 hr 15 mins to complete, significantly slower than the trip on August 6th which took 51 mins. Both trips missed the scheduled travel time of 47 mins.

   Only 11 people besides me boarded the 402 at LTC. On my previous trip the bus was nearly full. So the 402 has lost a huge amount of ridership to LLE.

   Interestingly enough, almost all the riders got off in Seattle at the very first stop (9th and Stewart). This stop is about the furthest 402 stop from Link in DT Seattle at about 0.4 miles from the Link station. Link doesn’t serve this area very directly. So clearly the remaining ridership on the 402 was just trying to avoid the long walk.

   The speed thing was pretty much as before. We didn’t get above 50 mph at anytime between LCC and just south of Shoreline South/148th Station. Then we immediately slowed back down as we approached the express lanes. Then we slowed to a crawl across the ship canal as we approached an accident. And then the exit from the express lanes to Stewart Street was once again exceedingly slow, probably the slowest part of the trip.

   The ridership and destinations of the riders also bodes poorly for the future 515. Clearly most of the remaining riders were just trying to access a part of downtown that isn’t directly served by Link. Those numbers won’t change after the restructure — they will still be small.

   But all-in-all a good trip. Views were good, the bus was clean, and there weren’t any crowds to deal with. You could pick your seat anywhere on the bus.

   This will be my last ride ever on a commuter bus between SnoCo and Seattle. Link has arrived. It’s a brave new world.

   1. I beg of you to please stop saying “accident” and use “collision”. It makes a difference in how authorities perceive responsibility in causing it and impacts whether those who cause injuries or deaths via collisions get off lightly for their negligent behavior. “Accident” connotes lack of preventability.

   2. “The ridership and destinations of the riders also bodes poorly for the future 515. Clearly most of the remaining riders were just trying to access a part of downtown that isn’t directly served by Link.”

      This is what I thought would happen. Most Snohomish County riders not using Link will be headed to SLU.

      Rather than run a very long Route 515 through Downtown Seattle, I’ve wondered whether ST should just have a much shorter shuttle bus connecting SLU to a North Seattle Link station. That bus could likely make three round trips in about the same time that Route 515 makes once.

      1. “Rather than run a very long Route 515 through Downtown Seattle, I’ve wondered whether ST should just have a much shorter shuttle bus connecting SLU to a North Seattle Link station. That bus could likely make three round trips in about the same time that Route 515 makes once.”

         If the purpose of the 515 is to alleviate overcrowding on Link, it needs to replace the portion of Link with maximum crowding (Capitol Hill to downtown) to be able to do any good. Which means the bus has to go downtown.

         (In practice, I do not think the 515 will get enough ridership to amount to more than a rounding error, relative to Link’s capacity, and within a couple years, the route will die).

      2. @asdf2,

         “ If the purpose of the 515 is to alleviate overcrowding on Link……..the bus has to go downtown.”

         Bingo! The 515 supposedly is to help with crowding on Link until the Full ELE opens, so it has to go where the crowding is. Thus going anywhere else but along the Link line is nonsensical.

         “(In practice, I do not think the 515 will get enough ridership…….and within a couple years, the route will die).”

         It will die quicker than that. It is only supposed to help with crowding until Full ELE opens, at which point the crowding problem goes away. So the maximum amount of time it could exist would be 12 to 18 months. It will die at the first restructure after Full ELE opens, just like all the CT routes into Seattle are dying on Sept 14th.

         But in reality the amount of ridership it garners will be so weak that I doubt it will even last that long. Supposedly the agreement to run the 515 allows for such an early termination if the route underperforms, and it will definitely underperform.

      3. In its current routing, I do believe that it’s a candidate for elimination like others do. The only reason I suggested that it be a shuttle to SLU is because the service hours can be put to better use and that the field report above suggested that its riders are mostly riding to SLU. A shortened shuttle in my suggestion could extend to Westlake so provide access to more of central Seattle.

         It’s running to Lynnwood that to me seems the most silly. The crowding is in North Seattle and not Snohomish County.

         Southbound: If I board in Lynnwood I will have room and probably a seat. If I board to go Downtown from Roosevelt I may be pushing myself in and I probably won’t get a seat.

         Northbound: if I board at Pioneer Square I will probably have room to stand and a seat may open by Westlake. If I board at Westlake I’ll could have to stand for probably up to 10-20 minutes.

         The riders most likely to prefer a Route 515 bus over Link are those who are close to a central Seattle bus stop at their destination but are still somewhat far from Link. So to me that’s who the extra bus service should be run for.

         It boils down to the primary objective of Route 515. If it’s supposed to ease overcrowding (or appear to ease overcrowding as a Board concern) it’s likely doomed to elimination. If it’s to expand the destinations a rider can reach directly, it may have enough utility to survive. I’ve even wondered if the whole route design is the result of mere fears over overcrowding rather than logic.

      4. If the purpose of the 515 is to alleviate overcrowding on Link, it needs to replace the portion of Link with maximum crowding (Capitol Hill to downtown) to be able to do any good. Which means the bus has to go downtown.

         Right, but South Lake Union and First Hill are often accessed by first going downtown via Link. Thus buses like the future 303 and 322 poach some of the Link riders. I’m not saying that is the best option but at least it is a reasonable approach.

         I’ve mentioned this before. The basic problem with the 515 is that it goes to almost the exact same places as Link. Thus other than those stops that were mentioned it offers no advantage over Link. There is no attempt to compete with Link, only to build a redundant route and say “there you go”.

         In contrast, how would you poach riders from Link? There are basically two reasons why someone would prefer taking the bus:

         1) It is faster.
         2) It avoids a transfer.

         The 515 fails on both counts. You also have to have enough ridership to make a difference. There are several alternatives that would be much better, such as:

         1) The Community Transit 413/415. These are one of the few buses that are still running fairly frequently after the pandemic. Presumably this is because it has decent ridership. These riders would avoid the trip to Lynnwood Transit Center (potentially saving them time) while also avoiding a transfer. The bus would not stop at Mountlake Terrace Freeway Station — that is pointless.

         2) Send a version of the 522 to downtown via the old pathway (Lake City Way to the express lanes). Quite often this would be faster, as it avoids not only the transfer but the congestion on Roosevelt.

         3) The 77. Same idea.

         I’m not sure which of these buses would be the best value. Of course there is a drawback to this approach. The only way this works is if it is more attractive than riding Link. But if that is the case, then riders will want the service to stick around. By building something practically useless ST can claim they are doing something about crowding (“there you go”) without worrying about whether anyone will want it to continue once crowding is no longer an issue.

      5. “ By building something practically useless ST can claim they are doing something about crowding (“there you go”) without worrying about whether anyone will want it to continue once crowding is no longer an issue.”

         This appears to me to be the primary intent. Maybe it’s best to let it simply die rather than try to make it useful.

         And I do think that pitching Route 522 as the overcrowding replacement would have been a better idea as Ross suggests.

      6. “The Community Transit 413/415.”

         My friend in north Lynnwood says they’re full, and is worried about all the truncated replacements overwhelming Lynnwood station’s platform access. The bottleneck is the minimal escalator/stair/elevator between the surface and the platform. She says with all the truncated expresses, there will four bus routes coming. I said they won’t all come simultaneously. She said it would be one every five minutes. I think the station can handle that. But we’ll have to see, because it really doesn’t have enough escalators/stairs/elevators for a major transfer station.

      7. @Al S,

         “ Maybe it’s best to let it simply die rather than try to make it useful.”

         The 515 will never be useful post LLE. It’s going to get only a fraction of the ridership required to justify its continued existence. It will die at the first restructure after Full LLE, if not before.

         As per SLU access, if you are coming from the north it is actually much faster and much more reliable to take Link to Westlake and then transfer to a local bus. If coming from a more local neighborhood it is probably faster to just take a local bus or streetcar.

   3. I hope they will consider re-routing the 515 to serve more of SLU and Lower Queen Anne, vs. having it be more of a Link alternative.

      Another thing they might consider is running some express busses from Ash Way and/or Everett Station for weekend stadium events. I’ve heard that the trains are crush loaded by Shoreline North, which makes it harder for people to board on the rest of the line. This might do more to relieve crowding on Link than focusing on peak hour downtown commuters. (Presumably they don’t have enough trains for extra runs until the 2 line connection occurs?).

      1. Ross’s idea of keeping the 415 (or rebranding it the 515) and restoring the 513 to downtown to replace the 515 is a good one.

         A route to SLU makes some sense if it would siphon off enough riders from Link. Are there busfuls of people going to SLU, who go via downtown only because the transit network forces them to? Lazarus did say the riders remaining on one of the downtown expresses got off at the Stewart/Denny exit, presumably going to SLU/Denny Triangle. How many were they?

      2. Are there busfuls of people going to SLU, who go via downtown only because the transit network forces them to?

         Yes, but the problem is they are spread out. That is why Metro has struggled with those bus routes. There are a lot of people along various corridors, but not quite enough to add up to a lot of ridership on any particular one. Metro can’t afford to run the buses frequently, which makes the problem worse. If you ran the old 322 every ten minutes it would get plenty of riders — but the buses would not be full. So they run them every half hour — and they get hardly anyone, because they are rarely worth waiting for.

         In contrast you might be able to compete with the 522 by just sending a similar bus to the heart of downtown. Then again, maybe it wouldn’t make much difference. The 522 is surprisingly infrequent during peak. It only runs every 16 minutes (there used to be a bus every 3 minutes along the corridor). This suggests that there are simply not as many peak commuters. This makes sense given the fact that Metro has eliminated all the peak-express overlay buses. But this also means that crowding will probably not be an issue.

      3. Another thing they might consider is running some express busses from Ash Way and/or Everett Station for weekend stadium events.

         That is a good point. It may be that rush-hour peak ridership is really not a huge deal anymore, but stadium events are.

      4. @Mike Orr,

         “ Lazarus did say the riders remaining on one of the downtown expresses got off at the Stewart/Denny exit, presumably going to SLU/Denny Triangle. How many were they?”

         I took CT’s 402 from LCC to 2nd and Seneca. This is the same bus, on the same day of the week, and at the same departure time that I also took before LLE opened.

         Previously the bus was nearly full. After a little over a week of LLE operation the ridership had dropped to 11 total passengers.

         Eight of those passengers got off at the first stop downtown (9th and Stewart). Where they went after that I don’t know.

         Travel time was 75 mins and change. Previous travel time was 51 mins. Scheduled travel time is 47 mins.

         I don’t think I need to point out to anyone that running a bus like this for just 11 passengers is not cost effective. It’s why I am pretty sure the 515 will be a failure and won’t be long for this world.

   4. If a 402 to SLU/Denny Triangle is justified, are the 322 and the route from Shoreline to SLU and First Hill also justified?

2. I rode the train to Lynnwood for the first time Monday. It felt slow, especially north of South Shoreline, but I did not bother to time it, as I was not expecting it to be that slow.

   When I got to Lynnwood, the northeastbound Orange Line bus was waiting patiently for riders transferring from the train to scurry over, including waiting for a stoplight, and for me to get off the bus again to tap and get back on. That was a patient operator. The Orange Line going to McCollum Park P&R is scheduled to depart Lynnwood Station 5 minutes after the train is scheduled to arrive. It took me about a minute to walk down the stairs, wait for the light, and get to the OL eastbound station.

   I considered staying on STX 512 for the return trip south, but all the other riders got out at Lynnwood and headed for the train, so I did too. The train departed Lynnwood on schedule, went somewhat slowly until it got past the switch around SW 220th, and then was about a minute behind the schedule when it stopped at Mountlake Terrace ca. 5 minutes after departing Lynnwood. By the time it stopped at North Shoreline, it was back on schedule, and stayed on schedule through Northgate.

   I totally understand the need to go slow approaching the switch from the south. I’m not sure what the algorithm is north of there.

   1. Link + Orange Line is my regular commute, so I did record some times. Between 9/3 and 9/6, Link averaged 32.5 mins heading north between Capitol Hill and Lynnwood, and 27.5 minutes heading south.

      As a reverse commuter going to Mill Creek, post-LLE is more convenient (Link+Orange vs Link+512+Orange) and a mostly a wash timewise. The 512 is much faster than the Orange Line, but the extra transfer eats most of the time savings, especially if you don’t time the transfers well. Both pre- and post-LLE, ditching the Orange Line entirely and doing Link/512 + bike can actually be a fair bit faster, but only works if the train isn’t too crowded.

   2. Interesting, so far I have only ridden it from MLT, which doesn’t feel very slow. I can imagine the I-5 crossover and the fact that it is the end of the line slowing things a bit.

   3. @Brent, you don’t have to wait for the signal at the crosswalk if you descend the south stairs from the platform. It’s direct connection to the Swift station.

      1. “… if you descend the south stairs from the platform.“

         That’s 65 stair steps, followed by several hundred feet of walking across a landscaped and unprotected mini park.

      2. And a shorter walk.
         https://www.communitytransit.org/news-and-events/article-detail/2024/09/06/parking-at-lynnwood-city-center-to-take-light-rail

      3. Actually, the distance from either entrance is close to the same depending on which bus bay that you want. However, the north entrance would require crossing 46th Ave W — which is just a single lane in each direction used to reach the I-5 HOV ramp. It thus is a very low volume street.

      4. I was disappointed that the transit center was kept as it was pre-Link, instead of moving at least some of the bays along the street right below the station. I guess priority was given to cars using the HOV ramps, and bus stops would have intolerably slowed them down.

         Or maybe they would have slowed down SOVs accessing the parking garage. I have a hunch that, come next Monday, they are going to be in a panic to designate more HOV-only stalls.

      5. @Brent White,

         “Or maybe they would have slowed down SOVs accessing the parking garage.”

         No. There is no access to the parking garage from 46th Ave W. None.

         The only vehicles that should be operating on 46th Ave W adjacent to the garage are buses and HOV’s.

      6. “I was disappointed that the transit center was kept as it was pre-Link, instead of moving at least some of the bays along the street right below the station.”

         When I checked the walking time from Swift Orange to the station entrance before opening, it seemed quite good, less than 30 seconds if I remember, and didn’t require crossing a street. The 512 stops were just behind it.

3. Update from last week’s thread regarding Sound Transit’s new fare policy (https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/09/04/midweek-roundup-open-thread-64-2/#comment-939762):

   I reached out to Sound Transit for clarification on the policy. While the ST representative did not comment on my specific scenario, they did say: “When boarding the LINK Light Rail, the 2-hour transfer period begins, allowing the original fare to apply to the next part of the journey if transferring within this timeframe.” Similarly, the Sound Transit website page for transferring says “As long as you transfer within 2 hours, your original fare will be credited toward the next leg of your journey” (https://www.soundtransit.org/ride-with-us/know-before-you-go/transferring).

   I think it’s safe to assume “next part” and “next leg” apply for the full ride duration. Given that, I think there is a misunderstanding between the Fare Ambassador, the fare checking software, and the policy.

   I suspect the fare checking software checks if fare paid time was greater than 2 hours ago from the current time. If it is, the software flags it as a violation. From there, the Fare Ambassador is just following protocol. ST/Orca need to update the fare checking tool to check the last transfer time, not the last fare paid time. At the very least, Fare Ambassadors should be able to document the scenario and not issue a warning/fine.

   For now, I’ve sent in an appeal for the warning. If ST rejects the appeal, I’ll share another update with their justification.

   1. Is there fare-checking software? Or does the handheld ORCA scanner simply say that the card doesn’t currently have an active transfer? It would say that if the transfer expired after the person tapped for current Link trip, which it would do if the transfer had only 10 minutes left after the time of tap and the person waited 5 minutes and rode 10 minutes.

      If it had expired before the tap, they would have been charged another fare, and this situation wouldn’t have come up. But it’s not the passenger’s job to keep track of that: the card and readers are supposed to do that automatically and charge a fare every 2 hours.

      1. While I am not a fare checker, I have glanced at the fare checker screens a few times. The screen has a “yes” green and a “no” red indication. There is no “maybe” yellow option. I think the software back-end logic doesn’t determine where the last tap was and simply declares any initial tap over two hours as invalid.

         It would be good to hear from a fare checker about this situation and the software logic in use. Otherwise we are left to speculate where the problem is.

      2. If it really just displays “Yes” or “No” that is the entire problem. There is no way for the fare enforcer to tell whether someone was breaking the rules or not.

         In contrast, consider back when we had paper transfers with time stamps on them. When we had a downtown ride free area a lot of the buses were “pay when you exit”. So now imagine a rider has a transfer that expires at noon. They board at 11:45. They get off the bus at 12:15. Technically their transfer has expired, but it is also obvious that they boarded before it was expired, and so it is OK. No driver in the world would hassle someone for that.

         The same thing is true here. By definition he was only a few minutes over the allotted time. If the fare enforcers saw this, they would likely allow the rider to slide. Displaying how much they were over the limit might be the only change that is needed.

         There are other alternatives. The software itself can be altered to take this into account. There is a disconnect between when someone boards (or to be more precise, taps) and when they actually finish their ride. The system needs to accommodate that. For example assume the maximum trip time on the train is one hour (from the time you tap). We could allow a transfer within two hours, which allows the trips to be completed within three.

         We need to look at the big picture here. The whole point of fare enforcement is not to split hairs and try and go after people that exceeded their transfer time by a few minutes. It is to get people to pay at all! If they changed the system (so that more riders were able to legally ride for free) it would have little effect on total fare recovery. Maybe someone times things precisely and boards two hours and fifteen minutes after initial payment but then gets off the train fifteen minutes later. Under the current system they would have to pay twice while under the new system they get a free ride. So what? Only a handful of people will do that. What matters more is just that people are riding, and trying to pay.

      3. It tells the history of all the recent taps when and where. So the agent just needs to check whether the last tap was an earlier station on this line, and whether the timestamp is plausible for a trip from there. I’ve had my card scanned and the inspector said, “Wow, you rode a lot of buses earlier today or came in on Link earlier.”

      4. “The screen has a “yes” green and a “no” red indication”

         That’s the initial output, but then they go to a screen to see the recent tap history. Because if you didn’t tap on this trip maybe you did earlier if you’re returning on a round trip or you transferred from some buses. That tells then whether you usually tap and maybe just forgot or the reader didn’t register it correctly, or whether you never tap and may be a serious fare evader.

   2. I don’t see what the problem is here. Someone was riding without a valid fare, they got fare checked, and they were issued a warning. Seems like the system worked exactly as it should have worked.

      As far as why the fare ambassador didn’t use discretion, well discretion is…..wait for it…..discretionary.

      Anyone who gets argumentative or belligerent with anyone — in uniform or otherwise — is much less likely to receive discretion.

      And it is only a warning. You have to commit 3 offenses within 12 months to get an actual infraction. That is pretty hard to do.

      So keep your nose clean for 12 months and this all goes away. No harm, no foul.

      1. I don’t see what the problem is here.

         Because you aren’t paying attention.

         Someone was riding without a valid fare, they got fare checked, and they were issued a warning. Seems like the system worked exactly as it should have worked.

         Wrong! He paid his fare. Before he boarded, he tried to pay again — just to make sure. The system rejected payment — basically telling him that he doesn’t need to pay again. A few minutes later on the same train he was checked, and this time he was told he needed to pay.

         So just to reiterate:

         1) He paid using his ORCA card.
         2) He tried to pay again using his ORCA card.
         3) Within a few minutes of that second attempt he was told he didn’t pay.

         Clearly that is not how the system is supposed to work.

      2. L, did you read the part that he began his trip within the two-hour transfer window?

         And that he has a pass that covered the full cost of his trip regardless?

         And that the Ambassador told him he should have gotten off the train before the two-hour window expired? And then to wait for the two-hour window to expire, and then tap on and board again?

         And that his wife, taking an identical trip, was not cited for her transfer window expiring while on the train?

         So, was the ambassador using his “discretion” not to cite her because she is a woman, or was his crime riding while carrying a monthly pass?

      3. @Brent White,

         I suspect we are not being told the whole story here. And we will probably never know the whole story because I’m sure the security tapes have been over written by now.

         But again, I have no problem with people in violation of the fare policy being issued a warning. It seems like the least we can do to enforce the fare policy.

         I have been fare checked multiple times, and there has never been a problem. But I always try to put the fare ambassadors at ease. They have a really tough job and they aren’t always treated well. We should respect the job they are doing and not try to make that job harder on them personally.

         And who really cares about a warning anyhow? It is only a warning and it goes away in 12 months. I’d just take this supposed incident as an opportunity to learn and move on.

      4. @Lazarus – I’m not sure what part of the story is missing. To be clear, I don’t care about the warning. As Brent mentioned, I use a monthly pass provided by my employer and have no incentive to not tap before boarding.

         My concern is with the idea that someone can tap a valid Orca card immediately before boarding a train and still be found in violation of the fare policy on the same trip. If the transfer trip is not valid, then the rider should be charged for the second trip. If the transfer trip is valid, then the rider should not be found in violation of the policy.

      5. Michael, you are focusing on the wrong thing. ORCA shouldn’t accept your tap before your transfer period expires. You were still good to ride, so you didn’t need to tap. You boarded the train before the two hours were up. That’s all that matters. The only glitch in the system is the Fare Ambassador didn’t know the rules. You keep confusing other commenters by focusing on the ORCA reader not accepting your tap before your two hours were up. That’s not the glitch in the system. It’s the FA who didn’t know the rules.

      6. “Michael, you are focusing on the wrong thing. ORCA shouldn’t accept your tap before your transfer period expires. You were still good to ride, so you didn’t need to tap. You boarded the train before the two hours were up. That’s all that matters. The only glitch in the system is the Fare Ambassador didn’t know the rules. You keep confusing other commenters by focusing on the ORCA reader not accepting your tap before your two hours were up. ”

         Passengers are required to tap every time they board or transfer. The reader did accept the tap (I assume it gave a successful beep and message saying “Transfer”). But the tap is still required according to ST. The discrepency is that the transfer expired while he was onboard the train or waiting on the platform. That shouldn’t matter because he tapped when he entered the station, so the entire segment is covered. The fare inspector didn’t seem to know this, or parts of Sound Transit are in disagreement with each other. A lot of fare inspectors were recently hired I think, and their training may have been incomplete.

      7. Mike, legally speaking, riders are only required to pay the fare. If I’ve tapped and paid my fare, and I’m still within my two hour free transfer window, I’m not breaking the law by not tapping again to ride again. Sound Transit may want people to tap again within the free two hour transfer window for ridership data purposes, but that’s different than breaking the law for failure to pay. If I tapped at noon and ride for a bit, and board again at 1 PM without tapping again, Fare Ambassadors can’t write me up for not paying the fare, nor write me up for not tapping again. I paid my fare at noon and have two free hours. Personally, I don’t tap to transfer when it’s proof of payment, and I’ve never had a problem doing it that way. I do tap to transfer when it’s payment on entry.

         But getting back to the main issue. It’s like I said the other day, if I have a Metro transfer ticket that expires at 1 PM, and I board the bus at 12:45 PM, and I’m still riding that bus trip at 1:30 PM, I haven’t broken a fare rule, even though my transfer expired at 1 PM. All that matters is that I boarded the bus before my transfer expired. If the transfer expires during my trip, I’m not out of compliance, not do I need to walk up and pay again. Same with an ORCA tap. If I have 15 minutes left on my free two hour transfer window, but I’m still on the train 30 minutes later, I’m still good. I haven’t broken any fare rule. Fare Ambassadors can see when my original tap was, and that’s all that matters.

         But, you now have me curious about the rule to needlessly tap again during a free two hour transfer period. I’m going to ask a FA if that matters to them when checking fares.

      8. “Sound Transit may want people to tap again within the free two hour transfer window for ridership data purposes, but that’s different than breaking the law for failure to pay.”

         Sound Transit sees it differently. If you don’t tap, they don’t get a credit for a share of the e-purse fare or monthly pass value for that ride segment. That is considered fare evasion and trespassing. ST has said this all along since Link started. That’s what the fare inspectors are there for, to ensure that everybody has tapped on entry or has a ticket.

      9. I suspect we are not being told the whole story here.

         Holy shit, seriously? What more is there to tell? How many times do we have to write this. This is what happened:

         1) He paid using his ORCA card.
         2) He tried to pay again using his ORCA card (while he was within the two hour window). It didn’t charge him.
         3) Within a few minutes of that second attempt he was told he didn’t pay (because he was no longer within that two hour window).
         4) He was then told that the only solution was to leave the train at some point two hours after he initially paid and then tap to pay again.

         Why is this so hard for you to understand? If this was Metro you would be all over them. It is a system failure. It is a perfectly understandable system failure that is more likely to occur if you take a long trip. Thus it is more likely to occur as Link gets longer. There are solutions we have suggested, and none of them are trivial.

      10. It is probably true that several people on that train did fail to pay, shrugged when asked for ID, and were given generic printed warnings that will not add up to eventual fines. They could even say “My homework ate my dog”, and the ambassador would just have to let it go, without getting into an “Um, what?” argument.

          Mr. Smith’s mistake was to show his ORCA card. Doing so gave them his ID. I know from my experiences that the hand-held ORCA readers can see the active monthly pass. This should have given the ambassador the clear and obvious clue that this trip was fully paid for. The reader would have shown the tap, at the station from which he just departed, so best-faith effort to pay the correct agency was on display.

          My suggestion to Mr. Smith is to do like the fare cheaters do, not offer proof of payment, and just shrug when asked for ID. Don’t bother tapping, as it does not protect you from wrongful warnings, and it costs ST, and rewards the other agencies that will get a larger share of your fare revenue.

          We could all join in a solidarity tap strike. If ST really needs the fare revenue, they will have to clean up their act.

   3. Thank you for filing the appeal. To which department did you file it?

      Customer Service told me that any appeal had to go through STPD. So I did. They gave me dead air.

      ST might not directly reject your appeal, but they might try to filibuster it indefinitely.

      1. On this page: https://www.soundtransit.org/ride-with-us/how-to-pay/resolve-your-fare-violation, there is a link to the appeal form in the FAQ.

   4. Thank you for keeping on this. It really looks like a bug that needs to be fixed.

4. Several other news sources covered the monorail fare increase proposal a couple days before I posted about it here. But I found out about it by casually perusing the monorail website, and there it was. They have my email, and yet I always seem to rely on finding out about fare proposals elsewhere. I don’t think the monorail folks like me reporting on them.

   It is somewhat annoying that the monorail is raising its reduced fares to $2 while all the other land-based transit services in the ORCA Pod are consolidating the reduced fares at $1. (CT staff have mentioned to the Board that such a proposal is in the works for CT, and then the monorail would be the lone remaining holdout.)

   If there are enough reduced-fare riders on the monorail that revenue from them matters to the monorail’s profit margin, then that is exactly why the monorail ought to be *lowering* its reduced fares.

   Paying for programming at Seattle Center by price-gouging seniors, riders with disabilities, and low-income riders does not sit well with me. (Though, to its credit, the monorail honors the Subsidized Annual Pass.)

   1. I appreciate the comment. I think it slipped by us, and I would consider it a big deal. I don’t think the Transit Riders Union knows about it, and it seems like it is right up their alley. I’ll see if we can get some action on it. There is so much going on right now (in terms of transit, the election, etc.) that things like this can slip through without notice (which might have been the intent).

      1. I am sorry I have not been available to write for STB for awhile. Thanks to you and Mike for stepping into the breach, to Sherwin for coming back, and to all the new writers who have brought STB back from the dead.

   2. Thanks for bringing this up Brent. I’m curious which entity is responsible for setting the monorail’s fares. From what I can tell, the monorail is owned by the City but is operated by a private company (Seattle Monorail Services) on a 10 year contract. Is the private company able to set fares/operating hours however they like for the duration of the contract?

      1. Years ago Metro operated the monorail, but recently the city has been using another company. It may be worth giving it back to Metro. I don’t remember whether the company has leeway to set fares.

5. For people that suggest WSLE through DSTT1, what is the suggestion for how to connect the tracks? I couldn’t find that information easily. The easiest way I see is to use Central OMF tracks to reach SODO, which might mean minimal disruptions to 1 Line service because all the construction could be moved away from existing tracks, especially if South OMF is open to mitigate reduced capacity at Central OMF. Also, are there ways to maintain the possibility of DSST2 with a new track connection and tunnel before CID, without extensive, painful 1 Line shutdowns? It may be easier to advocate for DSTT1 as an interim solution before BLE/Everett Link finishes construction, rather than a permanent solution, since the length of a Tacoma-Everett line has been cited as a concern.

   1. It is not that simple

      https://westseattlelink.participate.online/sodo-station

      The tracks for west seattle on both on the “west” side of the existing tracks. Aka using NB for north bound and SB for south bound and WS for west seattle, L1 for line it’s:

      [WS SB, WS NB, L1, SB, L1 NB] then west seattle tracks northbound will have to cross line 1 southbound trains.

      Sound Transit would have to build a different SODO station for it to work.

      1. They would “just” have to build the crossovers north of SODO as part of WSLE instead of BLE.

         I’m not excited for “Connect 2035” or whatever major shutdown they’ll have to do to tie DSTT2 into the current system.

   2. Some of us have discussed this for some time. ST has not revealed the detailed track diagrams (with things like crossover tracks) to show how things actually connect between the two lines or each other.

      ST has chosen an alternative that puts all the tracks at the surface. They want to remove the SODO bus lanes for the West Seattle tracks and platform. This will mean that other routes like Routes 101 and 150 to not use the busway south of Holgate (so probably not at all).

      They also have laid out each track in the opposite direction so they head south-north-south-north. That means that even if a train could crossover, they must pause the train headed in the opposite direction.

      For transferring riders headed in the same direction, riders at SODO would need to make two elevation changes at SODO. All riders getting off any West Seattle train would surge into the stairs or escalators or elevators twice just to change trains — and ST will axe escalators before axing 30 parking spaces in a garage (see Lynnwood Link stations) as a cost reduction measure.

      I’ve long discussed this on STB. Others have ignored the track crossover and related rider transfers connection problems or they don’t think there is a problem. I feel like that some of this is because many don’t get that this could permanently screw up Link operations (well at least for 80 years) if not changed!

      Over the years, these changes to track layout have been suggested either by me or others:

      A. ST turn the tracks north through the OMF and tie into the existing tracks where switches are today. That saves the busway and minimizes disruption during construction. Both lines could use existing platforms.

      B. ST build a surface crossover south of SODO about where the planned Lander overpass would be. The switches would have to be squeezed in before the super elevation curve and viaduct slope are between Lander and the OMF. The busway would go away. The northbound train from West Seattle would have to cross the tracks headed southbound into Beacon Hill. If this could be squeezed in, both train lines could use the platforms if they were slightly relocated northward.

      C. The same as B but ST would widen the SODO tracks to allow for a center platform and every transfer could be level.

      D. Leave Lander and 1 Line tracks crossing on the surface, and instead put the 3 Line only on a viaduct (the other SODO station concept). Then only one level change would be needed for riders to change trains. The “crossover” would have to connect north of the station like a ramp running off to the side between the upper and lower level.

      E. Build similar to concept D but lay out the tracks so that northbound trains are on the surface and southbound trains are elevated. Crossovers would be easy. Transfers would be at the same level (easy walk between the 16 sets of train doors on each train) so no elevation changes required. The current climbing southbound curve structure would have to be replaced by a level one.

      In light of the multi-level circuitous transfers planned now at Pioneer Square and Westlake (deep tunnel stations), SODO is the easiest and cheapest place to redesign for train crossovers as well as level same direction rider transfers. To me, the preferred alternative choice skipping a Jackson St DSTT2 station beg for a rethinking of the SODO track connections and platform layouts.

      Of course, the same direction rider transfer issue fully goes away if ST3 gets cancelled and both 1 Line and 3 Line stay in the DSTT.

      The revised DEIS is due out this week. ST should have to clarify the interim operation to West Seattle since the last DEIS included DSTT2 and this one doesn’t.

      1. > ST has not revealed the detailed track diagrams (with things like crossover tracks) to show how things actually connect between the two lines or each other.

         Those were already released a couple years ago in the detailed EIs. Though it is like 700+ pages so I don’t think anyone else outside of sound transit and maybe someone at the urbanist has looked at it.

         The interim operation is west Seattle stops on the left (west) of the existing sodo station.

      2. “Others have ignored the track crossover and related rider transfers connection problems or they don’t think there is a problem. I feel like that some of this is because many don’t get that this could permanently screw up Link operations”

         The entire DSTT2 plan of putting West Seattle into DSTT1 and shoving Rainier Valley trains 11 floors underground definitely WILL permanently screw up Link operations. Your concerns about SODO probably feel ignored because there’s so many other problems with the current plan.

         But yes, theSODO interchange, transfers, and where to even begin shoving the current 1 line underground has many potential problems.

6. The ridership report for the 2 line is interesting to me, but the headline emphasizes the least interesting part: yes the line beat expectations, but not by much. The more interesting part is the ridership by station.

   South Bellevue and Bellevue Downtown are about equal, and Redmond Tech has about 50% more boardings than either of them. I did not expect Redmond Tech to do so well – there is almost nothing there but offices. I guess covid has not eliminated the main original purpose of this line – commuting to Microsoft.

   All of the other stations are doing rather poorly, most of them just as I would expect. I must admit I am surprised by the poor performance of Overlake Village, Spring District and especially Wilburton. Hardly anyone working at Overlake Hospital has much use for Link, I guess.

   1. Redmond Tech is the best place to transfer to east Bellevue routes (B and 245), and the only place to transfer to the 542 to Seattle. So it’s not just Microsoft employees.

      Overlake Village would be the natural transfer point to Crossroads and Lake Hills, but it’s worse in several ways. The bus stops on 152nd are a 3-minute walk uphill, have no bench or shelter, and the routes are 30-minute infrequent (221 and 249). The B currently stops there, but will move to 156th when the full 2 Line opens. The 226’s closest stops are a 20-minute walk away (on 24th east of 156th). The station is at the far northwest corner of the village, a longish walk to Safeway or the Sears redevelopment lot.

      1. I transfer from Overlake Village to the bus all the time. The walk is not uphill (not sure why you think so?), and while there used to be no shelter, they put one in a couple months ago.

         It’s a longer walk than at Redmond Tech, but I prefer it, because there is actually some retail there. It’s convenient for doing some grocery shopping (at Safeway or Mayuri) before getting on the bus home.

      2. “The walk is not uphill (not sure why you think so?), and while there used to be no shelter, they put one in a couple months ago.”

         I’m taking about the 221/249/B stops on 152nd north of the station between it and 36th. It is uphill although slight, and there was no shelter in June when I used it. I didn’t use it July or August because I’d either just miss the bus and have to wait 30 minutes, or there was good chance I’d miss the bus. If they have added a shelter, that’s a good thing.

   2. Redmond Tech benefits from the garage, making it ideal for suburbanites’ preference for park-and-rides. Wilburton just opened up that pedestrian bridge, let’s see if that encourages ridership. Spring District and Overlake Village are in embryonic stages of densifying, it’s way too early to pass judgment.

      1. Yes, we’ll see.

         I would like to see a breakdown of how many people are ending their trip at Redmond Tech (or getting on a Microsoft shuttle at that point, which is basically the same thing, from my perspective) versus how many people are transferring to a bus versus how many are parking there.

         There is certainly a lot of room for more development at every single station. There are empty lots or surface parking lots within a block of every station.

      2. Yes, it is quite possible that a lot of ridership at Redmond Tech is because it is the terminus. People from other parts of Redmond drive there and take Link. People from Downtown Redmond take the bus and transfer there to Link. In both these cases we will see a reduction in ridership there (which is common in our system with each extension).

7. I missed this article in the Seattle Times: “Seattle pays millions to settle lawsuit by two bicyclists who crashed along streetcar rails” (print headline: “Fixes remain elusive as Seattle settles 2 more bike crash claims”)

   https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/seattle-pays-millions-to-settle-two-more-bike-streetcar-crash-claims/

   Both incidents occurred in 2019. It is unclear if additional incidents have happened since.

   1. Crashes caused by the streetcar tracks happen all the time. I’ve talked with 3 other cyclists who’ve either crashed (1) or witnessed a crash (2) caused by the tracks. Most of these go unreported. And as I’ve mentioned previously, I have personally crashed because of the tracks, got scraped up, but luckily not too seriously injured. And we know that one cyclist was killed by the tracks throwing her in front of a vehicle on Yesler way back in the 2010s.

      My crash happened at the intersection of Rainier and Jackson, I was turning left from Rainier onto Jackson Westbound. The convention when turning left onto a multi-lane street is to hug the inside if you are turning from the inside lane, and then change lanes after the intersection if needed. This led me to not cross at a 90 degree angle, because that’s not really feasible at that turn from inside lane to inside lane. By the time I saw the tracks in front of me, it was too late to reassess the situation around me to determine if I could course correct, because cars were behind me and it’s a busy confusing 5-way intersection. Luckily after being thrown off my bike, the cars behind me stopped to give me time to get myself and my bike off the road.

      Streetcar tracks are dangerous, and don’t belong where bikes are. Replace the FHSC with a bus, and we can get Jackson street bus lanes when we do.

      1. Oh yeah, and a bus replacement would be faster because it wouldn’t have to detour around Bailey Gatzert elementary.

      2. Just forbid bikes on these streets, there’s so many other routes, they chose to ride there and injured themselves. You shouldn’t be riding a bike if you can’t be aware of your surroundings and potential hazards.

      3. @poncho,

         Agreed. And if someone gets hurt riding along the tracks anyhow, then write them a ticket and make that information available to their insurance company. Just like with automobile accidents.

         And BTW, I figured this out when I was a kid. It ain’t that hard.

      4. @ponch @Lazarus That’s some nice victim-blaming going on here, in light of the multitude of cyclists injured which indicates this problem is a systemic one, not an individual one.

         And Lazarus, combined with your other comment on this page doing similar victim-blaming of Michael Smith instead the fare enforcement system which is clearly flawed, I must conclude you are trolling, and I won’t be replying to you any further.

      5. @M,

         I was taught to take personal responsibility for your own actions.

      6. I was taught to take personal responsibility for your own actions.

         So if I punch you in the face and you fail to duck I guess it is your fault. I mean, come on — how hard is it to duck a punch. Take some personal responsibility dude.

      7. M it’s not blaming the victim. It’s talking about creating an incentive/disincentive structure in which people can exercise appropriate judgement about their cycling choices. There are tracks all over the city and most have been there a century or more. Including on the BG trail right in Fre-Lard. My slip and fall was on the tracks under the Ballard bridge. I’d crossed them hundreds of times and once I just wasn’t paying attention and got sliding and went down. Similar condition on the Interbay trail. Those are established trails with perpendicular crossings.

         But I would never choose to cycle on a street with parallel tracks in the right of way. It’s scary enough in Ballard where the parallel tracks are adjacent. Jackson and Westlake are no-fly zones for this experienced cyclist. The city could make that a policy.

         And Ross, what the heck man? Projection much? Why would you even go there, suggesting violence?

      8. It has been known that the Westlake streetcar tracks are dangerous for bicycles ever since they were installed, because they’ve continually caused a lot of falls. Tracks parallel with the bicycle lane and near it allow bikes to slip into it and the wheel gets stuck and suddenly stops.

      9. So actually reading the article and legal complaint and skimming through it there’s a bit more detail, it seems it requires more than just any bikers getting injured by the streetcar, but rather establishing that the city knows there’s a pattern and not implementing any fixes and is about the street design.

         The problem is compounded actually by the king county metro buses on 5th and jackson blocking it and the previous sharrow markings were eroded away. The reason why both of them were in the same lawsuit was because the they had the same scenario trying to go around the buses which would reenter the middle lane after the bus stopped on the right and then the biker got stuck on the streetcar rails.

         Unfortunately part of the legal argument is also the City’s own campaign for more biking. And designing the road with streetcar, buses that would stop on the right and bike suggested path that would lead bikers to enter into the streetcar rails. Lastly and most importantly it seemed the city was ignoring the issue with all the previous bike crashes.

         > at least 15 crashes have occurred on S. Jackson Street, including Jan Ball’s and Eric Boris’ bike crashes of 2019

         https://www.seattlebikeblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/ballcomplaint.pdf

      10. M it’s not blaming the victim.

          Yes it is! The victims are the dead cyclists. But Lazarus then writes “I was taught to take personal responsibility for your own actions.” implying it was the fault of the bike riders. That is victim blaming!

          Why would you even go there, suggesting violence?

          Because this was horribly violent. Holy shit, people died! Not a punch in the face, but a horrible, violent death. The city was clearly to blame, which is why they settled.

          I was trying to explain what victim blaming is — in the most simple terms imaginable, that’s why. Of course it is absurd that it is his fault if he doesn’t duck. That is the point (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum). A lot of people don’t understand victim blaming, but that is it, in a nutshell.

      11. Given that SDOT even has sharrows painted next to the trolley tracks on Jackson, I’d say that’s a pretty official endorsement of it as a bike route:

          https://maps.app.goo.gl/SHk5i3ec5JP9ARYQ7

          On top of that, the streetcars allow bikes on board – that’s yet another endorsement!

          Beyond that, there’s tons of destinations along Jackson, not least of which are Amtrak and the Link station, so SDOT really needs to do everything they can to fulfill their promise of “all ages and abilities” in a place that clearly lots of people are biking or otherwise rolling (the tracks are a hazard to walkers and wheelchairs too).

      12. @Ross,

          “ So if I punch you in the face…”

          Please knock it off, there is no need to resort to this type of rhetoric.

          The laws regarding physical assault are pretty clear. I would suggest you don’t test them.

      13. What the heck are you talking about, Lazarus? He wasn’t threatening, he was creating a hypothetical to make a point.

      14. @Cam Solomon
          Yep, Ross had already explained that it was a hypothetical to make a point and yet Lazarus took the antagonistic interpretation anyway. Like I said, Lazarus is trolling, attempting to start quarrels.

   2. I’ve personally witnessed a pretty bad crash on Westlake, and my wife broke her finger crashing her bike on tracks. Neither were reported, but it happens all the time.

      Their flange excuse is weak. Yes, tracks require maintenance. Duh.

      1. Yeah, seems wild to say they can’t afford flange fillers and then turn around and pay out $millions every few years when someone sues the city for major injury.

      2. Not to mention the impact on the injured and killed and their family and friends.

         My wife performs surgeries. Hard to do with a broken finger. She didn’t sue to recover lost wages, but perhaps she should have. Even without law suits, the impact to society dwarfs “flange maintenance and replacement.” This is just idiotic.

   3. https://www.strail.de/en/the-safe-level-crossing-velostrail/

      Problem solved. Injuries and deaths avoided.

   4. Seattle Bike Blog coverage.

      https://www.seattlebikeblog.com/2024/09/11/seattle-will-pay-5-75m-to-two-people-who-say-streetcar-tracks-caused-their-bike-crashes/

8. A couple of questions about Councilmen Girmay Zahilay’s big idea for using one billion in County issued bonds for funding “work force housing” (a term that means absolutely nothing, right? ). The Councilman is hoping to build “thousands” of units with the money….. I’d honestly guess 2500 to maybe 3200 units? The way I read it, and I could be wrong, the project would need to be self sustaining? Form the PBS Cascades article……

   “My goal is for [the buildings] to be self-sustaining,” said Zahilay. “The combination of rents that we charge and collect are enough to pay off all the monthly costs, includes paying down the interest on the debt, the principal on the debt and any operating costs associated with the buildings.”

   That would put rents at maybe 5%-10% less than a market rate building? The real savings to any social housing project would be 20 or more years out, if the buildings were properly managed (I wouldn’t count on that). My guess is Seattle goes down this rabbit hole one way or another…. then the tax payers get burned, and the whole stinking mess morphs into regular rundown public housing in a decade.

   1. “The generally accepted definition of workforce housing is housing that is affordable for those earning between 80% and 120% of area median income, or AMI. ” https://www.hud.loans/hud-loans-blog/workforce-housing-why-is-it-so-important/

      Generally, rents at 80% of AMI should be sufficient to maintain a well built building; like a condo HOA, cash will need to be set aside early so there is sufficient cash flow for major midlife maintenance.

      Low income housing – the income points are generally 30% or 60% (I think <30% is "very low income") – generally requires a public subsidy for major maintenance.

   2. I think “workforce housing” is an attempt to avoid calling it “social housing”. It’s basically trying to do what Seattle’s I-127 is trying to do – build housing for the 80-100% AMI earners who can’t afford anything within a reasonable commute of the job centers without combining several households, but don’t qualify for existing “affordable” (30% of gross income) housing aimed at < 80% AMI earners.

      My guess is that they want to leverage the excess debt capacity to offer low-interest construction loans for private developers with strings attached on maximum prices to rent/sell. With affordable housing getting the fast lane on permitting and design review, maybe they're thinking there are enough projects on the verge of profitability that low-interest loans could make the difference.

   3. Worforce housing is for those in the large gap between qualifying for low-income housing (income below $24K or so) and having a solidly middle-class job that can afford market-rate housing (above $75K). In that gap are baristas, janitors, medical techs, CNAs, teachers, firefighters, secretaries, etc.

   4. I don’t see how this would work, even under the best case of the government being competent in spending the money (something we see examples of every day, right?). The bonds are essentially a loan, just like one that a private builder would use. A government agency should get a bit lower interest rate, because of an explicit or implicit guarantee that if the public agency muffs it, the general taxpayers are on the hook for the bond payments. This is how GNMA and other Federal agencies operate. Working against this advantage is a whole host of things, such as requirements to use all highly paid union labor, or go over and beyond with respect to things like energy efficiency, or being unable to evict non-paying tenants. To make this work, the public agency would have to achieve a positive cap rate greater than the cost of financing. But many private developers here are currently getting a cap rate less than their current cost of financing (they’re working on projects started years ago when money was free).

      1. My guess is there are two reasons why it could work:

         1) Regulations. Public housing can avoid a lot of the regulations that routinely delay projects (and push the cost up).

         2) Financing. A lot of project fall through because of financial issues — in part because of the regulations. A company buys a lot, planning on building. They start the initial planning and then the city rejects their proposal. The people behind it give up. It sits as an empty lot for years.

         To be clear, I don’t think this is a worthy approach, and misses the bigger problem. Why aren’t developers building more places for people to live, given the very high cost of rent? The county should work with private companies to make it easier to develop housing. Of course a lot of the housing will not be low-income housing, but if you allow enough developers to build things, much of it will be.

      2. Ross Bleakney

         Neither one of your reasons have worked for low income housing. There’s not been a low income housing project coming under 400K per unit in greater Seattle for years now. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

         So if “social housing” costs 400k +++ a unit…. that’s what it costs. All the social housing promoters must know this by now. Let’s see the numbers and come up with a plan.

   5. Actually, subsidized housing can end up costing more to operate than market rate housing. https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/editorials/how-to-end-the-dysfunction-in-seattles-affordable-housing-system/.

      The Seattle Times notes today Seattle’s average median income is now $121,000. 30% of this equals $3025/mo. for market rate rent. 80% of AMI (80% X $121,000/year = $96,800/yr..) is $2420/mo. in rent if living alone. This is why King Co. and King Co.’s Affordable Housing Subcommittee are focused on those earning 0% to 60% AMI. That is the income band with little available market rate housing, and housing builders avoid if not subsidized.

      Re: the AFC discussed in The Urbanist article, it initially stated HB 1220 accorded it jurisdiction to review and approve a city’s updated ten-year comprehensive plan, due by Jan. 1 2025, and that each city had to submit its Plan to the AFC for review and approval before submitting it to the Dept. of Commerce for approval.

      Some eastside cities asked the Growth Management Planning Council for clarification believing the AFC was overstating its jurisdiction and some of its mandates were contrary to regional planning and 1220. The GMPC recently issued a legal opinion that the AFC is advisory only. As a result, most if not all cities including Seattle will not submit their updated Plans to the AFC for approval, but have submitted drafts to the DOC during the process for guidance since time is getting short.

      There is also a conflict between the AFC and HB 1110 and other regional planning agencies according to some cities.

      For example, King Co. has issued guidance that under 1220 almost all of a city’s GMPC future housing growth target must be in dense zones in multi-family zoning near walkable transit and retail to meet the 0% to 60% AMI income band. The PSRC since around 2006 has issued Vision Statements that require mostly TOD for new housing and concentrate new housing in zones near walkable transit and retail in TOD to reduce sprawl, car ownership and use, carbon emissions, and to sustain transit. The GMPC housing growth targets through 2044 allocated to each city will be accommodated through King Co.’s affordable housing growth mandates in dense zones so additional upzoning in other zones is not required to meet their GMPC housing targets, so whether to upzone additionally is voluntary.

      However, HB 1110 (to some extent) and the AFC are demanding (now suggesting) cities go well beyond their GMPC housing targets and upzone single family zones ( in addition to new affordable housing targets in dense zones) that are not near walkable transit and retail and have no affordability mandates which they argue leads to greater car ownership and use, more sprawl, more carbon emissions, and especially today less transit ridership leading to bigger transit cuts due to less ridership which has already declined due to work from home.

      So whether to upzone single family zones beyond the GMPC future housing growth targets and affordable housing targets in dense zones is voluntary for a city, and most cities that have performed the required land use analyses have concluded, or at least argue, upzoning their single family zones will never produce market rate housing below 100% AMI, and King Co. tends to agree. For this reason I doubt Seattle will upzone its single family zones beyond HB 1110 or adopt greater regulatory limits in the SFZ than current limits that restrict FAR.

      1. “30% of this equals $3025/mo. for market rate rent. 80% of AMI (80% X $121,000/year = $96,800/yr..) is $2420/mo. in rent if living alone.”

         Yet actual rents are less than that. A recent 1 BR in central Seattle is $2100-2200. A studio is around $1600-1800. A 2 BR around $2700.

         One person would presumably have a studio or 1 BR ($1600-2200), two people would have a 1 BR or 2 BR ($2100-2700), and a family with children would have a 2+ BR (2700+).

         My 1 BR rent went up this month from $1950 to $2000. If I’d been a new tenant they would have asked for $2100.

         So yes, the rapid rent increases have taken a pause since 2000, at least in the areas that increased the most in the 2010s. In other areas they’re increasing faster, as there seems to be a trend toward equalization. I don’t think they’ll ever fully equalize (i.e., desirable neighborhoods will remain more expensive), but it shows that many people just want a unit anywhere, and there are so many people who can’t afford the pricier neighborhoods that they’re pushing up rents faster in Pierce and Snohomish Counties and Auburn.

         Since I can afford the pricier neighborhoods for now, I look at what I’d save if I moved from central Seattle to Greenwood, Lynnwood, Kent, or somewhere. And I find I’d save only $200 or $300 or so a month. Then I think, is it worth that amount to live where there’s more frequent transit and walkable destinations? So far it has always been.

         The stricter landlords in the recent apartments require an income three times the rent. So a $2100 apartment requires an income $75,600. So the gap we need to be concerned about is those making $50,000 to $75,000. These are the ones with full-time jobs who are assumed to have enough for market-rate housing, but the market fails them.

      2. Mike Orr,

         How can a city that can’t provide housing to people living in tents possibly be counted on to provide housing for people making 50k a year? This is never going to happen. Social housing is this goofy lie people keep telling over and over because they want to be true so badly, but it’s just not going to happen.

      3. The alternative is to leave things like they are forever, and be permanently a city and region that can’t house all its people, or makes them spend their food and education money on housing.

   6. “Workforce housing” seems to be jargon used for public housing aimed at people with low-paying jobs. Almost as confusing as “affordable housing”.

      He has certainly identified a symptom of the problem: many people with full-time jobs can’t afford to live here, and are moving elsewhere. Maybe he could take the next step and look at where they are moving to, and why apartment rents are lower there. (Hint: it’s Texas, and it’s not because the government spends more on housing.)

      1. I interpret the term “workforce” as a subtle way to quieten the neighborhood NIMBYS who worry about what kinds of people the buildings will house. By making it clear that the residents are working people it also drives home the new reality that many hard working people have trouble paying for housing in our county.

9. Checking the information ST express 510 from seattle to everett will continue to exist, also means the mountlake terrace transit center will probably continue to be used. IIRC this was origiinally removed but it looks like it’ll continue

   1. Hopefully that bodes well for the far more useful ST expresses from Tacoma, if/when TDLE is finished (and even FWLE and the 574). In the rare occasions where traffic isn’t bad and a crash hasn’t shut down I-5, they will be able to nearly lap the future Link.

   2. The 510 is remaining short-term because of fears of overcrowding until the full 2 Line opens. It may not live after that.

10. small tidbit I noticed they renamed the “south of cid” to the “Dearborn Street Alternative”

    https://ballardlink.participate.online/

    Also I was wondering if a ballard link extension recap article might be useful for people? Or at least I myself am confused what exact station location they are currently planning on building given all the recent changes and had to check the most recent documents

    1. Yeah, they’ve been doing some rebrands, presumably to separate the CID N/S options from previous negative press but it’s still bad – the 4th and Midtown alternatives are vastly superior but still $600M more than CID N/S.

11. Does anyone know what the snow route will be for the G Line?

    1. The existing 2, 3, 4, and 12 are replaced by a route 90 shuttle that does a loop approximately on 3rd Avenue, Jackson Street, Broadway, and Pine Street. Since the G won’t be able to go up and down the steep icy hill, they’ll probably revert to that.

       1. Alex Kvenvolden got the route map on Twitter: https://x.com/alexkven/status/1834256527508779266?s=46&t=h7y3roaLfNk0p4uDdIUWOQ

          Looks like the official snow route has almost no relation to the full route and avoids Madison completely. The snow route departs the terminus at 28th/MLK, heads down MLK, heads to downtown via Jackson, then goes up 3rd and lays over at Virginia.

       2. Alex is right, the G Line snow route is wild. Madison corridor riders would be better off making their way to a route 8 or 11 snow route.

       3. I’m kind of surprised it’s like that considering the route 12 snow route https://kingcounty.gov/en/-/media/king-county/depts/metro/maps/route/03302024/768px/m012.jpg has it go up boren and then rejoin onto madison

       4. The only justification I can think of for the RR G snow route is that it serves as a relative express between 3rd and MLK/Madison. Route 90 gets close to Madison St at a few points so maybe Metro expects riders in those areas to use that instead?

          I wonder why RR G’s snow route doesn’t mirror route 11’s snow route on Union. It could go: MLK -> Union -> 12th -> Jackson -> 3rd.

       5. “Looks like the official snow route has almost no relation to the full route and avoids Madison completely. ”

          Right, that’s what happens with First Hill whenever there’s snow. All the routes double up on the 7 corridor and you have to walk from there. Further north there’s the 49 corridor. So you can walk from Jackson or Pine.

12. Does SDOT consider G-line construction to be finished, or is there an ongoing work schedule? I am curious because it appears that they have forgotten to install one of the poles for which they placed a foundation, at the intersection of Madison, Pine, and 16th; there are just four big bolts and a plastic pipe sticking out of the ground.

    1. They usually still have some wrap up work afterwards.

       https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/SDOT/TransitProgram/RapidRide/Madison/2021_13thTo17th.pdf

       checking the diagram, I’m not sure which corner you are referring to but might be a pedestrian signal or maybe bus stop/information for the 11/12. the rapidride G won’t be stopping at that intersection

       1. Thank you. I don’t see anything related to the pole on that map, but it doesn’t seem to be calling each pole out, rather than the pavement areas, so I doubt I should expect to.

          I was referring to the corner where Central Co-Op sits: the unused pole foundation is embedded in the sidewalk in front of their door. Its very substantial bolts appear to be waiting for a very large pole, such as a traffic signal or a trolley-wire base, which is why I am surprised it remains unfinished so late in the project.

13. I used Link to get to/from a Mariners game this week and the train was very full both ways. Walking up to Stadium station after the game, I was part of a continuous stream of people and virtually no one was paying. There were transit security people standing by the Orca readers, but they weren’t saying anything and their presence didn’t appear to deter folks.

    It’s going to be pretty tough for Sound Transit to meet their farebox recovery goals if few are paying to ride during heavy ridership events.

    1. The tradeoff is causing more crowding due to the taps. Those who have a Link single-ride or day ticket don’t tap. Those under 18, who now ride free, don’t have to tap (although they’re encouraged to).

       I’m not sure how day passes bundled into a game ticket work. I assume it’s just cardboard and there’s nothing to tap.

       1. I wasn’t aware that there was a pass bundled with the game ticket. That could explain the experience.

       2. There’s a pass bundled with some teams’ tickets. I think Climate Pledge Arena does that. I’m not sure how many of the others do. I haven’t been to a game since Seattle FC (soccer) played in Memorial Stadium so I haven’t experienced it.

14. The West Seattle Link Extension FEIS is out. https://www.soundtransit.org/get-to-know-us/documents-reports/west-seattle-link-extension-final-environmental-impact-statement

    Estimated ridership in 2032 (when stubbing at SODO): 5,400 average daily “trips” (no new transit riders)
    Estimated ridership in 2042 (when ST3 is complete): 20,000 daily boardings, “contribut[ing] to a system-wide increase in transit ridership in the Sound Transit service area of between 25,000 and 27,000 daily trips”.

    Estimated cost (preferred alignment): $5.1 to 5.6 billion.
    Estimated cost (range of all alternatives): $4.25 to 6.85 billion.

    The cable-stayed bridge sure looks nice, though.

    1. Dang the cost increased again from 4 billion to 5 billion? I glanced through it quickly, most of it is around the same as the draft eis so not too surprising.

       I did see that the elevated alternative is a lot cheaper in the final eis compared to the draft eis

       Elevated Fauntleroy Way Station Alternative (WSJ-2) $1.05 to 1.15 billion
       Medium Tunnel 41st Avenue Station Alternative (WSJ-5a) $1.60 to 1.80 billion

       1. Those displacement impacts are rough:

          Preferred (WSJ-5b):
          Residential: 111
          Business: 44
          Employees: 240

          Elevated Fauntleroy (WSJ-2):
          Residential: 474 to 493
          Business: 15 to 18
          Employees: 90 to 100

          For the residential displacements, how do you quantify the social costs of forcing someone to move? Assuming an average household size of 2 (likely less for those apartments), that’s a difference of nearly 200 units that would need to be built elsewhere. At ~$400k/unit, that’s $800M in replacement housing construction costs right there.

       2. I’ll have to look at in detail, but I’m pretty sure it’s because they insist on knocking down that apartment building rather than building in the road right of way.

          Either way though, I remember when people were insisting the tunnel option was vastly cheaper when the elevated one is clearly cheaper even after Sound Transit’s insistence on demolishing an apartment building.

          Lastly, I am honestly not quite believing that there is no elevated path that wouldn’t involve demolishing an apartment building, like going down say 38th. Originally they insisted on such a path to justify a tunnel alignment as not costing that much more but everyone’s forgotten that now.

       3. > For the residential displacements, how do you quantify the social costs of forcing someone to move? Assuming an average household size of 2 (likely less for those apartments), that’s a difference of nearly 200 units that would need to be built elsewhere. At ~$400k/unit, that’s $800M in replacement housing construction costs right there.

          I’m pretty sure the cost estimate already includes the cost of demolishing the apartment building, though I’ll double check the pdf

       4. I don’t mean the cost to demolish a building, but the social cost of removing that building from the housing market, and the inherent cost of rebuilding those units elsewhere. It’s not like the tenants are going to get any money out of the deal.

          >I am honestly not quite believing that there is no elevated path that wouldn’t involve demolishing an apartment building, like going down say 38th.

          Well, what they’ve studied is what we’ve got (see pdf page 41):
          https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/02-WSLE-FinalEIS-alternatives.pdf

          They screened out all the possibly-affordable alternatives east of Fauntleroy. The entire EIS process would basically have to start over from scratch (e.g. another 6 years) if they wanted to build something else. Our megaproject planning process is absolutely broken.

       5. @Nathan

          Yeah I know, though I still don’t understand why that station couldn’t be built over the trader joes and then head down fauntleroy way

          Honestly from the very beginning Sound Transit sounded more happy/excited rather than disappointed, that the elevated alignment would be in the way of an apartment building so they could build the tunnel alignment

          If they at least were attempting a further studies of an elevated alignment that didn’t demolish an apartment building I’d be more convinced.

       6. Don’t forget to mention that the 41st tunnel station is as deep as UW station is and that SDOT has recently proposed closing Alaska Street to private vehicles between California and Fauntleroy.

          I would have preferred bringing West Seattle Link to the surface after Avalon Station — then running at surface on Alaska as a transit only street — as the “temporary” end (until funding for a long West Seattle tunnel becomes available probably in 30 years). It would be a faster transfer for riders as opposed to taking 3-5 minutes to get down to the platform. That seemingly would drop the final segment cost down too — probably down to $500M. The 41st site would make a nice transit center too. Riders could find their idling bus just a short level 30-second walk from the Link platform on the surface..

          But to get ST to think about something both cheaper and better for riders is like getting Trump to shut up about Hannibal Lecter.

15. Odd question: Does anyone know what the interim route for the new 365 will be? The Metro page is very unclear.

    The new 365 is supposed to travel between North Shoreline/185th and South Shoreline/148th stations, then cross I-5 to the west side of the freeway using 145th and then continue south on Meridian. However, this routing is not possible because 145th is closed for construction.

    Metro finally added a comment to their restructure page indicating that the new 365 would cross I-5 using 155th instead, ut then gave no more details.

    So does the routing via 155th mean that the new 365 will not serve the South Shoreline Link station at all? Or is the new bus going to serve the station, then backtrack to 155th?

    Clearly most passengers want access to Link, so hopefully Metro is preserving that.

    1. Ross has a Metro/ST article scheduled for Saturday that says, “Note: Route 365 will be on a temporary reroute when it starts due to construction on NE 145th St expected to last until the end of October 2024. During that time, Route 365 will not serve stops on NE 145th St between Shoreline South 148th Station and Meridian Ave N, it will operate on NE 155th St between 5th Ave NE and Meridian Ave N.”

       1. @Mike Orr,

          That is just a verbatim regurgitation of the statement Metro finally added to their webpage. Nothing more.

          My question relates to what that means for service to Shoreline South/148th St Station.

          Does that mean that a SB 365 is going to turn right on 155th and NOT serve Shoreline South/148th St Station at all during construction? Or will the 365 continue SB to serve the Link station first, and then backtrack to 155th?

          I sort of anticipate that Metro views this construction reroute as another opportunity to eliminate a transfer opportunity to Link. It’s sort of becoming a pattern.

          ******

          And, in other news, I was in Ridgecrest the other day and reading one Metro’s new stop signposts. The permanent sign says the stop is served by the 365, but the Rider Alert attached to the signpost says that the stop is served by both the 365 AND the 65.

          Obviously both can’t be true. I’m pretty sure the 65 part is the erroneous part, but score another one for Metro.

       2. “I sort of anticipate that Metro views this construction reroute as another opportunity to eliminate a transfer opportunity to Link. ”

          This is starting to sound like a conspiracy theory.

16. I’m genuinely just curious – who is involved in selecting alternatives and making an EIS? Is it ST executives? ST engineers/planners? A contracted agency? Do the same people do the alternative selection and alternative analysis (so that the analysis can influence ideas for better alternatives), or is it a more top-down approach where the alternatives are predetermined all at once?

    If young people wanted to get involved in a technical sense, is ST hiring new grads for these roles? If ST is not hiring new grads, what kind of jobs should new grads look for to gain experience if their goal is to work for ST?

    1. Literally, an EIS is an environmental “impact” statement. The concept is broad and includes cost and other design aspects because it’s hard to state an “impact” unless a design choice is made. For example, a cable stayed bridge impacts visual aspects, flight paths and costs — and may avoid habitat impacts under the water because the span is longer.

       It’s also describing impacts but not necessarily addressing them through mitigation. It’s only about disclosure. Importantly , an impact does not have to be mitigated; it only has to be identified.

       Having said that, it’s a little bit like grading your own paper. Each impact is based on some proven measure but there are many ways to report on it. Almost every impact has some reference to “significance” and that’s a judgment call.

       Its primary role is to get over a hurdle. That’s especially true if there are Federal regulations — and regulations can be as varied as rules about fish habitat, noise to neighbors, dump trucks rruining local streets and construction dust. It is also a flag about what future permits will be needed.

       Ultimately though, the Board chooses the project. The project is usually packaged in major “chunks” or alternatives rather than a detailed menu of thousands of choices. So while the Board makes major choices, the staff make all the little ones.

       An example of how the process can force an outcome is the use of a cable stayed bridge. Most long rail bridges aren’t cable stayed but are instead often wide arch spans. There are seismic and vibration reasons for this. A wide arch span was apparently not presented in this EIS.

       The Board action is usually to “certify” the EIS as complete but the chosen alternative elements involve other Board decisions.

       For the sake of objectivity, EIS preparation is usually done by an outside engineering firm. I have several long-time friends that do this kind of work for as long as 40 years or their entire career. Most big EIS work is conducted by large engineering firms with international expertise — but they also have internal management who don’t want to challenge local staff or boards in their biases for fear of losing future work.

       A final point: ST prematurely chose the “preferred alternative” going into the EIS. So it’s a biased document. That differs from many other studies that present every alternative’s impacts before preferring one. The Board declared the preferred alternative and changed it in 2023 without studying it in the EIS after having a different preferred alternative in 2021.

    2. To be completely clear, the EIS itself isn’t actually a good way for transit planning. It’s main focus is on avoiding environmental impacts ranging from noise to wildlife to sun to car impacts. The problem is that where people live is where there will be the most impact so an EIS’ main goal is directly in conflict with what a normal transit planning should be.

       Most countries transit planning will ask citizens like given X amount of dollars we can build say 3 miles of Y or 6 miles of Z. And then decide between what to build.

       But an EIS usually does the opposite. It says we will build 6 miles, and we can choose the cheaper alternative with more impacts or the more expensive alternative with less impacts. Well of course everyone will just opt for the most expensive alternative if they don’t care about cost.

       > ST prematurely chose the “preferred alternative” going into the EIS.
       No, that’s normal and actually ST must chose a preferred alternative for comparison

       https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/regulations-and-guidance/environmental-programs/55966/05-alternatives.pdf

       1. Yes it’s a terrible way to do transit planning. Ideally the refinement process should be iterative with lots of feedback. The EIS should only be done after the design, benefits and funding are substantially clear. So you are right that the preferred alternative is needed and I was not. But the problem is really the timing of it all – and how the EIS can be forced to be done early and thus a waste of money.

          One only has to look at the WSBLE EIS from last year. It was after that was published that the Board changed their mind and chose a new preferred alternative. The Board wasted the taxpayers money on the WSBLE EIS by doing it too early. Funny how no one important dares to note that!

       2. No the problem isn’t that the EIS was too early, the root cause was really they didn’t plan before the ST3 vote in the beginning. the ballard/west seattle link alignment was too rushed and rapidly changed from the original smaller at-grade 2-car train proposal. If they did want a 4-car tunnel one it should have been planned a lot more before the st3 vote.

          You can see it clearly in plenty of the weird station choices and examples:
          * “midtown station” which is nearly double the depth of the pioneer square station and costs double. It never should have been proposed in the first place
          * slu station and seattle center stations that somehow didn’t plan for the sr 99 tunnel being there
          * alaskan junction station heading west in the original st3

       3. I would agree that the “original sin” was the back of-the-envelope DSTT2 part of ST3 along with a West Seattle and a Ballard line that were just not viable to build given their budgets. And a very tiny 10 percent contingency! The most expensive mile of ST 3 was never studied or floated through the public! The promise of easy transfers as a for in the map became another deception. ST3 was a big time snow job — persuading giddy-for-transit voters on a “completed” system that was financially and physically unrealistic. Even now, I doubt most people don’t realize how insanely deep these stations are or how bothersome rail-rail and rail-bus transfers will be. .

          However, the Board could have revisited the whole thing in 2017 or 2018 or 2019 or 2020. They didn’t. They doubled down on the current alignment and network for several years — only changing the CID station situation after years of controversy but still here 8 years later not substantially changing anything else except to make things more expensive by going more underground.

17. Hello. I’m a blogger mainly about North Seattle parks, but I often say “public amenities”, and decided the current changes in King County Metro fall under that heading. I’ve just finished the series I intended, in which I applied my basic methods – research plus hiking – to the bus stops being closed. I thought perhaps readers of this blog might be interested. For probably a few days, the series will be at the top of the blog, but thereafter you might want URLs, so I’ll now see whether I can post them here.

    – Introduction; compares bus routes with bus stops
    – Lists Metro’s routes or parts of routes going away on the 14th
    – Partly maps comparing previous deletions of area coverage in North Seattle with the current ones, and partly my rant about how the route 20 was doomed from the start
    – My sources, including this blog (though I haven’t remotely read everything)
    – Stops closing because the route 20 is going away
    – Stops closing … 73
    – Stops closing … northern part of the 28; also diverts into the lack of beach buses
    – Stops closing … southern part of the 322

    Very few people have ever commented on the blog, but you’re welcome to correct all the errors you catch me in, at the very least.

    Joe Bernstein

    1. My in-laws in North City don’t drive, so they would definitely be interested in info on buses that serve parks and natural areas. Particularly how to get to the beach areas from Shoreline North/185th Station.

       1. The beach on the north side of the Edmonds ferry terminal isn’t too difficult from the Aurora Village transit center. It might be easier once the next restructure hits and Swift Blue goes to 185th.

          Richmond Beach Park is several blocks from the 348, but it’s a long, steep walk from the top of the hill where the entrance is to the actual beach.

       2. Several of the beaches don’t have public access, which makes the situation worse (and more confusing). This is an interesting blog post about the subject: https://www.pastthepressbox.com/2022/02/on-segregated-neighborhoods-private-parks-and-us-all-wanting-the-same-thing/. Here is one about the Innis Arden Beach Walk: https://plumsinthepath.blogspot.com/2015/07/urban-hike-innis-arden-beach-trail.html. Looks like a nice trail, but I doubt I’ll ever walk it (since I don’t live there).

          For decades the Mountaineers have been publishing books about hikes within Puget Sound, including in the city. These often included information about the buses. Of course of the bus information quickly gets out of date. The books were originally called “Footsore”, then “Walks and Hikes in the Foothills and Lowlands around Puget Sound” and more recently “Urban Trails”. Manning and Spring wrote the original series; Manning wrote the second and now Craig Romano has written the most recent series. Manning and Spring were a couple of the best outdoor-guide writers in the English language. I don’t think Romano is quite up to their level but it is still good writing. If nothing else this might make a good present: https://www.mountaineers.org/books/books/urban-trails-seattle-shoreline-renton-kent-vashon-island. (There are other books for other areas.) The old ones are worth getting just for the writing.

       3. Getting back to specific ideas: Glenn is right, taking the bus to Richmond Beach Park is probably the quickest way to get to the beach. Here are some alternatives to consider (all of which involve going south):

          1) Take Link to 148th Station and then take 333 to Greenwood Avenue. From there walk south and west into Broadview. Broadview is very well named — on a nice day the views of the sound are great. You can work your way to the northern entrance to Carkeek. This makes for a pretty big walk. You can retrace your steps or leave the park to the south and then walk over to Holman Road or 85th (where you can take a bus to a different Link station).

          2) Take Link to Roosevelt and then take the 45 to the end, above Golden Gardens. There is a huge elevation difference, but there are stairs.

          3) Take Link to the U-District and then ride the 44 to the end. This is a flat way to access Golden Gardens — it is about a couple miles. Thus this could be combined with the one above. Another alternative is to walk through the locks and then access Discovery Park that way. That can be combined with the last suggestion:

          4) Take Link to downtown and then the 24 or 33 to Discovery Park. In my opinion Discovery Park is the best park in the city if not the best in the lowlands. They do run a shuttle on summer Saturdays to the beach, otherwise it is a big walk (with plenty of up and down).

       4. For Seattle parks, there’s a book by somebody who visited every single park, including the smallest ones. It lists the location, features, and amenities of each one. I don’t remember the title or author.

          (It may not include the newest single-lot pocket parks that sprang up in the past few years, which may not be official city parks.)

       5. I’ve been keeping my own list of parks near frequent transit, although much if it is still just in my head. I’ve been meaning to consolidate it into a list I can share, so maybe the restructure will be the impetus.

          I’m particularly happy about better access to Twin Ponds Park, at 155th & 1st Ave NE in Shoreline.

    2. The blog link is Joe’s name. If there were links in the list of articles, they didn’t come through.

       You can put links in the text by using HTML “a” tags, or just putting the URL in the text.

       1. Thanks. On the hypothesis that the problem was using greater-than and less-than signs as delimiters, here’s another try.

          https://myseattleparksdiary.blogspot.com/2024/09/a-requiem-for-seventy-nine-bus-stops.html – Introduction; compares bus routes with bus stops

          https://myseattleparksdiary.blogspot.com/2024/09/a-requiem-for-seventy-nine-bus-stops_10.html – Lists Metro’s routes or parts of routes, with stops in North Seattle, going away on the 14th

          https://myseattleparksdiary.blogspot.com/2024/09/a-requiem-for-seventy-nine-bus-stops_38.html – Partly maps comparing previous deletions of area coverage in North Seattle with the current ones, and partly my rant about how the route 20 was doomed from the start

          https://myseattleparksdiary.blogspot.com/2024/09/a-requiem-for-seventy-nine-bus-stops_8.html&gt; – My sources, including this blog (though I haven’t remotely read everything)

          https://myseattleparksdiary.blogspot.com/2024/09/a-requiem-for-seventy-nine-bus-stops_26.html – Stops closing because the route 20 is going away

          https://myseattleparksdiary.blogspot.com/2024/09/a-requiem-for-seventy-seven-bus-stops.html – Stops closing … 73; also diverts onto the Northwest Puppet Center

          https://myseattleparksdiary.blogspot.com/2024/09/a-requiem-for-seventy-seven-bus-stops_12.html – Stops closing … northern part of the 28; also diverts onto the lack of beach buses

          https://myseattleparksdiary.blogspot.com/2024/09/a-requiem-for-seventy-seven-bus-stops_13.html – Stops closing … southern part of the 322; also diverts onto the lack of a stop at NE 90th St.

       2. I agree about the 20 being destined to fail. A lot of us said as much the day it was suggested (and again the day it was implemented). A little history:

          Before UW Link, service in Tangletown was provided by the 16 and 26. Both of these buses went downtown. The 26 ran on Latona and had an express version that used Aurora and a regular version that used Dexter. It was infrequent, but combined with the 28 along Dexter. Thus I’m guessing it got pretty good ridership from downtown to Fremont (sharing that corridor with the 28) and decent ridership north of there, as it had a unique service area, and not much competition (since the 16 ran just as often, and lacked an express version). The 26 ended at Green Lake, while the 16 connected to North Seattle College.

          When Link got to the UW, Metro reshuffled the routes a bit. The new 62 was introduced. This is more frequent than the 26. My guess is people in Tangletown people started walking to the 62. In addition the 31/32 now runs on 35th while the 26 ran on 40th and down Stone Way. So the 26 had less in the way of unique coverage area (and the 31/32 runs more often). But the 26 still had a lot going for it. For example it ran express to downtown (while the 62 ran to Fremont). The 26 also now connected to North Seattle College — a major destination in the north end. At this point the 26 looks like a solid route and it could be argued it should run more often.

          Then Link got to Northgate. This changed the dynamic considerable. Before I get into the changes, just consider the routes as if Metro never changed anything. The 62 now connects to Roosevelt Station. It runs down Stone Way (a booming area) and connects to Fremont. It is as strong as ever. In contrast, the 26 (if it was kept) would have been the opposite. The 26 connects to North Seattle College, but so does Link. Before Northgate Link it would be quite common to take the 26 from downtown to the college. After Northgate Link that would be silly. The 26 was still an express to downtown (it used Aurora). But now fewer people are going downtown (because many work at home) so this was no longer such a big advantage. To get the fast trip to downtown the bus skipped Fremont — by then a large destination.

          Metro didn’t have a lot of great options. The small unique service area in Wallingford isn’t really worth covering. You could maybe justify an express on Aurora, but only during peak (although similar peak-only express buses have been suspended all over the city due to lack of commuters). At this point you can make the argument against the route entirely, except there is a problem: that creates a pretty big service hole in Tangletown. The combination of a frequent and infrequent bus in the area seems reasonable.

          This is exactly what Metro proposed. The first planned restructure following Northgate Link included the 23 and moving the 62. This looks great! Latona gets a coverage bus that also covers Woodlawn. It wouldn’t have a ton of riders, but it also wouldn’t take too long. It would be part of the 79 and actually looks like it would be the stronger part of the 79. Meanwhile, the 62 would be considerably faster and cover the retail end of Latona. Great!

          Except it never happened. Apparently SDOD said that they couldn’t run the buses on 56th. [Note: I don’t know of an official source with this info, but I’m pretty sure that was what happened.] So basically it was back to the drawing board.

          So they created the network we have now. The 62 continues its slow, squiggly route between 45th and Roosevelt Station. The 20 provides coverage for Latona, but now it runs north to Lake City. There are issues with that. The section between Lake City and 85th is strong. But for everything south of there it only adds value if you are going to Tangletown. For example imagine you are at Wallingford & 85th headed to the UW. The 20 goes there, but so does the 45 — a bus that runs twice as often. If you are headed to Link then the 45 is the best choice by far. So the only reason you would take the 20 is if it happened to arrive first (or you are headed to Tangletown). But for much of that route, the 45 and 20 don’t even serve the same bus stops! Riders naturally gravitated towards the more frequent bus that also connected to Link faster (the 45). A bus where Latona is “on the way” is just fine. A bus where Latona is the main destination is bound to fail.

          Which brings us to the present day. We need to convince SDOT to allow buses on 56th so that the 62 can be moved. That is crucial. At that point it would be nice to resurrect the 23 (as an extension to the 79) to increase coverage. But even if we didn’t the new 62 would be both faster and have better coverage in the area.

       3. “Apparently SDOD said that they couldn’t run the buses on 56th.”

          SDOT said the street would have to be hardened for the weight of frequent articulated buses with higher loads. It’s still a long-term goal but construction hasn’t been scheduled or funded yet.

       4. I don’t see a way to reply to the comment I want to reply to, so am instead piggybacking here. You posted at 11:03 am

          “For Seattle parks, there’s a book by somebody who visited every single park, including the smallest ones. It lists the location, features, and amenities of each one. I don’t remember the title or author.”

          This sounded to me like Linnea Westerlind’s “Year of Seattle Parks” blog. To my surprise, she’s published it as a book, “Discovering Seattle’s Parks”, 2017; SPL has lots of copies. Huh.

          “(It may not include the newest single-lot pocket parks that sprang up in the past few years, which may not be official city parks.)”

          Those known to me are official city parks. Ballard Corners Park, Thyme Patch Park, Belvoir Place, S.U.N. Park (which started out privately owned)… All those except S.U.N. were official when I started really paying attention to parks in 2020. I’d be very surprised if Westerlind’s book didn’t include these.

          Two sources for official city of Seattle parks:

          https://www.seattle.gov/parks/allparks/ – Department of Parks and Recreation website

          https://www.seattle.gov/real-estate-services/real-property-reports – PDF listings by the City of Seattle of its real estate, in spreadsheet form. I’m not aware of these for governmental units in general; although the feds do have these, still, Seattle’s are special. Most of those online are addressed to specific Seattle City Council members – Nick Licata, Tim Burgess thrice, Sally Bagshaw; starting in 2020, to Teresa Mosqueda. The 2022 report was addressed to Mosqueda as chair of the finance and housing committee, but most of them don’t state why the particular council member is named.

          When I started, these were much, much more comprehensive than the parks department website. They listed not only property owned by the city, but also property leased by the city, and even property the city had easements on. (Like Waldo Woods, which is sort of another pocket park, but in the sky.) But after the first report to Teresa Mosqueda, among other changes, the non-owned property left the list. Because of that change, in my opinion the 2020 report is the last good one.
          https://myseattleparksdiary.blogspot.com/2021/05/the-2021-city-of-seattle-real-property.html

          There’s been no 2023 report so far, which couldn’t have been addressed to Mosqueda; they’re supposed to be submitted in January, but usually appear online around May or June, and now it’s September and I don’t know what’s going on. Maybe none of the new council is actually aware that the report exists. Or maybe Seattle will just become like all the other governmental units around here, and stop compiling and publishing such information.

       5. “I don’t see a way to reply to the comment I want to reply to”

          To reply if the message has no “Reply” link or at the same level, go up to the parent’s “Reply” one indentation left.

       6. To my surprise, she’s published it as a book, “Discovering Seattle’s Parks”, 2017

          Sounds like I need to buy another book. To your point, there are places in the city that aren’t officially parks, but operate like them. For example the Nickerbocker Plain/Kingfisher Natural Area on Thornton Creek greenbelt. There are areas that are fairly well known, but areas that aren’t. Google thinks you need to go all the around if you are walking from this part of Victory Heights to Maple Leaf: https://maps.app.goo.gl/NyNQzcqsLAerJ8Lb7. You don’t. As long as the creek isn’t running too high you can walk across it and then walk up the trail and exit on the other side of 17th.

       7. SDOT said the street would have to be hardened for the weight of frequent articulated buses with higher loads. It’s still a long-term goal but construction hasn’t been scheduled or funded yet.

          That is my understanding as well, but is there an official statement by SDOT? I couldn’t find anything.

       8. It’s what Metro said as the reason the 62 reroute wasn’t implemented.

          That looks like the right book. I got it from the library some years ago, went though it, made a list of the first and second priority parks I wanted to visit, and gradually made it through the first priority.

          What I’m not sure about is the tiny not-very-much parks that have sprung up since 2020, like the Pac-Man street painting at East Olive Way & Denny, one-lot open spaces, parklets in parking spaces, etc. These don’t have a traditional park sign.

       9. It’s what Metro said as the reason the 62 reroute wasn’t implemented.

          Do you have a source? I keep asking because this comes up and it is important to reference a public statement (or something similar) instead of just repeating something we heard.

       10. This is actually a reply to Ross Bleakney’s reply to me in this thread. It covers much the same ground as my rant in
           https://myseattleparksdiary.blogspot.com/2024/09/a-requiem-for-seventy-nine-bus-stops_38.html
           but more Seattle Transit Blog style.

           “I agree about the 20 being destined to fail. A lot of us said as much the day it was suggested (and again the day it was implemented). A little history:”

           (Correct history snipped.)

           “So they created the network we have now. The 62 continues its slow, squiggly route between 45th and Roosevelt Station. The 20 provides coverage for Latona, but now it runs north to Lake City. There are issues with that. The section between Lake City and 85th is strong.”

           Um? I never rode the 20 to Lake City, but I did take it to and from Northgate occasionally, and to and from North Seattle College quite a lot. Most of the Lake City people disembarked at Northgate, as you’d expect. It was never crowded from Northgate to 85th.

           “But for everything south of there it only adds value if you are going to Tangletown. For example imagine you are at Wallingford & 85th headed to the UW. The 20 goes there, but so does the 45 — a bus that runs twice as often.”

           No, it doesn’t. Not in any of the schedules issued from October 2021 to March 2023. In September 2023 Metro published schedules it said it could actually make work, and *then* the 20 officially ran half as often as the 45, but before that Metro promised the same frequency for both. And in September 2023 Metro had already decided to eliminate the 20 and also bus service on Latona.

           Why did Metro break its promise?

           We have to remember that COVID-19 was causing large amounts of absenteeism in those years. I missed work because I caught omicron in January 2022, and I was far from alone in that. And unlike me then, bus drivers are in a high-contact occupation. It was helpful to Metro that the 26 ran half as often as the 62, once they’d given up on the 26, in mid-2021, but even so, when I tried to catch the 26, I faced an hour-long wait every time, not the scheduled half-hour.

           Then Metro issued a series of four schedules claiming the 20 would have the same frequency as the 45 and 62. The 45 and the 62 kept those schedules; the 20 did not. I think Metro got used to drawing 26 drivers away to other routes when drivers caught COVID, and saw nothing wrong, in the difficulties of the moment, with doing the same with 20 drivers.

           “A bus where Latona is “on the way” is just fine. A bus where Latona is the main destination is bound to fail.”

           I actually agree that Latona is not much of a destination, but that doesn’t change the historical fact that it worked *fine* as a destination for over a century.

           Latona is where the Meridian streetcar ended from 1908 to 1941.

           Latona is where the 26 ended from 1941 to 1949.

           Latona is right near Green Lake, where the 26 ended from 1949 to 2016.

           Transit service to Latona survived both world wars and the rise of personal automobiles. Why couldn’t it survive working from home? Well, maybe it really couldn’t have, maybe working from home was the straw that broke the camel’s back, but we don’t know that, because Metro rigged the test.

           Why did Metro do that? I think someone felt guilty toward Latona riders. Living next door to the routes 26 and 20 these past years has been an object lesson in what a really bad transit system is like. Well, guilt is a pretty intolerable emotion to live with, and so I think when Metro found that a convenience had involved them in guilt, they decided to erase the party they felt guilty towards.

           But despite all the razzle dazzle about Lynnwood and Madison, Metro has successfully convinced me, as it spent great effort doing, that it’s a really bad transit system, and no matter how much it masquerades as a really good one, it’s going to take years to un-convince me.

       11. per RossB, Route 20 was destined to fail. It somewhat replaced parts of routes 26 and 316; both served downtown Seattle. The project was about Link integration; each Link station could be like black holes in astronomy; their gravitational pull would suck bus routes into them. So, Route 20 should have taken the former riders of routes 316 and 20 to Link at Roosevelt. In fall 2021, SDOT and Metro should have figured out how to shift Route 62 to Latona Avenue NE and NE 56th Street.

           Before the NE 130th Street Link station opens, SDOT and Metro should work up a better configuration for that station and routes 5, 65, 75, 77, 345, 346, 348, and 365. The fall 2024 pathways of routes 75, 345, and 365 turn away from the upcoming station.

    3. This is the first I’ve heard of the blog and it has some great stuff in there. I don’t see any errors but I will be one of the few to comment (especially on this one: https://myseattleparksdiary.blogspot.com/2024/09/a-requiem-for-seventy-seven-bus-stops_13.html).

18. Does anybody want to share any last-day rides today on routes that will change tomorrow?

    1. I’ve heard of at least one group (the “PNW Transit Fans”) getting together for a final ride out of DT Seattle to Lynnwood, but I don’t remember what route they’re planning to catch.

    2. There was an event in the U-district that I wanted to go to, so I took the 20 down there one last time. I left early, as it turned out, but got caught in the hourliness of the 20 in the evening, and then its unreliability: after waiting forty minutes for the 9:02 20, I waited ten more, then started walking. As chance would have it, I actually was at the 9th Ave NE stop when the bus passed, but I was focusing on the broken sign announcing bus times and didn’t notice until it had passed. All in all, a pretty typical evening with the 20.

19. What are people planning to do for first-day rides tomorrow? I’m putting together a few 1-2 seat rides I can choose from, depending on what my two friends and I want to do at the time, and how far north we’re willing to go in one day. I don’t know what time we’ll do them so it will be impossible to coordinate with others, but we can meet at the Urbanist event at least.

    First on my list is: G from 1st to 28th, back to the 19th celebration, then 12 westbound.

    Second: 61 eastbound. Maybe taking the 5 to 85th although it’s not on the change list. The 45 would be a bit redundant. At Lake City I’m not sure, I’ll probably take one of the routes northwest and maybe stopover at Twin Ponds Park. Maybe the 333 (the 145th and 175th route) to Shoreline North, and the 365 (the 5th NE and Meridian route) to Northgate.

    If I make it to Snohomish County the same day, I’m particularly interested in the 909 (Edmonds express) and the Blue Shoreline North extension. My friend in north Lynnwood and I also want to take Swift Orange to Martha Lake sometime and see the park, although that may be too much for this day. (We think there’s a real park at Martha Lake but we’re not sure. Is there?)

    1. I wish I could join, but I’m getting over a bout of COVID and should probably sit this one out.

    2. I can’t do it today. I’ve got too much going on at home.

Comments are closed.