Item 4017, Seattle Municipal Archives. 7th & Virginia, looking northwest up 7th Ave across Westlake. April 25, 1930. Compare with today.

Transit Updates:

Local News:

Other News, Opinion, and Miscellaneous:

Upcoming Events:

This is an Open Thread.

137 Replies to “News Roundup: See Track? Think Train!”

  1. Viewing this on an iPhone (not sure how it appears on other devices), the link to today’s view at 7th and Virginia also gives some other time options going back a few years. It’s worth looking back just a decade or so: there’s more visible, dramatic change between 2011 and today than 1930 and 2011!

    1. I didn’t even think to check if there were much older street views available – thanks for the heads up! It’s truly incredible how much SLU has evolved over the past decade or so.

  2. Question for the readers: did anyone use the numbering of the open threads to find discussions? Since we have a non-numbered open thread every week (Sunday movie), and we are considering having a weekend news roundup since I have too many link sources, I wanted to try my hand at referential titles instead of simply numbering the threads. What do you think?

    1. I like that STB has routine opportunity for open threads!

      I liked it back when open threads had a theme in the title. The use of open threads seemed to be grouped around particular topics in the past — providing a link to several small items that individually weren’t a major topic.

      The numbers are rather abstract. I think if there isn’t a title it would be better to have a date or month (with maybe an adjective like “Late September”).

      In years past, many topical posts did not have a ton of analysis. I think it’s fine to post shorter topical threads. It makes it easier to read and submit comments if there are more shorter threads than fewer but much longer ones.

      There are some general topics that seem appropriate to make regular “open thread” posts. They often aren’t noteworthy as single posts but would seem to be great for open threads:

      1. A focused monthly thread on operations issues. “The state of transit operations this week/ month” seems like a great category of short articles to group together. Everything from broken escalators to crowded trains to new vehicles could be grouped together.

      2. A focused occasional thread on transit systems elsewhere. “Transit elsewhere in the world” is another great category for those that don’t travel and ride other systems. Sunday posts often did this. There is a lot to learn about what other places do that often don’t merit a separate full post.

      3. A focused thread on rider experience, wayfinding and information technology. “Rider stories and tips” would be an interesting perspective to provide. Whether it’s getting home from a late SeaTac flight, using Link in a wheelchair, struggling with arthritic knee problems on stairs and navigating while blind (including relying on audio info) we all could learn more about the travel experiences of those who are different than us. This thread includes a hyperlink on Rapidride G bicycle use for example.

      4. Something about upcoming meetings and major decisions would be strategic for encouraging public input. An “Upcoming meetings and decisions” thread every month would be useful for activism.

    2. The previous generation of editors had titles that were usually cryptic and about one of the minor links. That’s what I didn’t like about them. An example is: “News Roundup: Proceeding Slowly”. That’s not enough to know what’s proceeding slowly, and it turns out to be the redevelopment of a car dealership or something.

      I went with numbers when everything was a news roundup although not called that. The numbers helped people distinguish which one and what order it was in. Since then we’ve returned to Sunday movies without numbers, so the difference between 46 and 47 is no longer the next open thread. And news roundups are now called that again, so “News Roundup: Open Thread 47” is a bit long without much more information.

  3. Love the Metro bus restructure wiping out all service to my area… finally, I get to drive to work every day and never take the bus again! (And definitely never vote for a Metro funding increase again.) Thanks, elected representatives! What a great “restructure”.

    2. Are you referring to the #20 being deleted? A truly horrible thing.

      I know one person who is moving because of this, and another who quit her job downtown because her access to Link just got axed.

      And a long slog downtown on the #62, or multiple transfers, is not a good substitute for quick access to Link.

      1. If they have access to route 62, they have good access to Link, just two minutes further from downtown.

        They could be referring to route 73 being eliminated. But it is unclear whether they are here to improve public transit or trash it. In fact, we have no particular reason to believe they live anywhere close to route 20 or 73.

      2. @Brent White,

        “just two minutes further from downtown.”

        LOL!

        Ya. Walk further to catch a slower bus. Then ride that bus to a more northern station so you can transfer to Link and ride back south to get to the same place that the #20 always used to take you to in the first place.

        Ya, that is some sort of “improvement”.

      3. @Lazarus, definitely not an improvement, but neither is it “wiping out all service”.

        It’s an example of the sort of choice that public transit needs to make on roughly-flat budgets.

      4. The #62 isn’t even necessarily the only option for former route 20 riders. For instance, those that live near Latona/65th St. could just walk directly to Link and not need a feeder bus at all. Or, those near Latona/50th could walk south to 45th and catch the #44.

        RossB’s suggestion to move the 62 east to Latona should also be looked into, as it would help speed up the bus.

      5. Ya. Walk further to catch a slower bus.

        Are you saying that instead of taking the fast monorail you should walk further to catch a bus that is slower? Oh wait. Different thread.

  4. Is a post coming on the monorail fare increase proposal?

    I am not thrilled at the idea that its reduced fares could soon be twice as high as the reduced fares of all the other land-based services in the ORCA pod.

    But, I suppose, there is no guarantee that the CT Board will go along with the expected and publicly-telegraphed proposal to drop its reduced fares from $1.25 to $1. But since even Sounder reduced fares are only $1, I have a hard time seeing the CT Board vote No. Quashing or delaying the proposal behind the scenes, maybe, but certainly not going on the record publicly voting No. I am not aware of any group lobbying to keep CT’s reduced fares higher, and recall hearing some interest in $1 reduced fares from at least some of the Board members.

    As to the monorail, I believe they don’t even have to do a Title VI analysis since they don’t get federal funding.

    1. I’m not sure it’s on our near-term list – would you be interesting in writing a short post about it? You seem to be quite knowledgeable, and we’d be happy to help polish it up for the Blog if you like.

    2. There’s not much to say. It’s a very niche service (only two stops) that mostly caters to tourists. If the extra price is prohibitive for anyone, there are multiple buses that cover the same route.

    3. Reduced fare users who need to travel between downtown and the Seattle Center area can take public transit, like the routes 2, 4, 13, 24, 33, and D Line.

      1. So can regular fare riders.

        Indeed, once the proposal is implemented, the regular upcharge (relative to comparable service Link) will be $1.

        The upcharge for reduced fare riders will be … $1.

        Okay, so yeah, the net effect will be to signal that seniors, riders with disabilities, and low-income riders are less welcome on the monorail, despite it being a more ADA accessible service that can reduce dwell times and missed lights for several bus routes.

      2. Yes, and while we are at it, let’s charge more for Link. After all, you can always just take the bus.

        The monorail is not an amusement ride. It is a vital part of our transit system. It is used by people who live in Uptown and just want to get to Westlake quickly. As many of you know, Westlake is also a Link Station. Thus riders take the monorail then Link for various trips around the city. This saves them a lot of time.

      3. The monorail is actually a good transit line and it’s literally 90 seconds from end to end. No wonder it’s profitable, you have a staff of like 5 max running a line that makes 10 round trips an hour, charging a fairly typical nominal transit fare. Not that transit needs to be profitable but we could learn a lot from the success of this line in building good useable transit. I just wish they’d add an infill station for Belltown and extend it a short distance to the heart of Lower Queen Anne where it could have a direct transfer to the future Ballard line.

      4. “Yes, and while we are at it, let’s charge more for Link. After all, you can always just take the bus.”

        And that is what we do with regular Link fares compared to regular Metro bus fares. Link charges more. Want to travel from downtown to TIBS? The faster way is on Link, and will cost more than the slower way, which is on the Metro route 124. If a rider doesn’t want to pay more for the faster light rail trip, they can take the bus.

        Mic drop.

      5. Yes, Sam they raised the price of Link. It now costs $3, while riding the Metro bus costs $2.75. So it is one quarter more.

        In contrast, the adult fare for $1.25 more. Reduced fare (low-income, senior or qualifying disability) is $1 more. Youth fare is $2 more.

        Look, no one would be talking about this if the monorail charged $3. It is quite likely that Metro will raise their fares fairly soon to $3. That is not a huge increase. But to charge $4 for an adult, $2 for reduced fare and $2 for youth (when everyone else charges nothing) is just wrong. If Link charged $4 it would be wrong (for such a short trip) it would be wrong as well.

      6. @Sam,

        Yep. The 124 bus is cheaper. Same as it ever was.

        And not only that, but despite the higher price, Link 1-Line (pre-LLE) has about 85,000 weekday boardings. The 124? About 3000.

        Why the big difference despite the higher price?

        Because “quality sells”. Same as it ever has.

        But hey, thanks for attempting to interject a few facts into the discussion. It’s much appreciated.

      7. It takes some searching to find, but youth who have a youth ORCA card can tap that card for free admission to the monorail.

        Also, those who have an active Subsidized Annual Pass can tap it for free admission to the monorail.

        Those free-ride categories will not be impacted by the fare increase proposal.

      8. It takes some searching to find, but youth who have a youth ORCA card can tap that card for free admission to the monorail.

        Where does it say that? There is a FAQ page (https://www.seattlemonorail.com/faq/). Under the “Is there a student discount?” section it is written:

        Monorail Youth tickets (ages 6-18) receive half price tickets. We do not have a student discount at the monorail. School groups (Kindergarten through 12th grade) can register online ahead of time and receive a school group rate. Please fill out our online school group registration form to be eligible for a school group rate. You must fill this form out at least three business days (M-F) in advance.

        Half price tickets would be $2 (if the fare is increased). That is consistent with the proposal.

        To be clear, if they want to charge more for cash fares than ORCA I have no problem with that. Regular riders pay with ORCA. People with reduced fares pay with ORCA and students should pay with ORCA. In contrast, tourists tend to pay with cash (or credit card). It is a common policy around the world to charge more to ride without a transit card. In this case it would be quite appropriate for other reasons.

      9. Not to pick nits, but the 85k daily weekday ridership on the 1 Line was from before Link went to a flat $3 fare. Before August 30, most riders were paying $2.25-$2.75, so quite often less than a Metro bus ride.

        I am unaware of ST publishing any ridership data from August 30 forward yet.

        I don’t recall if leaving the chart alone would have made Angle Lake to Lynnwood $3.75 or $4. Of course, ST was using 25-cent and 50-cent bumps in the chart as the foil to going to a flat fare.

        I don’t know when Seattle Monorail Services negotiated the allowed fare increase with the City, but it could have been well before ST even put forward the fare change options.

        At any rate, comparable service on Link went from $2.25 to $3 on August 30.

      10. At least according to wikipedia

        > The monorail receives no operating funds from public sources, with costs covered by fares and federal grants for capital projects

        I’m not sure if that is actually true, but if it is then it’s fine for the monorail to charge more.

        If y’all want the monorail to charge less then we’d need to fund it with public funds.

      11. If y’all want the monorail to charge less then we’d need to fund it with public funds.

        Yes, just like every other form of transit in the city. Or (quite likely) they simply don’t make as much money for the Seattle Center as they do now. The fact that the monorail literally makes a profit — while charging more than everyone else — suggests the fares are too high.

        Fares are basically a user tax. It is reasonable to charge a user tax for transit. But to charge way more than any other type of transit — even when you are making a profit — is wrong. It is a burden on those who want to ride it.

        Would it be OK to charge $10 to ride Link if it made a profit? Of course not. We help subsidize the cost of transit because transit is a public good. The monorail is public transit.

      12. @WL,

        The whole point of having it run privately is the we DON’T have to fund it publicly. As such, that private company is free to set the fares as they see fit.

        But hey, this is a tourist ride. The Mt Rainier Scenic Railway is also a tourist ride. They charge $34 for an adult and $15 for youth. Where’s the outrage?

        Or, if you want to compare something more local, Metro charges an ORCA fare of $5 for adults, $3.75 for ORCA LIFT, and $2.50 for Sr/Disabled to use the water taxi. And that really is transportation.

        No outrage over that?

      13. > The whole point of having it run privately is the we DON’T have to fund it publicly. As such, that private company is free to set the fares as they see fit.

        I agree, that’s why I agree it’s fine for the monorail to set the price however they want

      14. @WL,

        Yep. It’s called capitalism. And I’m OK with that (for the most part).

        And people can still take RR-D if they so desire. That is called “freedom of choice”, and I’m OK with that too.

      15. It is worth noting that the Seattle Streetcars actually charge less than Metro buses*. They could easily charge twice as much, since people can take buses instead. After all, the only people who take the streetcar are tourists (snark). But they don’t, because for all of its faults the city believes that the streetcars are basically just transit, and not just a tourist attraction. For some it provides a faster trip. They don’t want to place too much of a burden on those who ride it.

        The streetcars are owned by the city, and operated by Metro. The monorail is owned by the city and used to be operated by Metro. A while back they switched to a private company. In many respects, the monorail and the streetcars are very similar. They have roughly the same number of riders each day. They are owned by the city, but not run by the city. In both cases you can take the bus to get to every destination — it just might take longer. So why then are they suggesting that the monorail charge so much more? Shouldn’t they all charge the same as a bus?

        * The adult fare is $2.25 instead of $2.75. The fare for other riders is identical.

      16. Keep in mind who is responsible for contracting the operations of the monorail…and it is not Seattle Department of Transportation.

      17. The whole point of having it run privately is the we DON’T have to fund it publicly. As such, that private company is free to set the fares as they see fit.

        Wrong on both counts. The reason it is run by a private company is because they felt it was easier that way. It is quite common for public agencies to contract with companies to do particular work. That has nothing to do with making a profit. The monorail is still owned by the city. They can not charge whatever they want. If they simply viewed it as a money-making enterprise they would have never taking ORCA cards. They were forced by the city, to accept them.

        Are you suggesting it was a mistake to go with a private company (and Metro should have been running it all along)? If so, that is a reasonable argument, but we are stuck with the current system. The city puts pressure on the agency and the agency complies (because otherwise they won’t be able to renew their contract).

        Yep. It’s called capitalism. And I’m OK with that (for the most part).

        So you would be OK if Link charged $10 to go to the airport? If the streetcars cost $5? If Metro just focused on the routes that are more likely to make them money? Get rid of the discounted fare (poor people can’t afford a car, so what choice do they have)?

        Holy cow, you complained to high heaven about losing the 20 — a route that clearly was costing the agency too much money — and now you are saying the free market (capitalism) should decide transit in the city?

        That is ridiculous. Transit is a public good. You don’t just charge whatever the hell you want. Doing so would be devastating to the middle class and low-income riders. You don’t just focus on high ridership routes either. You have to balance these cost effective routes with the needs of the people who don’t live close to those routes.

        You are missing the forest for the trees here. The monorail and the streetcars are both owned by the city. Why then do they want to charge so much more for riding the monorail? Because we happened to contract with a private company for one, but the other one is run by Metro? What sense does that make?

      18. “And that is what we do with regular Link fares compared to regular Metro bus fares. Link charges more.”

        The point of a subway or BRT is for the most people to use it for the trips it’s feasible for. So it has to be priced at the sweet spot, just like buses are. The more people ride the subway, the more we leverage the capital investment, and the less we spend overall in transit operations. If Link’s fare is so high it deters people and they take buses instead, then we have to run more buses, and that’s less efficient. The purpose of buses is for trips or segments Link isn’t feasible for.

        What’s been happening between Metro and ST Express for decades is they’ve been leapfrogging each other in fare increases. When ST Express needs to raise fares due to cost increases, in-county trips get higher than Metro. When Metro needs to raise fares for the same reason, it closes the gap. This hasn’t been apparent the past ten years because fares stopped changing, or when they do change it’s consolidating fare categories, which adds additional factors.

        Link’s fare rates were set in 2009 with room to absorb expense increases, so they haven’t changed for a long time. Thus Metro’s fares crossed Link’s over a decade ago, so Link up to the distance of Westlake-Beacon Hill was less than Metro, and Westlake-Rainier Beach was equal to Metro. That changed only a month ago when Link switched to a $3 flat are. That was to equalize the cost between long-distance and short-distance trips in light of the upcoming ST2 expansions.

        Metro, ST Express, and Community Transit have also consolidated their fares each to a flat level. So with Link’s recent change, Link is now 25c more than Metro, and 25c less than ST Express — for trips of all distances.

        It’s widely believed that Metro must raise fares soon by 25c because it hasn’t raised fares in so long, and post-2020 changes in ridership and fare payment. If it does that, Link and Metro will be the same fare again. Several ST Express routes will be deleted/truncated over the next three years, so the injustice of a $3.25 route 550 etc will go away; it’s just in a holding pattern.

        The monorail is unique in being such a short distance and a vintage technology and the views. So it’s a judgment call whether to position it as an expensive tourist attraction or part of the regular transit network. For most of its history it was just a tourist attraction. In the past couple years Seattle has tried to reposition it as part of the regular transit network by accepting ORCA and transfers. If its fares go uniquely up, then it’s giving up the position it recently acquired. It’s the city’s judgment call what the monorail should be.

      19. Additionally, the monorail is a critical part of transportation capacity moving attendees to and from major events at the Climate Pledge Area. It was one of the City’s requirements when Oak View Group was proving a rebuild of the Arena wouldn’t completely paralyze the area with traffic during events. Sure, the NHL gives free transit passes for Kraken ticket holders, but the concerts and other events don’t. It’s not just a tourist attraction.

      20. Keep in mind who is responsible for contracting the operations of the monorail…and it is not Seattle Department of Transportation.

        Good point. From what I can tell it is run through the Director of the Seattle Center. I believe the director has to approve any fare increase (up to a certain point). Above that point and you need city council approval.
        https://clerk.seattle.gov/~legislativeItems/Ordinances/Ord_124674.pdf.

        Interestingly enough, it seems like the contract should be up for renewal. The date on that is December 9th, 2024. Interesting timing to say the least.

        It may be that this is just round one, and ultimately not that important. What the city should do — as part of the new contract — is link the cost of Metro bus fares with the cost of the monorail (as long as they pay with an ORCA card). I would do the same with the streetcar as well (although that is a different beast).

    4. Who really cares about the Monorail fare policy?

      It’s basically a tourist ride on antique rolling stock. You either pay the up charge and enjoy the experience, or you take a cheaper competing service like RapidRide D.

      I’m just basically happy that the monorail is still an option — at any price point. It’s still fun for out of town visitors. So who really cares if they help pay for its upkeep? Seems like a good trade.

      1. Asking “who cares” when someone is very specifically asking about a topic (and therefore is someone who cares) is remarkably crass.

      2. @Nathan,

        I actually asked, “Who ‘really’ cares.” Because I find it hard to believe that anyone “really” cares about this.

        And, bottom line, if I understand the fare structure correctly, the monorail low-income fare would actually be at a steeper discount as a percentage of full fare than what is offered by Metro and ST. That is a pretty good deal.

        So why complain?

        And again, RapidRide D is still available. And it has the Metro fare policy. So why what is wrong with that?

    5. Is a post coming on the monorail fare increase proposal?

      It is on my todo list. I need to followup with the Transit Riders Union and put something together.

    6. When my friend lived in Magnolia, I would gladly have taken the monorail a couple times to catch the 33 stuck in traffic ahead of the one I was on. Sadly, it didn’t take ORCA then.

      1. Folks on this blog were largely responsible for getting the monorail to take ORCA. It basically went down like this:

        1) Somebody started writing about the monorail.
        2) Folks who live in Uptown complained about the fact that you couldn’t use an ORCA card.
        3) Someone explained how the monorail is operated (by a private company under a ten-year contract).
        4) They mentioned that the contract was up for renewal by the city council.
        5) We formed a letter writing (email writing) campaign to the city council asking them to require the monorail authority to take ORCA.
        6) The city council voted to do a study.
        7) After the study, they started taking ORCA cards.

    7. The monorail was positioned as a tourist attraction for decades, with fares that were sometimes higher than Metro but always for a short distance and no transfers. In the past couple years it has been positioning itself as part of the transit network by accepting ORCA and transfers. If it’s now repositioning itself again to be an expensive tourist attraction, that’s a zig-zag-zig whiplash, and the loss of a full-fledged transit mode and line.

  5. Finally took Link to work for the first time from Mountlake Terrace station. Boarded at 6:40am-ish and the train was already basically standing room only. By the time we reached Northgate, the train was pretty packed. I didn’t notice anybody getting left on the platform, but there might have been considering people were barely squeezing through the door.

    Happy that ridership is already so great, even from as far out as where I am. Hopefully ST can increase capacity sometime soon since clearly demand is outstripping supply.

    1. Have you noticed whether more riders are alighting than boarding at some stations?

      With trains departing Lynwood every 8 minutes all the way from 5:00 to 10:00, presumably all 4-car trains, there aren’t many trainsets left over to handle emergencies, and certainly not to do a full cycle of short-run trains from Northgate to Stadium in the morning.

      1. Up until U-District, very few people exited the train. There were about an equal number of people exiting as entering at U-District station on the train I was on, and more people exiting at UW station than entering. Whatever space might have been opened up when leaving UW station was filled again when we got to Capitol Hill.

      2. I like reading the field reports! Thanks!

        “ Up until U-District, very few people exited the train. There were about an equal number of people exiting as entering at U-District station on the train I was on, and more people exiting at UW station than entering. ”

        That’s pretty much what I would expect. There aren’t many destinations attracting riders at 8 am on the line until the train gets to UW. The Lynnwood Link station areas in particular seem almost fully oriented to arriving morning commuters (high density residential, feeder buses from residential areas, parking garages).

        I’m curious whether anyone got off at Capitol Hill. It’s possible to reach First Hill hospitals, schools (like Seattle U and Seattle Central College) and SLU from there — although the bus service isn’t so great (frequency and travel speed).

        It’s hard to guess, but I wonder how many UW Station exiting riders are headed to the East side.

      3. “I’m curious whether anyone got off at Capitol Hill.”

        There are always at least two dozen people getting off at Capitol Hill and another two dozen getting on in both directions throughout the day. It’s a busier station than Roosevelt, U-District, and UW outside peak hours.

    3. @Dave L,

      Did you happen to notice if you boarded a 3 or a 4-car train?

      ST is still mixing in a few 3-car trains which fill up to max load pretty darn quickly. With the high demand from Lynnwood Link this becomes problematic almost instantly.

      Ridership on the ELSL is already exceeding pre-opening projections. If ST likewise under predicted demand on LLE, then crowding will be a problem for the next year. And more buses from Lynnwood to DT Seattle will do nothing to solve the problem. At least if people still have a choice of modes.

      ST has more than enough spare LRV’s to run gap train service, or to run a scheduled overlay. Particularly if they run 2-car trains. So I suspect ST will get this handled fairly soon. They basically have to!

      1. I pray all the trains from Lynnwood are four cars. 3-car trains don’t just get crowded. They cause fewer riders to wait where the fourth car stops.

        Nevertheless, I can see two-car short-run trains being part of the AM solution.

        Adding buses at Northgate and Roosevelt going the same path as STX 515 into downtown might be a less desirable stop-gap measure, but may need to be on the table.

      3. > ST has more than enough spare LRV’s to run gap train service, or to run a scheduled overlay.

        They explicitly don’t, actually, if they can’t run 4-car trains all the time.

      4. One reason ST might run some 3-car trains is that the Kinkysharyo and Siemens LRVs are incompatible with each other, so they can’t be part of the same trainset.

      5. Hey, Kinko darling, want to be part of my train? :) –Thanks, sorry Seemey, it wouldn’t work out.

      6. @Dave L,

        “ I’m pretty sure it was a 4-car, but I can’t say for certain”

        I had a similar experience in the first week after LLE opened (before the bus restructures). I boarded at 148th SB in the morning and it was absolutely packed. Shoulder to shoulder.

        I thought about it as I rode along, and decided to count when I got off. It was a 3-car train. So my bad for thinking ST had radically underestimated demand.

        Link should not be that full at MLT Station at that time in the morning, so I’m guessing that what you experienced was either a 3-car train, or some other non-normal operational situation.

        That said, ST has gap trains available. They are baked into the distributed storage program. So they are there, and they are available. And they are ST’s primary method for dealing with Link crowding. ST just needs to fine tune their deployment and operation.

    4. ST can’t really do anything meaningful other than stopgap solutions like 3 car trains at higher frequencies during peak until late next year when the i90 connection opens. Frequencies should get better with the 2 line and I’m pretty sure it’ll be solely 4 car trains.

      I was riding back up towards Lynnwood from downtown around 5:30 today and had to wait on the platform for a second train because the first was completely packed. Both were 3 car trains and they were totally full. November next year can’t come soon enough.

      1. Is November 2025 the forecast for the 2 line crossing the lake? I thought it was earlier. I could look it up.

  6. Having looked at the Lynnwood bus bays in more detail, I realized a couple things:

    (1) There are enough bays (20) for every route (18 of them, and only three of them not terminating there) to have its own bay. The Swift Orange gets two bays (C5 and D5), in pole position closest to the bottom of the station’s south stairwell. Not all bays are used.

    (2) There really is no conflict in having STX 513 and 515 share a bay (D1, at the west end of the southern row). Only 515s pick up at that bay in the morning. Only 513s pick up at that bay in the evening. One is tempted to read between the lines regarding whether there is any possibility of reverse-peak service on the 513 while the 515 is running.

      4. It’s probably instructive to note that if ST were privately owned and run it would need to increase its fares by three or four times to account for the current 15% farebox recovery because the general tax levels were based on a 40% farebox recovery goal and because of the increase in current and future operations and maintenance costs. And to better enforce fare payment.

        Instead, the assumption of many on this blog is despite the fact ST is limited in its tax revenue by the rates in the levies and the economy plus inflation ST can just extend general taxes forever to cover O&M costs after all the bonds and subarea loans are paid back and ST 3 completed, which will certainly be after 2050.

        What we have seen in transit agency after transit agency older than ST is that when CURRENT O&M revenues are insufficient to cover O&M costs the agency skimps on capital maintenance and repairs, especially replacement, until like MTA the backlog of capital repairs becomes unmanageable with general tax increases, which was accelerated by Covid and work from home.

        So sure, if the Monorail had a public source of tax revenue it could subsidize fares that way, but it doesn’t and must live in the real world. Actually, neither does ST. This was the substance of Rogoff’s last presentation to the Board in June 2021 on farebox recovery rates.

        If ST were fiscally responsible — or private — it would raise fares since it can’t increase current tax revenue, but then every transit rider would cry that is unfair, they have to pay a dollar or more per trip on a system that will cost $152 billion.

        $3 for a fare on light rail from Lynnwood to SeaTac, or just Westlake to SeaTac, is too low. All this generation is doing is stealing from the next generation of Link riders who will get hit with massive deferred capital and replacement bills in 2040 and later, just like MTA, and probably large fare increases, or like MTA a broken down system.

      5. @Frank

        If ST were the only agency suffering from below-target farebox recovery, your comment might have been instructive. But it’s not, so it’s not.

        >All this generation is doing is stealing from the next generation of Link riders who will get hit with massive deferred capital and replacement bills in 2040 and later, just like MTA, and probably large fare increases, or like MTA a broken down system.

        ST’s primary revenue source is the sales tax, which tends to scale well with inflation. Its revenue under ST3 is perpetual until capital projects are complete, bonds are paid off, and the Board finds itself with a surplus. Unless O&M unit costs grow far faster than inflation, ST will have a plenty-strong tax base to cover operations even if farebox recovery went to zero. Regardless, I fully expect ST to have a new capital program (ST4) ready for ballot approval in 2036.

      6. So sure, if the Monorail had a public source of tax revenue it could subsidize fares that way,

        It does, and always has. It is owned by the city. It is like the Seattle Center. To quote this from the city:

        Seattle Center is financed by a combination of tax dollars from the City’s General Fund and revenue earned from commercial operations. Major sources of commercial revenues include facility rentals, parking fees, long-term leases to non-profit organizations, sponsorships, food sales, and monorail fares.

        To be clear, no one is proposing that the monorail be free. We are suggesting that fares simply match those of Metro. This would mean a little less money for SMS (a private company) and a little less money for the Seattle Center.

      7. > ST’s primary revenue source is the sales tax, which tends to scale well with inflation. Its revenue under ST3 is perpetual until capital projects are complete, bonds are paid off, and the Board finds itself with a surplus. Unless O&M unit costs grow far faster than inflation, ST will have a plenty-strong tax base to cover operations even if farebox recovery went to zero. Regardless, I fully expect ST to have a new capital program (ST4) ready for ballot approval in 2036.

        It is highly unlikely. They have already lengthened the timeframe ST3 will be applicable by delaying. “ST4” (aka post 2041) funds are already slated to help fund Everett/Ballard/Issaquah link. ST3 “ends’ around 2046 instead of 2041.

        When the Sound Transit board had realignment they already took the future funds (however one wants to label it as ST3/ST4, the point it is is funds beyond 2041)

        ST4 won’t likely start until 2046 — or perhaps even later if Ballard and West Seattle link cost even more money.

      8. Actually checking the latest realignment documents, I think it’s worse than that. I’ll browse through a bit more.

      9. > “ST4” (aka post 2041) funds are already slated to help fund Everett/Ballard/Issaquah link. ST3 “ends’ around 2046 instead of 2041.

        Right, but ST3 passed when most ST2 had barely gotten underway. I don’t recall when all the ST2 projects were expected to be paid off, but I doubt it was by the time they were expected to open in 2020.

        I think ST could/should use its ST4 planning bucket to come up with a set of capital projects it can complete within its existing tax authority, like station improvements (more escalators?) and vehicle replacements. It should refine its long-range plan to include things like grade-separating Rainier Valley, extension of Issaquah-Kirkland to actual downtown Kirkland, and other things. Then, assuming the tax base is too weak to actually do most of the big projects on a reasonable timescale, its Board Members can advocate within their cities to the Enhanced Service Zone (ESZ) authority (https://www.cascadepbs.org/news/2022/03/seattle-voters-could-pay-added-tax-speed-light-rail-buildout) to increase revenues to actually do things on a useful timescale.

        Based on the (albeit sparse) Motion posted today giving CEO Sparrman two weeks to come up with a cost-savings and timeline-saving workplan, I think they’re going to end up seriously considering putting an ESZ on the ballot for Seattle to help pay for WSLE and BLE.

      10. “If ST were fiscally responsible — or private — it would raise fares since it can’t increase current tax revenue”

        If ST were private, it would defer maintenance, cut service, and slowly make service so bad that the public would demand a government bailout. The owners would then laugh all the way to the bank while the public would be stuck doting the bill for deferred maintenance, outdated equipment, and inadequate infrastructure.

        This is what MTA, CTA and others are continuing to deal with, decades after the private sector left them holding the bag. The private operators of Metra in Chicago are dealing with equipment that should have been replaced in the 1960s. In one of the coach maintenance yards (owned by a private company) I’ve been to in Chicago, the wayside power system is based on wooden structures built around 1910. Sure, it still sort of works, but is cumbersome and difficult to use safely, and they have little interest in modernizing as they know taxpayer money will wind up paying for the operations anyway.

        So I’m skeptical that the supposed efficiency of the private sector is reality, especially when it comes to transportation infrastructure.

      11. @Nathan

        Either way the ST4 will not be able to build anything extra until ST3 is done. It is why sound transit realignment or delay of just “five years” costs a lot more than people think.

        > Enhanced Service Zone (ESZ) authority
        For Everett, issaquah and Tacoma it’s probably enough money to expedite their projects.

        For Seattle and Ballard, money will not solve the problem. I mean imagine Seattle did actually have an extra billion then the board would have selected the even deeper west Seattle tunnel alternative or tunneling in Ballard.

      12. ” Either way the ST4 will not be able to build anything extra until ST3 is done.” No, a new vote allows ST to completely reset their project timeline. It’s a fresh proposal to the voters.

      13. The ESZ’s are limited to a 1.5% motor vehicle excise tax (MVET) and commercial parking taxes. I have to wonder if the North King Subarea would pass a 1.5% MVET on top of the 1.1% MVET (dropping to 0.8% in 2028) already levied ST-service-area-wide. The North King Subarea is expected to generate ~$2.2B in MVET revenues between 2017 and 2046, and that’s mostly with the 0.8% rate. Would Seattle leaders consider putting another 1-1.5% on the ballot to generate an extra billion or two?

      14. @AJ

        > ” Either way the ST4 will not be able to build anything extra until ST3 is done.” No, a new vote allows ST to completely reset their project timeline. It’s a fresh proposal to the voters.

        Either way vote or not, the point is that one cannot rely on an ST4 to complete the projects faster. ST4 will not be bringing in extra money compared to ST3.

        @Nathan
        > I have to wonder if the North King Subarea would pass a 1.5% MVET on top of the 1.1% MVET (dropping to 0.8% in 2028)

        It’d probably backfire and the sound transit tax would end up getting repealed completely.

        > Would Seattle leaders consider putting another 1-1.5% on the ballot to generate an extra billion or two?

        As I said before, more money will not fix anything. Sound Transit needs to find an easier to build design and allow more community/environmental impacts. Adding more money will not solve the issue.

        The more money sound transit has, the more expensive design the board members will choose to avoid impacts.

      15. > To address rising project costs and inform future baselining decisions on the West Seattle Link Extension project, as well as other capital projects in development, a workplan outlining the programmatic, financial, and project level measures and opportunities the agency will pursue to improve the agency’s financial situation, is necessary.

        https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/ActiveDocuments/Motion%20M2024-59.pdf

        They’ll probably list out truncation to delridge as the main option. Or reallocating funds from ballard to fund west seattle link, it’ll probably be called “delaying” ballard link extension.

        I really do not see how else they can make up for the shortfall

      16. “I don’t recall when all the ST2 projects were expected to be paid off, but I doubt it was by the time they were expected to open in 2020.”

        The early schedule was:
        2020: U-Link
        2021: Redmond Tech
        2022: Lynnwood
        2023: Federal Way

        That would be the end of ST2 when the construction bills stop coming in. Then it would pay down the bonds and gradually free up money for ST3 projects. I don’t know when the bonds would be paid down enough that most of the money would go to ST3.

      17. Nathan, your comments are what I anticipated in my post:

        1. “ST’s primary revenue source is the sales tax, which tends to scale well with inflation”.

        Actually, sales tax is expected to increase less than inflation, especially for large construction projects that for ST have escalated well past inflation. Grants are ST’s third largest source of revenue. https://www.theurbanist.org/2023/12/06/sound-transit-preps-2024-budget-updates-with-increasing-strain-on-financial-plan/

        “Through 2046, Sound Transit projects modest growth in the sales tax revenue, which it projects will rise by $2.1 billion (2.6%) while the motor vehicle excise tax ($250 million) and rental car tax ($26 million) are projected to bring in a bit more than originally expected. Interest earnings have risen by a healthy $333 million.

        “Grants, Sound Transit’s third biggest source of funding, are also projected to slightly increase. Since the spring update, the agency is now projecting an additional $117 million from the funding source. That’s mostly due to higher federal appropriations for the Lynnwood and Federal Way Link Extensions. Grants have been a relative bright spot for the agency’s financial picture. Sound Transit has already secured about 25% of grants expected during the life of the financial plan”.

        Your analysis assumes: 1. Sales tax revenue keeps pace with inflation for project costs; 2. project costs were accurately estimated; 3. ST is currently meeting its 40% faregox goal so inflationary increases in sales tax only have to cover inflation; and 4. most importantly ST will have excess capital revenue in each subarea to use for O&M. I think that may be true for only East King Co. (unless N. King Co. scraps BLE). If ST does not have adequate revenue for capital projects promised in the levies it can’t use any “surplus” for O&M costs unless it cuts capital projects to free up O&M revenue.

        2. “Its revenue under ST3 is perpetual until capital projects are complete, bonds are paid off, and the Board finds itself with a surplus”.

        Assuming this is true and the stakeholders agree it still assumes ST 3 revenue will cover capital project costs, although any excess or surplus won’t occur for at least 30 years, probably longer, during which O&M revenue (farebox recovery and general taxes) doesn’t cover O&M costs, which is when agencies tend to cover this shortfall by skimping on capital maintenance and replacement leaving a huge backlog down the road, like MTA.

        3. “Unless O&M unit costs grow far faster than inflation, ST will have a plenty-strong tax base to cover operations even if farebox recovery went to zero”.

        Just last year ST acknowledged it had underestimated future O&M costs by $1.2 billion. Plus ST has acknowledged that it will need to purchase more train cars than assumed due to higher rates of maintenance. Operator and mechanic costs are higher than ST’s estimated growth in sales tax revenue. At the same time farebox recovery has declined from the assumption in the levies of 40% of O&M costs to around 15% which ST hopes to increase to 25% by 2029. So not only does ST have a deficit for capital projects it has a deficit for O&M costs plus 25% less farebox recovery than assumed in the levies.

        4. “Regardless, I fully expect ST to have a new capital program (ST4) ready for ballot approval in 2036”.

        I suspect ST believed the same in 2016 when floating ST 3 with very questionable project cost estimates and a very “optimistic” 40% farebox recovery goal.

        If you are correct, and that is a big “if”, I hope ST includes additional O&M revenue in ST 4. Whether it passes in five subareas will probably depend on transit use, and whether ST 4 funds new projects or simply funds underfunded projects in ST 3.

        My guess is the latter, most notably BLE, DSTT2 (which other subareas may be opposed to contributing to now that they understand their obligation and the true cost of DSTT2), and Everett Link which has never been popular in Snohomish Co.

        I also doubt Pierce Co. will approve a levy to continue Link from the Dome to the mall, and East King Co. is much less interested in transit today than in 2016 when so many eastsiders commuted to downtown Seattle for work.

        However, ST 4 is probably the only way to close the O&M (and capital) funding gap, so we agree on that remedy although it would still leave a 12 year gap between O&M revenue and O&M costs to deal with post 2036, or whenever ST 4 passes. The problem with an agency like MTA is when the funding gap was finally acknowledged it was too big to deal with politically because the general tax increases were too high without any new capital projects.

      18. The thing about public transit, there’s only so much you can raise fares before people stop riding. At some point, you start losing lots of trips to other modes of transportation, be it walking, private cars, or Uber. Unless paired with stronger enforcement, higher fares would also likely result in higher rates of fare evasion. It is completely naive to say that if you double the fare, you double the fare revenue. More likely, you’d have to quadruple the fare to get a mere doubling in fare revenue.

        And, of course, if fewer riders caused by higher fares means fewer trips, then that also gets people to stop riding because people don’t like having to wait a long time for a bus or train to show up. From just about every perspective except for balancing ST’s budget, higher fares are bad.

  8. Given how utterly useless I’ve found ST system expansion workshops have been (mostly self-admiration lectures followed by non-technical staff taking feedback that they write down and then discard), I find the creation of these “drop in sessions” as a more honest term of how ST uses public meetings. (After attending several “workshops” for years it’s been clear to me that ST doesn’t want public meeting input.)

    I am more disheartened though that ST has thrown in the towel completely on constructive listening and input from its riders though. The messaging instead comes across as “we only want to brag about ourselves through educating naive people” or more bluntly “we are smart and you aren’t”.

    I don’t think I’ve ever seen ST make any changes to anything attributable to a public meeting comment. Ever.

    And so I won’t attend any of these drop-in sessions. It’s basically a low key ST campaign rally.

    1. If you want to give feedback it’s really at the executive board meetings. the st meetings are usually about small stuff like the parking garage color, station names etc…

    2. Sound Transit are only concerned with opinions of “stakeholders” that have an indifferent to hostile view of transit. Their only objective is building something for the sake of supporting a workforce to build something. The last of their concerns is building something riders want to and will use.

  9. Really hoping the st plans to mitigate overcrowding start showing some results. For me, I basically ride between wedtlake and uws or uds for various appointments. It was already quite crowded even before the extension. Anecdotally, link riders are less likely than bus riders to offer seats to disabled passengers which I find interesting. Standing on link is a carnival ride if you have mobility issues.

  10. Has there ever been any discussion of extending Sounder South north of King Street Station with stations in Belltown/Pike Place Market and Lower Queen Anne and having it terminate at the Interbay yard? With Sounder North also stopping at those stations en route to KSS. I wonder if the trackage rights for Sounder South are kind of based on the track up to Interbay Yard? These stations would be much more convenient for riders than just KSS and draw more ridership, would like to see us get more use out of our rail service and trackage.

    1. I’m 98% confident the Sounder South easements only apply up to KSS. The BNSF tunnel under downtown is a key regional rail chokepoint, so running South Sounder through the tunnel would require additional easements, which means $$$s. Also, Sounder North train sets are much shorter – adding two infill stations for 3~4 car trains is very different than adding stations for 8~10 car trains.

      Here’s a good thought experiment from 2018: https://www.theurbanist.org/2018/01/15/case-four-new-north-sounder-stations-seattle/

      A Reddit thread (https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/qwsrvs/why_is_there_no_sounder_train_station_in_ballard/?rdt=60203) pointed to this tidbit: https://images.seattletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/2019898937.jpg?d=780×0

    2. Some years back, I suggested on here that Sounder South be extended north, but rather than extend to Interbay, I suggested rebuilding the old swing bridge over the ship Canal and run them to Fremont. Putting something like an elevated station and terminal facility above the Fred Meyer surface parking lot, and maybe make much of the parking lot a parking structure for both Sounder and Fred Meyer an the surrounding neighborhood could be really interesting.

      It’s true that the tunnel under downtown Seattle creates a limiting area, but the reality is most any freight train operating through the tunnel would also be an obstruction to Sounder South further south of King Street. So, extending Sounder South northward a bit isn’t quite as limiting as it might appear. Also, it’s a double track line, unlike the line north of the ship canal.

      1. That’s a cool idea, Glenn, but a bit out of scale for laid-back Fre-Lard. Plus, you’d run into a buzz-saw of angry bikers and hikers by taking several blocjs of the BGT.

      2. I’m not sure I follow you. Coming from the south, all the trains go through Interbay (at least I think they do). After Interbay the main line heads northwest, skirting the north end of Magnolia and then crossing the ship canal just west of the locks. But there is a branch to the east that goes under Emerson and the approach to the Ballard Bridge. It goes into the property that used to be the lumber mill, just to the east of the Ballard Bridge (on the southern side). You can see the tracks on a Google Map (https://maps.app.goo.gl/B6G1kM7QVEzyCKXz7). Is this where you are talking about? If so, that has potential, but you still need to get across the canal, right?

        This sort of thing has the same basic problem as with all of the enhancements to Sounder: We don’t own the lines. As a result, it is expensive to run the trains. This means the potential payoff is minimal. I could definitely see a S-Bahn type of system here. It could basically replace Ballard Link. You’ve got at least three fairly cheap stations: Belltown, Smith Cove and Dravus. You could spend extra money adding another station downtown. Then you add a bridge over the canal (around the Fred Meyer) and then turn west, towards Ballard. Eventually you head north (20th?) probably underground again. So you have several fairly cheap stations and a couple expensive stations. Several of the stations are really good (including the cheap ones). You have some big expenses (the bridge) but it has great potential, except for one problem.

        We don’t own the tracks. This means that we can’t run trains along there every ten minutes. Without frequent service it is more of a commuter train, and we already have that. It isn’t worth investing a lot of money on something you can’t run frequently. It just isn’t worth it.

      4. I didn’t realize the bridge had been gone that long. I remember looking at Google maps in 2009 and the map and satellite view still had it then.

        I don’t think this would interfere at all with the Burke Gilman trail. Even if you decided to connect to the Ballard Terminal Railroad, it and the Burke are two separate rights of way from Fred Meyer west.

        Obviously, track ownership and cost are a problem, but with passenger railroad operations, adding a little bit to existing service is much cheaper than operating the service to begin with. Sounder South already occupies the main line, so it’s not like BNSF would lose that much extra capacity. It’s already constricted.

        One of the reasons Sounder is expensive is they can only use the crews once, because of the extremely one-directional nature of the schedule. So, you have to pay for 8 to 10 hours of crew time (depending on the labor agreement) for two hours of actual train operation. Adding a bit of operating time doesn’t add that much expense, because the big expense is having the train already there and operating.

        It’s one reason I also advocated for extending Sounder north to Bellingham: the expensive part is putting a crew and train out there, and blocking off a section of the timetable for it. That block of mainline would have to extend north all the way to Bellingham anyway. BNSF isn’t going to have a hotshot container train come out of Vancouver and then sit in Marysville waiting for Sounder to finish its day.

        Obviously BNSF controls the prices, so it may be they ask a huge sum for these. However, the additional charges might not be that much to add to the existing service, just because it winds up being an incremental increase to something already there.

      5. Ross, there was a lift bridge just east of the 14th NW ROW. It and the BGT were the Northern Pacific’s “passenger line” to Sedro-Wooley, Bellingham (via a spur) and Sumas. They used the CP to get to Vancouver from Sumas.

        This was pre-BNSF of course.

      6. Actually, it wasn’t a “lift” bridge, but a single-leaf bascule that had a long enough leaf to cross the channel.

        Glenn, I guess that if all you did was go to Fred Meyer you might be able to use some streets that the bike don’t, but it would still be hugely out of scale for street running in Frelard.

      7. Part of the prior bridge is actually still there. You can see the this long curved wharf at Nickerson Marina. I’m pretty sure that’s the old bridge. On the other side of the ship canal, you can see how the edges of buildings and a couple of fences are all angled, as if there was once a track headed north to the Fred Meyer siding from the bridge, and another east to the track going out to the UW.

      8. Out of curiosity, does anyone know what used to be at the site that is now Fred Meyer? Looking at historical aerials, it was a long building that appears to have had a lot of rail service. The building and tracks were there in the 1990 aerial and demolished by the 1998 aerial.

      9. Probably a lumber mill or something associated with that industry. There were a lot of lumberyards around Salmon Bay for a long time.

      10. It was an industrial facility but I don’t remember what since it’s not something the public interacted with. The old company vacated, and the lot sat empty for years looking for a buyer. Fred Meyer was the only company interested in buying it.

      12. The area just east of the bridge on the Queen Anne side (south of the canal) used to be a lumber mill. I used to work there as a security guard, years after they had closed. It was a closed site at the time (we were the only ones there). Our job was to make sure it wouldn’t burn down. We were told that if there was a fire the first thing to do was report it and the second thing to do was to open the gates because the fire trucks would smash through them. A fire could take out the Ballard Bridge and probably make national news if it was big enough. I remember crossing the railroad tracks on the way to work (https://maps.app.goo.gl/hd3oZksJhLi9DLDA8).

  11. Tuesday afternoon report, 4:30pm, Link northbound from SODO to Capitol Hill.

    Ours was 3-car so we had to walk forward to get to the back of it. Seats available until Intl Dist. At Westlake it was full and there were a few pass-ups. When I got off the next trains were in 4, 13, and 19 minutes (wait time 4, 9, 6 minutes in an 8-minute period). Southbound had similar waits.

    I suspect Link is running extra trains peak hours because there’ve been a couple other times since Lynnwood Link started where peak headways have been shorter less than expected.

    1. I remember them saying they had enough trains to run two or three gap trains during peak times, bringing the trains per hour (tph) up from 7.5 tph to 8-9 tph. I assume they’re running as many trains they can and moving broken trains to OMF-E for repair.

      1. Moving broken-down LRVs to the other base is an expensive ride on the back of a long truck until the track goes live for The Great Conjunction. I’m unaware of any expertise the East O&MF has that the SODO O&MF does not.

        But you are right that having the size of the available fleet shrink may be the painful reality from time to time.

      2. I was thinking more about the physical space at OMF-C, as opposed to expertise. If anything, OMF-E has less repair capacity than OMF-C, but they certainly have plenty of space.

      3. “Moving broken-down LRVs to the other base is an expensive ride on the back of a long truck until the track goes live for The Great Conjunction.”

        Not necessarily.

        TriMet badly wanted to get rid of the unreliable wheelchair lifts, but the low floor cars (the first in North America) could only be delivered to the Westside MAX line. So, as soon as one track was finished through the tunnel, they started moving LRVs back and forth from the Ruby Junction shop complex to the Orenco Wye shop complex. The overhead wire wasn’t even up yet. It was a slow trip being pushed by a trackmobile, but it got the cars sorted out to the point they could shut off the line side lifts. They did this a full year and a month before the Westside MAX line opened in 1998.

        Anyway, you don’t necessarily have to have a line capable of full scale operation for out of service moves. You don’t even need both lines to be completed.

  12. I notice contractors are installing overhead wire on the ID->Judkins segment. It looks like there is a track or underlayment repair underway on the eastern highrise. Anyone know any more?

    1. Hard to say. ST’s July Agency Progress Report is very late, which would give us an inside look on their summer progress.

      The June progress report said the plinth contractor estimated substantial completion of the plinth replacements in early January 2025, at which point they would hand off to the electrical systems contractor. That report also said the plinth and electrical contractors were coordinating to find additional time savings, which likely includes things like handing off individual completed segments (like ID->Judkins) ahead of finishing all the plinths on the whole bridge.

      2. Very unusual, as far as I’m aware. I have not heard back from ST on why the report is late.

      3. I just reviewed the published dates on the ST web site. Since they started publishing monthly progress reports in 2019, ST has never published a progress report later than 45 days after the end of the period. 90 percent are 30-40 days.

        It’s now been 56 days.

  13. Still seeing major delays on the G line. Just this evening an outbound was 12 minutes delayed and the next was 5 min delayed but still on the inbound. Maybe it’s an antidote but hoping SDOT does something about the delays. Just missed one and had a 16 min wait.

    What’s with the signal on the G line at 15th Ave for the bus to merge over literally one lane. That’s at least a minute of delay each trip each way (and at least a million dollars of capital cost).

  14. I didn’t notice this being mentioned here but:

    WashDOT is doing weekend closers of a bunch of different stuff, including the 520 bridge, I-405 in Renton, I-5 near Fife, and the Mercer onramps.

    So, it will likely be a great weekend for watching buses stuck in traffic.

    1. Come down to Federal Way for that tbh. The area around the transit center is a hot mess for the next year till FWLE opens and busses will be able to not have to detour every which way to get to the transit center.

      1. FWTC has always been a significant detour-like time sink for most of its routes. Will the bus transfers under the station be faster?

        I hate that most of the new stations adopted the TIBS model for bus transfers.

    1. Walked from home increased 18.7%, or slightly over 6000 workers. I think those are workers who moved back into the downtown/SLU area when work from home was abolished or reduced. I doubt they lived downtown this whole time and suddenly started to walk to their office.

      Anecdotally I have people in my building getting notice their rent will go up 5% next year. I think this is due to people moving back to the core to avoid commuting. Still at this point this number is around 10,000 fewer workers who walked to work pre-pandemic.

      With fewer workers commuting commute times decreased across the board. I was surprised by how many carpool. With fewer workers some employers are offering free parking for carpoolers because the buildings now have more available parking and rates have declined although the combined tax rate is nearly 25% which isn’t helping retail which is suffering.

      Going forward I see the limit of return to office work being the reduced amount of office space companies are leasing compared to before the pandemic. There is the same amount of total office space that exists in downtown Seattle, but more is empty as companies downsize as they renew leases. The other distinction I see in my field is between companies like Microsoft and Amazon that own their office buildings and so have a fixed cost whether they are full or not like Amazon (although Microsoft and Amazon have opted out of all of their non-campus office space leases or tried to sublease in Amazon’s case in Bellevue) and companies who solely lease. If a company solely leases then going with less office space costs less. A prime example is the law firm Perkins Coie, a true blue chip tenant. They plan to go from over 600,000 sf pre-pandemic to around 125,000 sf at the end of 2025. Of course a company can always lease more space if needed but many offices are being reconfigured for shared use so are more efficient. The key thing to watch is the sublease market which is not doing well.

      I have seen internal numbers that are different than Balk’s comment that “remote workers still made up 28.5% of the 466,000 working people who live in Seattle, which is a huge share. But that’s down from 36% in 2022” unless he is excluding workers outside Seattle, most notably the eastside. Our internal numbers put the number of office workers in Seattle down by around 44% compared to 2019.

      He may also be including those who now work 1-3 days/in office. For example, when Amazon goes to five days in office starting Jan. 1, 2025 will that make any difference in the percentage of in office workers in downtown Seattle because they are already counted as in office because they work three days/week in office today (supposedly). That is why I think the commuting numbers in some way are more accurate although I don’t know how they are calculated or whether they differentiate between full time and part time in office work.

      Strangely enough at the very beginning of the pandemic there was a study out of Stanford (none in my field believed) that predicted that when the pandemic was over work from home would make up between 40% and 60% of the workforce depending on the city. Right now our numbers put that number at around 44% for downtown Seattle in the second quarter of 2024 compared to all workers, not just Seattle workers, in 2019.

      The other bit of data is in office work and commuting on the Eastside. Since the pandemic Microsoft has anandoned over 2 million sf of leased office space including 10,000 workers in downtown Bellevue while Amazon has moved 12,000 Seattle workers to Bellevue. What we are seeing is stronger office space leasing in Bellevue than Seattle although not necessarily more workers in downtown Bellevue although many think Bellevue’s employment will benefit at the expense of Seattle as more Eastside residents opt to work in Bellevue offices and Seattle’s head tax.

  16. Wednesday morning report, 9:40am, Link northbound from Capitol Hill to Roosevelt.

    The train slowed to a crawl both approaching and leaving UW station, with a minute or two slowness at both ends. Are all trains doing that after the power outage?

    I saw a morning university peak for the first time. There were a few standees up to UW, then half the people got out at UW and U-District.

    1. Yes, it seems that the train is slowing down entering and leaving UW Station. Going northbound last night, after UW Station, the train seemed to be hauling ass to make up for the delays.

  17. Excellent recent video and drone footage of the Redmond Technology station, Microsoft campus, and RTS pedestrian bridge. Also shown, the RTS does have a cafe on the property called Dote that is open to the general public. When I went there a few weeks ago, it was empty, and it looks like when this guy went there, it was also empty. Too bad.

    I guess this channel is more about First Amendment issues, but I just liked this one particular video for the station area video and drone views.

    https://youtu.be/Y8gMSNfpuuI

  18. I think I understand why people would be annoyed at higher monorail fares. A lot of them are getting free, mostly universal, er as far as Tacoma-to-Stanwood, transit care through their employer. Nobody likes a co-pay for transit when most of those rides are fully covered. Others shrug because their employer chose the gold-standard Business Passport plan.

    That’s also why you have some riders chomping at the bit for Metro to raise its fare to $3. When that happens, a chunk of workers will see the value of their transit coverage go up, and all the co-pays go down by 25 cents one way / 50 cents round trip, except on WSFerries.

    There are other reasons to raise the Metro fare to be a flat $3, mostly relating to trip-time reduction and net fare revenue, both relating to improving the mental health of the ridership.

    I’m one of the riders who will have to decide whether to accept a $2.50 round-trip co-pay on the monorail or take a bus. I can afford it. I value my time enough to pay the co-pay to spend less time getting to and from the Seattle Center.

    What would deter me from taking the monorail is a sense of solidarity with those who already have a monthly out-of-pocket cost of $36 (seniors, low-income, and riders with pre-existing qualifying conditions). They will still have to pay a $2 co-pay on each round monorail trip if they spend more than two hours at the Center. Those without a monthly transit care plan will also be paying that $2 co-pay if they use an ORCA card to transfer.

    Only two of the land-based services in the ORCA pod charge these riders an extra co-pay above the standard $1 per two hours of trip or unlimited free rides with the $36 monthly plan. That would be Community Transit (25 cents), and the monorail (75 cents, soon to be $1). The CT Board is likely to drop the co-pay later this year.

    I think more people will notice the monorail’s dubious distinction of being the only land-based service in the ORCA system charging a co-pay for each ride by a senior, low-income rider, or rider with a qualifying disability than they will the monorail’s bragging about making an operating profit.

    I, for one, would be fine with paying a little more for a monorail ride (for the remainder of my middle age) if the co-pay for other riders with more limited means would go away.

    1. I would standardize at $3, at least within Seattle. That means Metro buses would cost an extra quarter. It would mean the streetcars would cost an extra 75 cents. It would mean ST Express would be 25 cents cheaper. It would mean that the monorail would be 50 cents cheaper than today and a dollar cheaper than proposed.

      As you mentioned, the big difference with the monorail is that it charges so much for those with a reduced fare ORCA card. You’ve gone through the hassle to get one of these, and they still charge you twice as much money. For those in a wheelchair the “just take the bus and walk a few extra blocks if you want to save money” idea seems especially egregious.

      Youth fare is also noticeably different. Youth riders can ride just about anywhere for free — but not on the monorail. There is a public high school inside the Seattle Center. It is an all-city draw (people from all over the city go there). Students can ride to Westlake for free, but if they want to take the monorail to school, they have to chip in $1.75 (per trip).

      As I’ve written before, I think a reasonable compromise is to simply charge more for fares that don’t involve an ORCA card. Tourists probably don’t want to bother with an ORCA card, especially if they are riding the (free) summer time shuttle (which actually sounds like a very fun outing). Regular riders — who use ORCA cards — would get charged the same as a bus and get the appropriate discount.

    2. > I think more people will notice the monorail’s dubious distinction of being the only land-based service in the ORCA system charging a co-pay for each ride by a senior, low-income rider, or rider with a qualifying disability than they will the monorail’s bragging about making an operating profit.

      It is not about the monorail making a profit but that it doesn’t take on as much subsidies.

      If you really want to advocate for it then we’d need to have king county metro subsidize the tickets either through a slight increase in tax or removing bus hours elsewhere to fund it.

      1. How about kill off the SLU streetcar and put the city subsidy for that into the monorail?

      2. It is not a county thing, but a city thing. The city would lose a little bit of the extra money it makes from the monorail. So would the private company that runs it. You could raise the rate for parking at the Seattle Center and probably make up the difference. Yes, raising the cost to ride the monorail would also generate more money. It wouldn’t make much difference with the SLU Streetcar (since hardly anyone rides it) but a fair number ride the other streetcar (it is similar to a bus).

  19. Just got off the G Line. Boarded at 3rd at 445p, in the middle of rush hour. The bus lanes didn’t do much because turning cars were blocking Spring St at every intersection. Though the bus signal at the freeway was a great help.

    Unfortunately, the center running bus lane means the 60 gets stuck in the single lane general purpose traffic. I saw two 60’s not moving on First Hill.

    Does anyone know how the G is dispatched? Is it a human or automated software? The bus-bunching is a continued problem and can be mitigated by eliminating the concept of blocks and runs.

  20. Went down to my brother’s place today to do a little foraging. It was my first time driving by FWLE in a few months.

    Progress is being made. The structural work on the long span bridge is complete, rails are being placed, and both north and south of the span the catenary is mainly installed. It’s looking good. Progress is being made.

    So FWLE is still behind Full ELW, but not by a lot. So that is really good news.

    The next 12 to 18 months are going to be really busy. RLE, Full ELE, and then FWLE. It will be great to have it all in operation.

  21. Madison, Wisconsin just managed to launch an all-electric BRT system on September 22 with battery-electric New Flyer articulated buses that have doors on the left side as well as the right.

    RapidRide G, which opened September 14, was originally supposed to be electric but there was a sourcing issue for the buses… why is this possible in Madison, WI but not on Madison Street?

    https://www.cityofmadison.com/metro/routes-schedules/bus-rapid-transit/metroforward/all-electric-buses

    2. The sourcing issue was for trolleybuses. We couldn’t get trolleybuses with left-side doors.

      “These buses are features on our new Rapid Route A, B, F”

      They’re using the same naming scheme!

      1. No, the vendor did not offer artic ETB with two axle drive; they could have standard ETB with left side doors. Madison has steep hills.

    3. When SDOT made the mode choice was there an adequate BEB? They could have gotten a standard ETB but wanted articulated coaches (for bikes on board?). When they chose hybrid, why they not extend the line or a variant to Madison Park?

      1. I assume they wanted articulated coaches for the load. Remember, this was before the pandemic. Even now I assume there are plenty of commuters. One of the original ideas was to run every five minutes during peak (they decided instead to run every six minutes all day long). While the 2 is somewhat redundant (and could take some of the load) I imagine there is a pretty big surge of ridership from the ferry.

        The issue with Madison Park is that it gets you very little for the extra distance. Madison Park is a dead end. There are no additional bus connections. There is some density there, but very little along the way. The G runs frequently and makes a live loop so there is a bigger risk of bus bunching. Extending it would only make the current problems (with bunching) worse.

        The simplest way to serve Madison Valley is by sending the 8 that way. That way those riders get a good connection to Link and Uptown along with a good connection to the G (for trips downtown). They would also have a good connection to the 10 and 12. (With a better network those buses would branch later, providing better frequency.) Of course the 8 needs additional right-of-way along Denny.

        There are a lot of things that could be made better, but there are only two basic problems now:

        1) The various issues with actually running the buses (e. g. are they getting stuck). Some of these appear to be getting better, but it would be nice to have a followup by Ryan Parker in a couple months.
        2) The network in the area. I have no idea when Metro will restructure the routes in the area.

    4. My understanding is that we could have gotten trolleys with doors on both sides if the purchase order was big enough. It wasn’t. But this is why they assumed they could get them in the first place. We don’t need that many buses because the route is fairly short (and fast). Or at least it is supposed to be.

Comments are closed.