An aerial photograph of Salmon Bay in 1950, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons. Note the Northern Pacific bascule bridge crossing near 8th Avenue W; this bridge was demolished in 1979 with dynamite.

Transit News:

Project Updates:

Budget News:

Commentary:

This is an Open Thread.

120 Replies to “Midweek Roundup: Bridging Gaps”

  1. It’d be great if ST would run something other than three-car trains between 7-8am going southbound. Three straight this morning. Good luck trying to get on, especially if a lot of other people have luggage and bicycles taking up space.

    For a while it was every other train that was 3-car. Now they just throw out whatever.

    1. I wonder if the frequent crush loading is wearing down trains faster than expected. ST warned it wouldn’t be able to maintain 4-car trains until East Link opens across I-90, but it sounds like it’s losing capacity.

      1. If ST is in the same boat with Metro, they are still short of mechanics. I suppose they could borrow some from East O&MF, and might already be doing so. They could also probably get away with just running one-car consists on the 2 Line at certain times.

        Regardless, the mechanics can only do so much when all the available LRVs are in service or standing by during peak (which is a longer period than it used to be).

      2. ST could also do more with short-run trains from Northgate to Stadium in the AM and Stadium to Northgate in the PM. These trains could probably be shorter.

        If ST switched to 10–minute all-day headway with all 4-car trains, and a 10-minute-headway Northgate-Stadium short run in the peak direction, but with just 2-car trains, that would increase capacity through the zone of maximum crowding from up to 30 LRVs per hour in the peak direction to 36 LRVs per hour through the critical zone.

      3. If ST is in the same boat with Metro, they are still short of mechanics.

        Yeah, that is part of the problem. In general this is working out as planned. ST basically said this was going to happen. They typically have fewer trains in circulation (and more trains idle) and this was going to put a strain on the system. This is all just temporary. Once East Link gets here things will run more smoothly.

        In general I’m very critical of ST, but I really don’t see much of a problem here. The contractors screwed up on the I-90 bridge which set off a cascade of issues. I think they are handling it well.

        I get more concerned about the fundamental problems. Like continuing to get trains that have low capacity while complaining that in the future they will need larger capacity. This post written eight years ago, suggests a 17% increase in capacity if we had open gangways. Open gangways would also allow people to spread out better within the cars. (Right now you have to roll the dice — you might get a crowded train car, you might get lucky.) We could definitely use that extra capacity and flexibility now.

      4. @Nathan Dickey,

        “I wonder if the frequent crush loading is wearing down trains faster than expected.”

        Where do you get this stuff? Link LRV’s are designed to carry max load. Periodic usage at crush loads isn’t going to have any appreciable impact on “wear”. And certainly not over such a short period of time.

        High utilization rates do require more maintenance. But that is scheduled maintenance, not out of sequence maintenance. And that is purely a function of hours/miles. It is scheduled that way. No big deal, unless ST doesn’t have the staff to keep up with scheduled maintenance.

        But I hardly doubt that is the case. ST can always pull more staff from Metro and let Metro backfill their own needs with new hires. ST has that option, and should use it since ST can move more people per FTE than can Metro.

        And that is the ultimate goal – to move the largest number of people as efficiently as possible.

      5. sound transit did say that they running into trouble maintaining this many extra trains running to lynnwood with just the one maintenance facility. I don’t remember them saying anything about special about “crush loading” using the trains more.

      6. Metro recently had a chart saying its mechanic shortage was below 100 and would be caught up soon according to trend. The driver shortage was much higher around 1,100, and it wasn’t making any headway, because even though the number of drivers is gradually increasing, the number of service hours needed and ridership is increasing at the same rate, so it’s not closing the gap.

        I don’t know about ST’s shortages, or how much of it is already included in Metro’s stats. Metro operates Link and the King County focused ST Express routes.

      7. Pretty wild to claim wear-and-tear is exclusively a function of track mileage. I guess accelerating, decelerating, and suspending up to 45,000 lbs of weight (250 persons X 180 lbs/person) in a ~100,000-lb vehicle, not to mention the wear inherent in those people actually using the train (sitting, straphanging, holding doors, etc.), has absolutely no possible impact on maintenance and repairs.

        I remember the Apple Cup incident, when a beyond-crush-loaded train depressed its suspension so much a connection cable caught on an untrimmed bolt, severing power and comms between the lead car and rear cars.

      8. @Nathan Dickey,

        It’s just like with your car. If the service interval is every 5000 miles, then you bring it in whenever you hit 5000 miles. You don’t bring your car in more often if it typically has three people in it as opposed to just one. There is no appreciable difference in your car maintenance interval based on passenger load.

        It’s also worth noting that Link is designed as a Light Metro, meaning the stops are spaced further apart than for a typical Light Rail system using S700 type vehicles. So there is actually less accelerating and decelerating per mile of travel than for a typical system. Think of it as less “stop-and-go” and more just plain “go”. This reduces wear and tear.

        This is really pretty simple stuff.

      9. Typically with a lot of equipment, including many transit systems, they base their service interval on hours of service rather than miles. I’m not aware of anyone, anywhere, basing their service interval based on passenger load.

        A higher passenger load probably means you’d want to clean the interior more often, and some systems have an occupancy detection system to increase makeup air in the HVAC system at higher occupancy (6 cfm per passenger is recommended). Even there, replacement of filters is always based on hours in service.

      10. @Glenn in Portland,

        Exactly. Nobody (that I know of) bases their service interval on passenger load. And that is true of just about every type of conveyance I can think of.

        As per increased cleaning, yes, that will increase with passenger load, including the frequency of bio-hazard type events. But there is no indication that ST is having any sort of difficulty hiring cleaning staff, and there just isn’t a large training barrier to hiring new cleaning staff.

      11. Were the techs able to fix the LRVs that broke down near UWS, or are they now taking up space at the base waiting for replacement parts?

      12. All I’m speculating is that there might be more wear-and-tear on the various moving parts than expected if the trains are running well above the standard rider capacity. A crush load is not an insignificant amount of mass to move relative to the whole vehicle.

        I get that service intervals are based on mileage. I’ve rebuilt a car from near-scratch almost got a car to 400,000 miles before the maintenance exceeded its value. I also understand that towing puts more wear on a vehicles mechanics (because of the extra weight) than typical use.

        What I’m saying is maybe those service intervals, likely based on previous experience where crush loads were less frequent, may be insufficient if the trains are hauling way more people than they used to for much of their runs. Crush loads also result in more improper usage of a train (most notably in door damage), so there’s more opportunity for incidental damage.

        Simply, it feels naive to assume a routinely-crush-loaded train car, where nearly 50% of its operating weight is a dynamic load, will never have more wear-and-tear issues than a typically-light-loaded car, unless the maintenance schedule is particularly aggressive. And based on the reported lack of mechanics, I expect they would have difficulty performing extra-high frequency maintenance.

      13. > Were the techs able to fix the LRVs that broke down near UWS, or are they now taking up space at the base waiting for replacement parts?

        Still no word from ST on the cause of the failure or the status of the impacted car(s).

      14. @Nathan Dickey,

        “ if the trains are running well above the standard rider capacity.”

        None of the Link trains are running above “standard” capacity, whatever that means. All Link trains are running at, or below, design limits.

        And it should also be noted that there are several design limits that are well above what can be attained with actual passengers at “crush” loading. This is particularly true for design weights.

      15. You’re basing your thoughts on automobiles, which are designed to fall apart after a very short period of time. In these types of situations, added abuse certainly will decrease life.

        It isn’t unusual for a light rail car to accumulate ≈700 miles per day, TriMet’s 100 series cars are each in the 6 million mile range, and if they weren’t high floor cars would be given a mid-life overhaul and run another 6 million.

        Once you design for that sort of use, the design is very different. As an example, metal components designed for a million or more cycles have an indefinite service life estimate, rather than being able to have a specific design life before fracture.

      16. I’m basing my thoughts on the fundamentals of stress loading and stress cycles.

        Ryan Packer tweeted a slide from ST today: https://x.com/typewriteralley/status/1841950642094620929

        25% of failures are due to brakes. I wonder which train puts more stress on its brakes: an empty one, or a crush-loaded one?

        I don’t understand what’s so hard to believe about the idea that crush loading might be contributing to higher-than-expected maintenance.

      17. Exactly. Stress loading and stress cycles can be a design point up to around 800,000 cycles. Past that, it starts to asymptotically approach infinite / indefinite life.

        Also:

        1. They don’t design these things to run empty. You don’t put a train into service with the idea it would be empty.

        2. Which brakes? The regenerative part? The software? The brakes shoes that are rarely used on modern light rail cars due to the regenerative brakes?

        TriMet had a software glitch on the 400 series cars that would apply the brake shoe part of the brakes at random, so the potential for that part to be a problem on the Siemens cars isn’t insignificant. (But that’s why they do burn-in testing)

        3. More than the loaded weight, Link runs it’s trains at a higher average speed than many light rail systems.

        4. The brake shoe part of things is normal wear and tear, and should be replaced anyway when worn past a certain point. Replacing them isn’t a failure, but a regular maintenance item. The regenerative braking part doesn’t have friction parts. It may have a resistor grid that acts as a sink when the generated voltage is below line voltage, depending on how they’ve set it up (some are better than others at utilizing the regenerative part). The resister grid may be overheating due to the more rapid than normal decelerations.

        Anyway, we’d have to know the details. Basically though, passenger load is nowhere near as important as regular maintenance and operating style.

        And we’ll hope they’ve not done another stray bolt thing like they did for Northgate Link.

      18. @Nathan Dickey,

        Stress cycles are part of the design, and that design is done at the worst case conditions. Ditto for setting service intervals. These vehicles simply aren’t designed around the assumption that they will be operated empty. That is not how engineering design is done. That is not how transit is done,

        As for 25% of failures being brake related, so what? That refers to failures, and it is not clear at all that any of those failures are related to passenger load. None at all.

        And again, all of that is considered in the vehicle design.

      19. @Glenn in Portland,

        The former “stray bolt thing” had nothing to do with wear and tear from high passenger loads. Basically ST just muffed the vehicle envelope clearance tests, and muffed it for a variety of reasons.

        It was sloppy work, but hopefully ST learned enough not to repeat that mistake again.

      20. It would be interesting to know the details. 25% because they’re having to replace the shoes more often than they expected? Or some other problem?

        I’m guessing it’s some sort of system problem. If you rummage around on YouTube enough, you’ll find a video someone took of a MAX train with brake issues. They would only release for several seconds at a time, so they had to manually force them to release (they require a manual jack to do this – they are fully applied unless everything is working 100% correctly. That way, if there’s a power failure and all systems are shut off, the brakes immediately apply and can not be released except for the manual jack system).

      21. @Glenn in Portland,

        The graphic says “failures”, it does not say “wear”.

        If the problem was increased wear, the operators would deal with it in the short term by adjusting the maintenance schedule. In the long term the manufacturer would make changes and the problem would be “solved” during regular maintenance cycles. The part would simply never get to the “failure” stage. This is how known issues with are dealt with.

        But I’m with you. The graphic says “failure”, so it is undoubtably something else. It could be a brake control issue, but it could also be that the design is prone to damage from debris. These systems function in mixed environments, and the potential for damage is always there.

        But what the graphic doesn’t say is that this is a serious problem. No information on that is given at all. At the end of the day, 25% of a small number is still a small number, and I suspect this is a small number.

      22. Finally found it.
        14 years ago, when TriMet was first working with the “Type 4” light rail cars, they had a few teething issues.

        One of the ones that showed up after they had been approved for service was what was believed by some not employed by TriMet to be a software problem that caused the brakes to engage at random.

        In this particular case, they had to manually release the brakes, then tow the cars to Ruby Junction Shops for further work. TriMet bases its rulebook on one of the standard railroad operating rulebooks (maybe Southern Paciific, since they were who ultimately operated the Portland Traction Company and its associated interurban lines and freight operation successors after streetcars and interurban passenger service ceased).

        One of the items in many freight railroad operating rules is that if you have non-functional brakes on a piece of equipment, it must be operated in a train with an equal number of axles with operating brakes as axles with non-operating brakes. This rule appears to be one that TriMet has adopted word for word from the freight railroad operators, and thus with a two car train with dead brakes, they have to tow it with two cars with operating brakes.

        So, you get to see a rare 4 car MAX train.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foVEWuMHo40
        (TriMet has, from time to time, also operated 6 car trains as part of repositioning moves and other special situations. In terms of platform length and siding length ratio, this would be a bit like Link operating a 12 car train – 3 times the length the system was really designed around).

        Anyway, this illustrates that at one point in the past, Siemens had an issue with the controls for the brakes on its light rail car designs. It might be something like this is going on with Link?

  2. The $3 Metro fare would not take effect until September 2025.

    .

    The Washington State Ferries fare increases mark a departure from the recent increases that had the car fares go up slightly faster, percentage-wise, than the passenger fares. It still costs a lot more to bring a friend with you than to bring a car with you.

    Efforts to get the Washington State Transportation Commission to adopt a low-income fare by a pretty-please approach from the Legislature have gone nowhere. The Legislature just needs to mandate the fare category, at the same price as the RRFP fares, and let WSTC set future fare increases to adjust for projected lost revenue (and increased ridership).

    .

    The King County Ferries fare increases hold the reduced-fare payers harmless, giving them a de facto real fare decrease presuming inflation. It also recognizes that West Seattle is a nice-to-have route, with a 50-cent regular-fare increase, while the Vashon route is more essential for its passengers, with just a 25-cent increase.

    All that said, there are only two other remaining services in the ORCA Pod charging a higher low-income fare than their RRFP fare. WSF’s de facto low-income fare is its regular walk-on fare. Everett Transit charges 50 cents for its RRFP fares (up from free less than a decade ago), and $1 for its low-income fare, matching ST, Metro, PT, KT buses and local ferries, the streetcar, … every land service except CT ($1.25, expected to be dropped to $1) and the monorail ($1.75, proposed to go up to $2).

    1. With current fares, just checking the Kingston to Edmonds route, if I go with my car, it’s $29.30 round-trip. If I go with my friend (and no car), it’s $20.50. So cheaper to bring a friend!

      1. I’ve used Waymo in San Franscisco. At first it seemed a little weird to be in a car with no driver, but then I discovered I liked the solitude. I hate chatty Uber drivers. I just want a fast, clean Uber. But it didn’t seem a lot cheaper than Uber with a driver, at least at this point. But I agree that the Taxi service in San Francisco was intolerable because it was a monopoly and Uber has been transformational in that city.

        Use Uber a lot in Belltown because the public transit isn’t very good for such a dense residential area near the downtown and the streets are sketchy at night.

        On a more quotidian note, the number of people not licensing their cars and paying tab fees in King Co. has soared, and local law enforcement is not enforcing it, in part because car tabs are so expensive and local pols are worried about taking away someone’s ability to get to work. I am not sure how that lost revenue will be made up. Car tabs pay for a lot of other things.

        And, from The Center Square, due to declining commercial property values, “”However, in 2024 the Department of Assessment’s numbers show residential taxpayers [in King Co.] will pay 83% of the $7.6 billion in property taxes being collected this year. The commercial sector – which includes corporations like Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, and Google – will pay $1.3 billion [17%]”.

        This is down from a 65%/35% split last year. Along with the housing levy, transportation levy if it passes, and some other levies expect rents to rise 10% over two years according to the folks in the multi-family game I know. Unfortunately it looks like Harrell and the council plan on using that levy money to cover normal operations in SDOT and the housing agency.

        Finally, WSF is raising fares to meet its farebox recovery goal because fewer are riding ferries, probably due to WFH and higher operations costs (plus a fiasco with electrification). Sound familiar? Hmm, raising fares to meet farebox recovery goals. What a novel thought.

      3. Sorry Steve, this is an open thread and my response just nested there. There was nothing to respond to let alone rant about in your post. The ferry rates are posted online. Anyone can look them up and check rates. I doubt the savings you note will determine whether someone takes a car or walks on. I just thought it interesting that WSF must meet a strict 65% farebox recovery goal when ST with billions in revenue is allowed to meet a 15% recovery goal when the levy stated 40%.

        I didn’t quite understand how a walk on “brings a friend”. If you mean a passenger in a car there is a separate charge for that. Otherwise wouldn’t your walk on friend pay their own fare. Of course then you are in downtown Kingston without a car.

        BTW the area outside Kingston is popular with Seattleites living downtown for vacation homes. They take the passenger ferry and keep a car/truck in the long term parking lot which is quite reasonable. I’ve joined them. Lovely ferry ride and the houses along the water are beautiful. If I lived downtown and could walk to the passenger ferry and could afford a vacation house I would be tempted because it seems like a nice blend of urban and rural living.

      4. To reply to a comment that doesn’t have a “Reply” button (the nesting only goes 3 deep), go up to the parent article, the “Reply” with a smaller indentation, and then your message will go below the one you’re responding to. Or for a new topic, go down to the reply box at the bottom of the page.

        The purpose of the ferries isn’t to generate a certain farebox recovery; it’s to provide a certain level of mobility to the west sound. It’s similar to buses and Link in that regard: their purpose is not to make a profit or have a certain farebox recovery, but to provide a certain level of mobility options, which benefits the entire city and its economy and tax-revenue collection.

      5. Fact Check, my response wasn’t apropos of nothing. It was a response to the message above it from Brent White. If you’re curious why I brought up the cost of the ferry, and the thing about bringing a friend, the answer lies in the message I replied to. I’m not sure the best way to do quoting here, but this one:

        > It still costs a lot more to bring a friend with you than to bring a car with you.

      6. I didn’t quite understand how a walk on “brings a friend”.

        Brent wrote: ” It still costs a lot more to bring a friend with you than to bring a car with you.” Steve corrected him. It is cheaper for two people to ride the ferry than it is one person and a car.

      7. Steve, got it. It was never my intent to respond to your original post which only listed ferry fares. I just posted some random thoughts in an open thread that nested incorrectly, although I didn’t think they were a “rant”. Believe me, I will be careful to never post after one of your posts again.

        Yes, it has always been cheaper for two walk on passengers than a single driver and car on the ferries. But I thought the point of your post was the spread is getting narrower. It is the walk on fares that are getting steep when a walk on passenger uses much less space and weight than a car. I think the passenger ferry from Seattle to Kingston is around $2 to Seattle and $12 from Seattle because Kitsap Transit subsidizes it and accepts ORCA.

        Drivers pay the extra cost for a car on ferries because they need to go someplace other than the terminal or need to carry some stuff. Or they keep a car on the other side. For example, my brother in law who lives downtown but has a beach house outside Kingston keeps a truck in the long term parking that is cheaper and more convenient than driving to Edmonds and driving on. Ferry terminals have transit but it isn’t great in most areas other than downtown Seattle.

        My other point to other posts (not yours) was ferries have a very high farebox recovery goal for public transit, and it is very expensive for a passenger or car/driver. Other public transit is more heavily subsidized, and some like ST are not required to adjust fares to meet farebox recovery assumptions although those assumptions are to fund O&M, the costs of which don’t magically disappear because farebox recovery is lower than assumptions.

        I also think ferry ridership is lower because fares have gotten so high, and because of work from home. It is the same catch-22 some raise about increasing Link or bus fares: fewer than ride it so farebox recovery doesn’t go up equal to the fare increase. I
        don’t know too many employers that subsidize ferry fares. I know several Amazon workers who moved to the peninsula during work from home who are faced with a dilemma of paying ferry fares five days/week that have all gone up, moving back to the city, or getting a new job (with getting a new job number one on the list).

      8. FC, yes, Kingston is wonderful. If you haven’t yet discovered it, the creperie right opposite the ferry toll booths is superb. They have a whole bunch of “savory” crepes which are a meal in themselves. And the prices are reasonable for how much quality food you get.

        Highly recommended.

      10. Steve, this site uses manual HTML tags. You type “” and then “

        [I left out the “e” so it wouldn’t work, but included them around this sentence]

        It’s dangerous, though, because you can’t edit your comment. I’ve left boldface or emphasis unclosed too many times to count. You can even do strikea correction if you want.

      11. Oh, darn, I forgot that the braces eliminate everything between them, whether the tag is spelled correctly or not.

        Anyway, you get the idea.

      12. It’s not just the fares, it’s also the failure to maintain reliable service. By afternoons, it is routine for nearly all ferry routes to be falling way behind the schedule.

        It’s gotten to the point where, when I do day hikes in the Olympics, I will quite often opt to do a loop, where I take the ferry going west, but drive around over the Narrows Bridge going back east. More expensive than doing the loop the other direction, but much more reliable.

      13. Fact Check, I have no problem with you replying to my posts. But if you reply to my post with something that isn’t related to it, I reserve the right to be confused.

        Tom, thanks!

    2. The ferry I’m fine with it being higher cost as the fare for Seattle ferry routes is a round trip fare cost and is 50% off. Like it’s currently $2.05 each way as a reduced fare, which feels reasonable given the transit mode.

      1. Whether people subjectively find the fares too high is beside the point.

        On routes that leave some cars at the dock due to lack of room on board, but have plenty of room for walk-ons, does it not make sense to raise the fares for vehicles while lowering the fares for walk-ons?

        Also, sorry I botched the price point absurdity argument. It is cheaper to bring a car with you than to walk on with TWO friends, round trip. The basic economics seems lost on the WSTC.

  3. One of the rider complaints in the Sounder Study is the high presence of scooters & bikes that take up space onboard. On CalTrain in S.F., they have car that is designated for bike space alone. I’m not sure how popular that feature would be here in Seattle.

    On Link, bikes & scooters annoyingly take up large amounts of space and bump into other riders on crowded trains. I wonder if a seating reconfiguration would solve that issue.

    1. Because Sounder has a terminus at King Street, which is just about nobody’s final destination, you almost have to bring a bike or other last-mile solution.

      Solution 1: Build a couple more stations in downtown/Belltown/Ballard.

      Solution 2: Improve the transfers from Sounder to Link and bus lines.

      Solution 3: Have a fleet of rental bikes outside the Sounder stations, so that you can reliably expect to be able to get your last mile.

      1. Improve the transfers from Sounder to Link and bus lines.

        They don’t seem that bad right now. What improvements would you like to see?

      2. I’d love to see the schematics to see if they could build a tunnel between the Sounder tracks and the Link tracks. Especially if ST wakes up and realizes they should build 4th Shallow.

        Up the stairs, across the bridge, across a busy road and down again is almost certainly much more than a 5 minute transfer.

      3. Buses, I am less familiar with, because I almost always just bring my bike if I’m staying downtown. I get on Link if I’m travelling longer distances, like Capital Hill or North of the Ship Canal.

        3rd Avenue buses look like they are a climb and several blocks away though. Not ideal for inter-city service.

      4. Bikes are always going to be faster — in every city, no matter how good the transit. There was a reason why couriers used bikes. But if you are taking transit to the north end of downtown it doesn’t look bad to me. You don’t have to walk all the way up to Yesler (although that might be the fastest option — it isn’t that far). I think the two closest stops are on Jackson (just east of Fourth) and on Fourth (south of Jackson). Most of the buses end up going on Third, but some of the buses on Fourth stay on Fourth, which is handy for trips a little more up the hill. For First Hill there is always the streetcar (such as it is).

        It may require some quick thinking though. For example you might walk over to Jackson and hop on the 7 (if it is the first bus that arrives). Then you have to try and remember (or figure out) where it ends (turns out it is Virginia). If you are heading further north then hop off and take another bus. My guess is commuters have their system (and know which bus to take) while others rely on the navigational apps on their phone.

      5. Yeah, my experience is with NYC, where the regional trains just plug seamlessly into the local network. PATH trains slide right into the trade center, where you can catch half a dozen different local trains taking you to upper Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens. The LIRR and Metro North sliding into Grand Central with a thousand different local connections.

        ST and Metro have made absolutely no effort to make those kinds of easy transfers. If (a very very optimistic if) they do decide to take the feedback and their research seriously, and start trying to build service for Sounder to all day, weekend and evenings, that really has to change. 10 minute walks ain’t gonna cut it. This goes back to your look at people choosing 594 even when they have the choice of the Sounder. The Sounder drops you in a no-mans land of King Street station with middling transfers.

      6. ST and Metro have made absolutely no effort to make those kinds of easy transfers.

        It would probably cost a fortune to somehow integrate the downtown transit tunnel with King Street. Even pedestrian tunnels would not be simple (and unlikely to save you a lot of time). Meanwhile, the buses are quite close. https://maps.app.goo.gl/5Qid37KmWQ2z3cAE6. You don’t need to cross the street.

      7. Huh. I wasn’t aware of that exit on the north end of that platform. Thanks. You are right, that is pretty decent, and does give you access to the 1,2 and 4 as well as 4th Ave buses. I’ll give it a try next time the stars align with my plans in Belltown and the Sounder. At this point, not quite as unlikely as spotting a unicorn in the wild, but close.

      8. They may even add an elevator.

        https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/WASOUND/bulletins/37eda85

        I’m curious how long that entrance has existed. I distinctly remember train-spotting next to Seattle Lighting a decade or so ago, while my wife shopped and never noticing it. But with my brain, that doesn’t mean much.

        As for the tunnel – that would only work with a total rebuild of 4th and a 4th shallow option. Then it would probably be reasonable and obvious. We need a centralized transit hub here.

      9. I think RMTransit had a video about Seattle’s once-in-a-lifetime opportunity in ST3 to turn the King Street Station/Union Station/DSTT cluster into a world-class multimodal transit hub. ST and the city would have to decide to, and abandon their CID/N preferred station alternative.

        I don’t know how you can get a bus from King Street Station without crossing a street, or what Cam means by “routes 1, 2, 4”. From the elevator in the picture (which I’ve only seen the top of so I don’t know where the bottom is), the bus stop in the picture has a handful routes from south Seattle to downtown (you’d have to cross the bus lane). The primary routes to downtown are the 7, 14, and 36 a block further east, at the Jackson Street stops in front of the Link station. The 62 northbound also stops at the Jackson Street stop. The 14 is through-routed with the 1 to Queen Anne (Kinnear), so that’s where the 1 comes in. The 3 and 4 are a half-dozen blocks further north on James Street. The 2 is a few blocks further than that at Seneca Street. So the 2, 3, and 4 would not be good transfer targets.

        There’s another elevator at the south end of King Street Station. I don’t remember exactly where it is, but from the Sounder track if you look southeast across a large paved lot (parking lot?) you should be able to see it. It’s an outdoor elevator that goes up to 4th Avenue at Weller Street. There’s a special midblock crosswalk across 4th to the Union Station plaza and the Link station entrance. So if you want to take Link to downtown or elsewhere, that’s the way to go.

      10. If King County and the City can come up with a spare $3-4B to pay for tunnels to WS and a skyline-changing cable-stayed bridge to overshadow the West Seattle Bridge, it will be supremely disappointing when they say they can’t afford to build the 4th Avenue Shallower station alternative.

      11. “I don’t know what Cam means by “routes 1, 2, 4”

        I may be completely off. Trusting google to tell me how to get to Vindictive Wings, which is really the only destination worth anything in Belltown. ;)

      13. I don’t know what the Sounder entrance thing at the north end is since I’ve only seen it from a distance.

      14. The historical Google Streetview shows the north entrance has been there since at least 2008, but it didn’t have the “Sounder” and train logo decorative window frosting until 2015.

      1. I don’t ride during peak commute time, but there is a decent little area just for bikes, with tie-downs, that can easily accommodate 4 bikes without interfering with seating. I’m surprised this is really a complaint. Sounds like cranky bike haters. Maybe provide a real rack instead of velcro straps, to make is less chaotic.

        Where did you see these responses?

      2. @Solomon –

        “Sounds like cranky bike haters”.

        The hatred or, atleast the annoyance, is justified but misdirected. Link is becoming more crowded with standing loads, especially on shorter 3-car trains. There’s not enough space to properly stand your bike upright and store it in the designated spot. So many cyclists simply block the aisles or entryways with their bike.

        As for the Sounder, commuters are apparently experiencing the same thing. A solution for the Sounder is a bike-dedicated car. A solution for Link? Maybe less seats or an all-side seating configuration.

      3. A solution for Link? Maybe less seats or an all-side seating configuration.

        Or ban them during certain parts of the day (BART used to do that if I’m not mistaken). To be clear, I’m talking about full-size bikes. A folding bike would be fine (and not much different than luggage if you put in a bag or case).

      4. It makes it very difficult to plan a trip. I’ve had to lock my bike and abandon it, and wait for the next train in SODO when encountering crush-loads on link. Not ideal, but self-enforcing. Almost made me late for a job interview, because My planned-for last mile was 15 minutes instead of 3, and I was already 8 minutes behind from skipping the train.

        So maybe if I’d known they were banned ahead of time, that would have been a good thing. Of course the next train was empty. ;)

      5. “A separate train car (for bikes and scooters) seems like the way to go.”

        I’m not sure I understand the reasoning. How would this be an improvement?

        Are we talking like Amtrak’s luggage car? Or just forcing anyone with a bike to stand in seatless car next to their bike for an hour?

      6. @ Cam –
        The only time Ive experienced a bike-only car was on CalTrain in SF. The lower level was dedicated to bikes and the upper level for seating.

    3. Do they? I’ve never seen a bike or scooter on Sounder.

      What times is Sounder full, such that a bike would displace another passenger? I thought Sounder was never full in the post-covid era.

      1. I bring mine on, and I sometimes see 1 or others, but I don’t go during commute times.

        I think the mornings northbound are getting pretty full again.

        But every car has room for bikes (though there are a few cars these days where bikes are off-limits. Not sure why.

        It would have to be a 8-10 bikes or 6 bike e-bikes in a single car for it to start to become a problem, I think. Maybe it’s a courtesy issue, where bikes are blocking folks? Dunno.

      2. @Mike, I’m assuming the Sounder is full during peak period (that’s when it only runs). The report also mentions standing room only between Seattle and Auburn.

    4. I see a lot more luggage than bikes, and don’t recall ever seeing a scooter on board. Maybe people don’t complain about luggage because most riders have, at some point, brought luggage.

      But bike riders get othered. I don’t know where the scooter enmity comes from.

      At least nobody complains about wheelchairs, which are relatively rare.

      What really takes up space are the car parking garages next to the stations.

    1. The bunching is really rough right now. I think SDOT is responsible because of the light timing but I was hoping it would be fixed by now. It’s been 3 weeks and nothing yet?

    2. It’s partly the fault of Metro. Like most transit agencies, dispatching is antiquated and outdated. Dispatchers aren’t proactive and diligent seeing the whole picture. They’re tunnel-visioned into blocks and runs. So they’ll just allow 4 buses to follow one another in a row. A solution to this would be to take the 2 trailing buses out of service and immediately place them in the opposite direction. That way service going the opposite direction will experience less of a delay and wont see 4 buses bunched up on their side.

      1. As Ryan Packer reported that was the case initially but since then they’ve had supervisors manage the load (https://www.theurbanist.org/2024/09/19/metro-works-to-smooth-out-bumpy-rapidride-g-launch/). I do think it would be interesting for Ryan to do a follow up in a month or so and see how things are progressing. My impression (just by looking at One Bus Away from time to time) was that things were really bad the first couple days but have since settled down.

  6. Word on the street is that the CT restructure has been highly successful.

    Double digit ridership growth on the Swift lines with Swift Orange seeing the biggest gains. And solid growth on local lines too.

    CT boardings at MTS up over 300%, although the pre-restructure numbers were small to begin with.

    ST Express seeing large decreases, which isn’t a big surprise.

    The interesting thing (at least to me) is that about 70% of Link boardings at Lynnwood Transit Center are non-transfers. Meaning that most people are accessing Link at Lynnwood via walk/bike/car. That implies that ridership on the corridor is actually expanding significantly above the previous, pre-Link, commuter bus levels. That is good news.

    This is what a successful bus restructure looks like.

    1. Interesting, 70% of boardings being non-transfers sounds kinda high, without knowing the numbers pre-restructure/pre-LLE. I imagine there’s only a limited number of folks that could walk/bike to Lynnwood Transit Center, and the garage is limited to the number of stalls. It sounds like there aren’t that many people taking the bus, given how many routes connect at that station now.

    2. The interesting thing (at least to me) is that about 70% of Link boardings at Lynnwood Transit Center are non-transfers. Meaning that most people are accessing Link at Lynnwood via walk/bike/car. That implies that ridership on the corridor is actually expanding significantly above the previous, pre-Link, commuter bus levels.

      I’m not sure why you would conclude that. It is quite possible that a lot of people that used to walk or drive to their bus stop are simply driving to the Lynnwood Park and Ride.

      That is good news.

      Again, I’m not sure why you feel that way. There are only so many people that can walk to the station. The parking lots — although very large — can only hold so many cars. It is unrealistic to expect a lot of people biking to the station. For these stations to get a lot of people it has to come from the buses.

      It will be tough to measure, since unlike other transit agencies it is very difficult to find information about how many people rode individual CT buses. So even if it turns out that ridership is only 10% more than the previous express service (the 400-series buses) we may never know.

      1. What’s the % of Link boarding in Seattle are non-transfers? I have always assumed TOD (aka people walking to the station) was the primary driver of Link ridership, and housing growth around the Shoreline & Snohomish stations will be an important driver of Link ridership as well.

        It makes complete sense to me that bus transfer ridership will be muted until the P&Rs are full, as driving to the station is more convenient for most riders. Once the parking is consistently full, people will shift to the inferior option of a bus transfer. This is why it is important to price parking at the station, to nudge most riders over to taking the bus. Parking at the station during commute hours is the premium service.

      2. I have always assumed TOD (aka people walking to the station) was the primary driver of Link ridership, and housing growth around the Shoreline & Snohomish stations will be an important driver of Link ridership as well.

        But it is a different dynamic. A neighborhood like Capitol Hill is going to have a lot of people walking to the station and a lot of people walking from the station. A station like Roosevelt (which you could consider TOD) is similar. But that is highly unlikely in these stations because they aren’t destinations and very close to the freeway. A lot of the land that is close to the station can’t be developed. Riders who live close to the station also live close to the freeway. People who liver there are more likely to own a car and drive for regular trips. This report https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/files/economics-of-urban-light-rail-CH.pdf specifically calls out this type of development:

        Two species of overexpansion in U.S. cities deserve special mention. First is an overemphasis on serving transit-oriented developments … transit-oriented developments frequently disappoint.

        (I won’t copy everything — it is better to just read the original.) They aren’t talking about places like Columbia City or Roosevelt, but places that are quite similar to the various Lynnwood Link stations. I’m not saying ridership will be as bad as the examples they gave, but I don’t think we can expect a huge number of walk-up riders. Likewise with bikes. That basically leaves people using the park and ride and there is a hard limit on that. To be fair, the Lynnwood Park and Ride is huge. Maybe it just needs to fill up so more people will take the bus to the station. But my greater point is that unless a lot of people take a combination of buses and trains, we won’t get that many riders.

      3. Roosevelt station is 2 blocks from I5. Not sure why its TOD potential would be much different than Lynnwood’s station area.

        That’s an excellent Manhattan Institute white paper – I’ve read the whole thing.
        Your quote left out the more relevant parts: “Because of strict zoning laws in developed areas of cities, these developments often must be built
        miles from established downtowns. As such, transit oriented developments frequently disappoint. New, isolated developments are rarely large enough to be self-contained or offer the amenities of true city
        center.”

        Yes, if the midrise zoning is just a narrow band around the station, like at Columbia City station, Rainier Beach, 135th, and Seattle’s side of 147th station, the TOD will not generate all-day ridership. Denver, LA, and Dallas are all good examples of inadequately sized TOD neighborhoods. But I don’t think Shoreline and Lynwood are making these mistakes. Even Montlake Terrace has 14 full blocks of midrise zoning – not much smaller than Northgate’s footprint.

      4. All the housing within walking distance of MTS is SFH. Some Terrace Station Apartment residents might get weened off of driving to the station by new frequent Metro route 333. I’d be curious to see which CT routes have seen a dramatic increase.

        I bet parking at Terrace Station is bundled with rent.

      5. We’re forgetting the share of folks who get dropped off too. Would that count as driving? Theyre.not.taking up parking spaces. But having experience in Lynnwood, I can attest that drivers and bus transfers outweigh walkers or cyclists.

      6. It takes years for station areas to mature. Data from the first month is interesting but it’s subject to change.

        Now that the stations are here, it’s a good time politically to get more realistic about station areas.

        I see lots of planning about getting people from homes to the station but little on creating walkable destinations near stations. Walkable places are far more important for destinations, because people can’t drive their cars once they park at their originating station.

        These new stations should anchor new places that people elsewhere will want to ride TO — and not just ride FROM.

        When I see all the station area plans consist of mostly new apartments my heart shrinks. Why should I journey there unless I’m visiting someone who lives there?

        I know it’s tricky. We rely on the private sector to create most destinations. But there are things that can be done — like figuring out how to move museums or hospitals / medical buildings to be better attached to stations. We could have performance spaces at stations (an aside the naming a station Symphony or Stadium is brilliant because it defines an activity to travel to).

      7. @AJ,

        “ What’s the % of Link boarding in Seattle are non-transfers”

        That is an interesting question, but I don’t know. I only know the story for Lynnwood City Center station. And I only know that because it was incidental information to some other data that I sought out.

        It would certainly be interesting to know the percent of transfers vs. non-transfers for each of the Link stations. And I am sure somebody at either Metro or ST has such data. Maybe somebody else on this blog should seek it out, because I’ve used my golden ticket for the next few weeks. It’s somebody else’s turn to step up.

        However, the basic point remains the same. Link represents a huge river of ridership. It is in the best interest of the bus agencies to attempt to tap into that ridership by offering quick, easy, and convenient transfer opportunities to their customers.

        CT has apparently successfully done this. Good for them (and their ridership base). Hopefully the other agencies follow CT’s lead.

      8. It is in the best interest of the bus agencies to attempt to tap into that ridership by offering quick, easy, and convenient transfer opportunities to their customers. CT has apparently successfully done this. Good for them (and their ridership base). Hopefully the other agencies follow CT’s lead.

        There is really only one agency that is not doing that: Sound Transit. Metro has done it — quite aggressively — for years (remember the U-Link restructure). Pierce Transit doesn’t run buses into Seattle. But ST continues to run the 596 from Tacoma to the UW, ignoring the fact that Link has connected downtown to the UW for quite some time now. ST is also running the 510 from Everett to downtown.

        So are you basically chiding ST for not doing what other agencies have been doing? If so, you should call them out specifically. Otherwise it implies that this is an issue with agencies like Metro or Pierce Transit (and it clearly isn’t).

      9. “All the housing within walking distance of MTS is SFH.”

        Oh yes, I noticed that when I did my station area walk a few days before opening. I was going to write a series on the station areas but I got sick just after that for three weeks.

        There’s one big new apartment complex just south of the station, but beyond that when I walked east on 236th Street it was all houses. My stopwatch reached 12 minutes at the next two apartments, on the east side of 56th. There’s an intersection sign there saying “Town Center”. The two apartments have a couple Asian restaurants on the ground floor, and that brewery where the Urbanist meetup was. The real civic center with city hall and library is a block west and a couple blocks north of there.

    3. What does “word on the street” say about how full the Lynnwood City Center parking garage is? It has 1670 spaces according to ST.

      I’m also curious what Sounder North ridership has been. Any “word on the street” about that?

      1. @Al S,

        I don’t know about parking utilization. I don’t typically like to bother people with questions I don’t care about.

        The main takeaway is that the CT restructure has apparently worked very well. Ridership on CT buses is up significantly since Link opened, and up substantially on Swift in particular. This is all very good news.

        And this gets to the core of what I’ve been saying for a while now. Our local bus operators have a lot to gain by tapping into the river of ridership that Link represents. Higher bus ridership and better operating economics are all possible by providing better integration with Link.

        CT apparently has done this. And they have increased local coverage in the process — and all within current budgets. It’s a good thing, particularly for the citizens of SnoCo.

      3. The main takeaway is that the CT restructure has apparently worked very well.

        That is not surprising. My guess is the “commuter routes” weren’t doing as well as they used to. But they kept running them (as I would expect). Thus by moving service around, they get a jump in ridership.

        Our local bus operators have a lot to gain by tapping into the river of ridership that Link represents.

        It is not clear that is happening. According to what you wrote earlier, not that many people are taking buses to Link. It is more about the service change. They are running the buses more often. This means the trips in Snohomish County (most of which have nothing to do with Link) are much better. Of course it will be difficult to tell since CT doesn’t release route data, let alone stop data. We will be left guessing how many people transfer at Lynnwood TC and how many just ride the buses somewhere else.

        Anyway, what you are talking about is basic stuff (bus/rail integration) and has been happening for a really long time. It has been hampered by ST more than the various bus agencies. For example you can’t send the buses to 130th if there is no station there. The RapidRide E can’t connect to the Link Station on Aurora because there isn’t one. The buses from Renton and Kent go right under Link but stop at the freeway Link station because (you guessed it) there isn’t one. Bus to rail integration has never been a priority for ST.

      4. In other words, we have to go look up the actual data ourselves.

        Do you know where that would be? ST does release ridership data (although they have been slow in updating it this year). But I don’t know where to find thinks like park and ride numbers. With Community Transit I’ve never been able to find individual route ridership numbers. Maybe some of the Swift routes, but even then they are often lumped together.

      5. “Of course it will be difficult to tell since CT doesn’t release route data, let alone stop data.”

        Well, there’s my friend in north Lynnwood. She was worried that the truncated express buses to Lynnwood Station and the station itself would be overcrowded, but she says they’ve been fine. What’s packed is Link in north Seattle and sometimes Shoreline. She lives a 40-minute walk northwest of Ash Way P&R, or half that if she can get the hourly 119 bus, which rarely happens.

        She told me about one recent southbound trip, where she was able to catch the 119, then took the 512 from Ash Way P&R to Lynnwood Station, then Link to U-District. It all took an hour, which is the fastest her trip has ever been. In the past it would often take an hour and a half or longer. This was just one lucky trip where everything lined up right, but she doesn’t think it would have been possible without Lynnwood Link.

      6. Al, in the CT board meeting today they mentioned the Lynnwood Transit Center garage is hitting full utilization pretty regularly – Mountlake Terrace around 75%.

        Mike, your friend might be happy to hear that the 119 is running every 30m during peak periods on weekdays now. It’ll get 30m headways during midday sometime in the next year or two according to CT’s plans. It’s still not great, but at least it’s not hourly.

    4. L, I’m curious what you meant to say on double-digit ridership increases on SWIFT. Certainly, SWIFT gained more than 99 daily boardings.

      1. From the CT Board Meeting today: https://www.youtube.com/live/g74yKf86bmM?feature=shared&t=1665

        You can look at the video for more details, but compared to before LLE, the post-bus restructure ridership for Swift are:

        Swift Blue + 7% to 44200 weekly riders
        Swift Green +14% to 19900 weekly riders
        Swift Orange +36% to 18400 weekly riders

        I thought Swift Blue would’ve seen a larger ridership bump given the extension to Shoreline North / 185th, it’s a bigger bump for Swift Green than I expected.

    1. I’ve been wondering the same. ST was regular as a clock for years, but completely missed the last report.

  9. My roommate may be getting foot surgery so I may have to bring him home from the hospital. In the past I’d ask a relative or friend to drive us, or he would summon an Uber. But I don’t know anybody with a car now except someone who would have to come all the way from the south edge of Seattle, and he may not be in a condition to summon an Uber. I’ve never used Uber or a taxi so I’m not sure how to do it. So my questions are:

    Is it ethical to use Uber when it exploits drivers and doesn’t pay a living wage or benefits? Would it be better to use Lyft or one of the other companies because Uber has such a large market share and most people don’t think about the others?

    Or for a regular taxi, how do you find a taxi company and order it? In old TV shows somebody at a hotel or hospital would ask them to order a taxi for you, or you’d look in the yellow pages and get a list of all the taxi companies. I’d imagine hospitals at least would still have a list of taxi companies and their phone numbers. But nowadays people often say “I don’t know, we don’t have that anymore, most people use Uber, you’d have to figure it out yourself”, so I don’t want to count on it. I could ask Google, but then I’d get whichever company has paid the most for placement. So which are the best taxi companies? Can you still order by phone (voice) without installing an app?

    1. I would recommend Lyft. They give a higher percentage to their drivers, and have slightly higher corporate ethics, iirc.

      Just download the app. It’s pretty straight forward, and you can even order it in advance, so you don’t have to wait.

      3. I don’t know. It seems like a natural fit, right? Is there a reason they wouldn’t?

        He would have to submit an eligibility form it looks like.

      4. You have to qualify for Access. You apply and then they take you to somewhere near Harborview for a functional test. My elderly relative with a walker who can’t walk more than two blocks tried a couple times and was rejected because she could use the simulated wheelchair lift. She said, “My problem isn’t getting into the bus, it’s walking to the bus stop!” Finally she tried again and was accepted. So you have to have a severe disability. And I don’t know if it’s set up for short-term things like foot surgery.

    3. The taxicab companies still take phone calls. For example: https://seattleyellowcab.com/. They have an app as well. I think there is an app for all of the (traditional) cab companies, but I forget what it is. I’m with Cam, Lyft is a good option as well.

    4. The other day, I just barely missed a 255 bus coming from from the U-district and grudgingly paid for an Uber to avoid being stuck at the Montlake triangle for 30 minutes.

      Booking the ride with the app was easy, the but price of $45 to go 8 miles was absolutely insane. Considering how Uber rips off its drivers as well as its riders, I’m going to guess that the driver earned around $12 for the ride, with Uber’s shareholders pocketing the remaining $33 for themselves. (Assuming driver expenses of $1 for gas a $4 for the bridge toll, this feels about right).

      Assuming my guesses are accurate, the vision of Uber going driverless making these rides affordable is an utter joke; at best it would eliminate the $7’ish in compensation for the driver’s time, but the huge windfall for the corporation and its CEO and investors would remain.

      This also illustrates why we need buses to run at decent frequency. If the bus ran every 10 minutes or even every 15 minutes, the time difference between waiting for the Uber vs. waiting for the bus would be negligible, making the bus a no-brainer. When the wait time for the bus is 30 minutes, the option to wait and the option to pay both suck. And I can’t help thinking that simply driving myself into Seattle, sitting in rush hour traffic, just to have the car available for the return trip would have cost a tiny fraction of what that Uber ride cost. This is what happens when we have a transit agency that is short on money and bus drivers and can’t run one route at decent frequency without screwing over passengers on other routes.

      1. The 255 should definitely run every fifteen minutes. It does most of the day, but not at night (I assume that was when you were taking it).

      2. The driver takes more of the cut. I believe it can be anywhere between 50% to 75% of the trip fare. Here’s a Uber receipt from a trip I took. It doesn’t explain who gets more of the fare, the driver or Uber, but it does show someone like Mike what to expect in terms of charges if you use the service.

        Trip Fare: $17.79.
        Booking Fee: $2.04.
        WA Driver Resource Center Fund Fee: $0.15
        King County accessibility and admin fee: $0.33.
        Driver Paid Sick Time: $0.61.
        Tip: $5.23.
        Total: $26.15.

        That was a 9 minute ride. I think I tipped 25% of the trip fare plus fees. As far as Uber vs Lyft, I have noticed many Uber drivers also work for Lyft. I’ve never asked which service pays them more. If someone is concerned about Uber drivers not being paid a living wage, I’d say the solution to that is not boycotting the service (do you boycott restaurants for not paying the wait staff a living wage?), but to use the service, then tip well.

      4. “Oops, I forgot to enter the tip into the app. Here’s the tip (cash) I would have paid.” :)

      5. My understanding is that most ridershare drivers these days sign up for both Uber and Lyft, so they can switch back and forth to whichever is offering the better pay at the moment. And, when both services offer near identical pay, they keep both apps open at once, so they can accept whichever ride request comes first to minimize unpaid waiting time.

        The pay is still very shitty, but this has now become standard driver practice.

      6. “The 255 should definitely run every fifteen minutes. It does most of the day, but not at night (I assume that was when you were taking it).”

        It was at 8:30 PM on a Tuesday. So, at night, but not super late. When the 255 was restructured, they did, in fact, run it every 15 minutes, and it was great. But, it was cut back to every 30 minutes after 7:30 PM during the driver shortage and that’s where it’s been since. I have zero faith of 15 minute evening service being restored when the driver shortage abates. Much more likely, the service hours will be spent running the not-yet-opened I-line (Kent->Renton) for “equity” reasons.

        I suppose when the full 2 line opens, the additional option will exist to ride the Link around the horn to Bellevue and catch either the 250 or Stride bus to Kirkland. The catch is that Link from UW to BTC is, I think, something like 45 minutes, so not actually any faster door to door than standing at the bus stop for 30 minutes, waiting for the next 255.

      7. “I have zero faith of 15 minute evening service being restored when the driver shortage abates. Much more likely, the service hours will be spent running the not-yet-opened I-line (Kent->Renton) for “equity” reasons.”

        But you’ll have 15 minute evenings to Bellevue when the K opens. So at least you’ll have 15 minute evenings to somewhere, even if it’s not to Seattle. :)

        The I line is already budgeted for frequent service; it’s not going to take “restoration hours” from other routes. The timelines were set years in the future so that driver availability and the economy and revenues and ridership would be better by then to accommodate the route.

      8. If Pierce County is any indication, the driver shortage is already abating. They’ve slashed my buddy’s PT overtime hours. He claims PT has too many drivers.

        I’m not sure if this is because PT is willing to start drivers full-time and Metro isn’t, but if that’s the reason, the poaching will be swift.

    5. Use Lyft, just to avoid the monopoly as you point out. Of course, you might get the same car; most drivers subscribe to both.

  10. I just spent the last week going to Chama, NM using public transit between there and Albuquerque. Is there any interest in a “trip report” type article?

  11. If you’ve visited Portland recently, you’ll notice TriMet is operating a few single car trains on the orange and green lines, as these have not recovered enough to really need two car trains yet.

    One of the reasons for the single car trains is lack of yard space. The 100 series cars (Type 1) are going away, and are being replaced by 600 series (Type 6) cars. The type 6 hasn’t been approved for use just yet, and it takes some time to remove all the type 1s from the yard but aren’t in a condition to be operated as part of their removal. So, there is an empty space once occupied by a Type 1 from time to time.

Comments are closed.