Transit Service & Projects:
- Mass Transit: Amtrak awards construction contract to PCL Construction Services to upgrade King Street Yard; the upgraded yard will service new Airo trainsets set to start rolling in 2026.
- Westside Seattle: Sound Transit Board to vote on adoption of final route for West Seattle Link Extension on October 24.
- King County Metro Matters: Work underway to correct RapidRide G Line shelters; also covered by the Seattle Times ($)
- Community Transit: Community Transit proposes lowering reduced fares
- Sound Transit: Auburn Station Parking & Access Improvements Project broke ground last week
- Sound Transit: Ballard Link Extension EIS scoping comment period is delayed. The Draft EIS is expected to be published in “Late 2024”; process delays at this point are… interesting.
- King County Metro Matters: Use transit to get to Climate Pledge Arena and help ‘Release the Kraken’
- Community Transit: Switch Your Trips this October and participate in Washington State Ridesharing Organization’s (WSRO) latest initiative, Switch Your Trips.
Streets & Public Space:
- The Urbanist: Overlook Walk Finally Opens as the New Seattle Waterfront’s Centerpiece; the concrete stairway is arguably Seattle’s first truly new public space in decades. Also on KUOW.
- The Seattle Times ($): King County adds traffic safety measures at crash site near Renton
- The Urbanist: Transportation Chair Saka Questions School Zone Camera Expansion Plan
- Sightline Institute: The State of Parking Mandates in Washington, which are arbitrary, excessive, and extremely expensive.
Land Use & Housing:
- The Urbanist: Mercer Island Plans to Densify Town Center… With a Big Catch
- Notes from the Emerald City: The budget fight over affordable housing continues as questions surface about 2026
- The Seattle Times ($): 250 tiny houses built by volunteers are available for free but governments haven’t gotten around to deploying them.
- The Seattle Times ($): Seattle churches wanting to build affordable housing face testing times
- KING5: Zip Code in Mountlake Terrace (98043) has nation’s hottest housing market, data shows
- Bloomberg CityLab: The Corner Store Comeback. Corner stores (as in, stores in otherwise residential neighborhoods) are illegal to build in most cities; Seattle may legalize corner stores in residential neighborhoods, but only if the lot is literally on a corner.
Commentary:
- Seattle Bike Blog: Proposed 2025 Seattle budget shows why passing the transportation levy in November is so important
- Seattle Now & Then: Washington Motor Coach crash of June 24, 1946
- The Urbanist: Op-Ed: Wallingford Can Build a Brighter ‘Seattle of the Future’
- Slate: How to Fix America’s Dangerous Roads
- Otherwords: Public Transit is Essential — We Need to Fund It Now
This is an Open Thread.
Capitol Hill Seattle: More problems with RapidRide G.
https://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2024/10/report-repairs-underway-as-city-screwed-up-wheelchair-access-on-platforms-and-every-bus-shelter-on-new-rapidride-g-line/
@Al S,
Ya, the Metro PR Spin Department has been doing a pretty good job keeping a lid on the RR-G story, but the news does seem to be trickling out slowly.
First it was headway management issues, but Metro announced they were going to deploy supervisors to the field to fix the problem. Then we heard a couple of shelters needed touch up paint, and now we hear all of them have to be removed, repaired, repainted, and reinstalled. And now we hear 3 of the stations are built to the wrong height. RR-G is the story that keeps on giving!
That said, the more serious reports from RR-G opening day were the reported problems with traction and fishtailing (if that is even the right word with an artic). Issues with misdrilled holes and platform heights can be fixed, but traction issues are more serious.
But hey, maybe the traction issues were only on the steel plates. If so, then they are just an artifact of the other issues. And the solution is just to keep RR-G off steel plates!
Must be a slow news day if Lazarus is criticizing Metro’s PR “spin” department even though Metro broke the news on their own blog. Meanwhile, when that premier non-legacy transit agency has station quality issues, we only find out when the service alerts inform us the train is single-tracking for a week.
I agree that the traction issues far outweigh the other issues. But are you making a wild guess that steel plates are the culprit, or do you have evidence?
Nathan,
ST relies on the STB commentariat to break news. So does tU, but they just usually don’t admit it.
At any rate, the hill traction issues are quite disconcerting, regardless of who is or is not talking about it. Maybe the problem has been solved, but I haven’t seen official acknowledgement that the problem exists, or at least existed.
@Brent White,
Agreed. The traction issues are by far the most serious problem (apparently) with RR-G.
I have absolutely no data indicating that that traction issues are with the steel plates. And I doubt that any of the actual stations are at that gradient. So if the traction issues are real, then I’d at least bet that the traction issues are not at the platforms.
But we won’t know for sure until we learn more about these (supposed) traction issues. Where? When? Etc.
We need data.
L,
Your assignment, for which you have raised your hand, is to ride the G Line a few times, and see if you detect the traction issues.
If anyone else has noticed traction issues on the G Line, please say something, including where.
the Metro PR Spin Department has been doing a pretty good job
It was SDOT that made the mistake, not Metro.
the more serious reports from RR-G opening day were the reported problems with traction and fishtailing
Where is the article mentioning these issues? This article says nothing about it: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/platforms-and-shelters-improperly-built-on-new-capitol-hill-rapidride/. This article says nothing about it: https://www.theurbanist.org/2024/09/19/metro-works-to-smooth-out-bumpy-rapidride-g-launch/. There are the articles from Capitol Hill Seattle Blog. None of them mention traction issues. Maybe it was fixed (if it ever was a serious problem).
Ross, per Lazarus’ and Brent’s comments, I believe they’re referring to reported issues in our own comment section during the launch week.
Yes, we are Faux News of the center-left lane.
I believe they’re referring to reported issues in our own comment section during the launch week.
Which are basically rumors. It reminds me of the Montlake vent shaft. For years people said this limited the ability of trains to run frequently between the UW and downtown. Turns out this was not an issue at all (https://seattletransitblog.com/2015/03/21/capacity-limitations-of-link/). It is quite possible that a couple buses had some traction problems and they were just an anomaly. It is also possible that Metro fixed it and it was such a tiny issue that the Metro representative — who talked about the other issues — didn’t bother to mention it. Either way, given the lack of any coverage I have to assume it isn’t an issue.
People saw it fishtailing; I don’t believe commentators would make it up to create a rumor. I don’t recall anyone experiencing traction problems; they just speculated it might in heavy rains. I said that I didn’t see any traction problems in my first trip. It remains to be seen what it does in heavy rain, but we have had a few rains, so how did it do then?
@Al S,
Here is another oddity about the RR-G construction issues.
I noticed the other day that some of the platforms with the temporary leveling plates only have the plates installed on one side of the center platforms. Apparently meaning that one side of the platform is at the correct height, whereas the other side of the exact same platform was built at the wrong height!
How Metro can build the exact same platform at two different heights is beyond me. Unbelievable.
@Lazarus — It was SDOT that did the work, not Metro. I fixed your comment. I figure you are used to complaining about Metro so that is why you made the mistake. You have made that same mistake two times now though. Try to double check your comments.
@Ross,
Please don’t change my comments to reflect a meaning that I didn’t intend. I did not give you permission to change my comment.
Please change it back to the original wording.
OK, I changed it back. But I added a note just so that people don’t get the wrong idea. You are free to make false statements, but expect to be corrected.
I’m also surprised you prefer to make knowingly false statements.
@Ross,
Please also remove your editorial comments. They are unwanted, and I stand by what I said.
I am not a Metro apologist, and I don’t buy into the “Metro as innocent victim” narrative. Nobody should.
RR-G didn’t land in Metro’s lap like manna from heaven. Metro was the lead agency on the project and certainly deserves a large junk of the blame. How much? Well….
I’d certainly support an investigation of this project by an independent agency, provided such independent agency had full legal authority to subpoena all internal and external Metro records. The goal of such an investigation would be to:
A). Determine the exact extent of all problems with RR-G
B). Determine the responsibility for all identified problems
C). Recommend institutional changes and fixes to avoid such problems happening again in the future.
I think we can all agree that the RR-G rollout has been a bit of a fiasco. And I think we can also all agree that Metro can do better in the future. And should do better in the future.
So let’s get to it.
How Metro can build the exact same platform at two different heights is beyond me.
Metro did not build the platform!
This is from the article:
It turns out, the Seattle Department of Transportation placed the segments to raise buses the less than an inch required for the RapidRide wheelchair ramps to properly operate.
Got it? SDOT built the platform. Unless you are claiming they are wrong, in which case, do so! Stop suggesting that the article describes one thing when it describes another.
Look, I get it. You hate Metro. We all know that. But they do not control the weather. They did not eat the cats and dogs in the neighborhood. Get your facts straight. Constantly correcting you — for the same misstatement — is rather annoying. I thought it was a mistake but now it is clearly on purpose.
How are bus stops on such steep hills even meeting ADA to begin with?
Is it better to have no bus service in the Madison corridor?
The staff report in the West Seattle extension is here:
https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/ActiveDocuments/Resolution%20R2024-22.pdf
It’s devoid of discussion of the huge cost increase. It does not waiver from the preferred alternative that the board created last year.
Apparently, either the staff is onboard with denying any financial problems or they are being restricted / censored with making a concern about it.
Has there ever been a project with a $2B cost increase ($7B total) to be so whitewashed?
The discussion is at the end of the Background section, but doesn’t say anything new. Since the Board directed ST to develop a cost-savings & revenue boosting work plan by next week, I’m not surprised the Staff Report is sparse on the matter.
Stairs both ways for everyone! And only one elevator per platform!
the original project cost is 2.3 billion (2024 dollars), it’s had a cost overrun of 4.8 billion to 7.1 billion (2024 dollars)
Last time we tried getting HCT to West Seattle, the line got severely truncated and also reduced to one track (Seattle Monorail Project).
Anyone want to guess where the post photo was taken? I’m getting a 32nd Ave NW in Ballard vibe, but I’m not so sure. I think the homes were smaller, and more packed together on 32nd.
On 30Sept, I posted here about the termination of Bus20 with inadequate replacement of bus service for the south half, leaving transit dead zones west of I-5 in the neighborhoods of Licton Springs, Green Lake and East Wallingford. Our community outreach (SaveBus20Service.com) showed that many students, workers without cars, seniors, disabled persons, and those accessing Light Rail with luggage or young children in tow are now suffering inadequate or unsafe bus service. Several promising partial solutions were offered:
To Address The Transit Dead Zone in East Wallingford:
* re-route Bus62 east on 56th street and then north on Latona Ave to 65th,
* split the Bus62 route in half and run half the route east on 45th Street and then north on Latona Ave to 65th Street (following the now terminated Bus20 route).
To Address The Transit Dead Zone in North Green Lake
* re-route Bus45 from its current East Green Lake Way path to the terminated Bus20 path (i.e. Woodlawn Ave, 1st Ave NE, 80th Street)
Unfortunately, this past week, Metro has sawed off all the bus sign posts at ground level, rather than simply removing the signs from the post. This seems to me to have been unwise, given the documented need for bus service in these dead zones and the promising solutions that have been suggested.
It would be months before anything changes in the area. I’m not sure when the next service change is, but my guess is Spring of next year at the earliest. I wouldn’t read too much into the bus stop changes. The tough work is for the pavement, shelters, etc.
In terms of plausible changes, I think the most likely one is to move the 62. The first thing I would do (if I lived in the area) is contact my city council member (I think it is Strauss) and see if he knows anything about it. I would emphasize that moving the 62 is a “win-win” situation. The buses would be faster but it would cover more of the area. Also mention that Metro wanted to do this, but was rebuffed by the city who apparently were concerned about the hardness of the street. That was before the current mayor (and SDOT head) so maybe it isn’t an issue anymore. If folks at SDOT say it is OK, then you begin pestering the county with the same argument. Again, the key is this is win-win. This makes it dramatically different than typical requests that end up costing money, not saving it.
Of course once you get close to moving the 62, folks around Woodlawn will complain about losing their bus stops. But that is where the 79 comes in. You extend the 79 to that neighborhood (by running east on 65th and north on either Sunnyside or Woodlawn). That is a minimal extension. The savings from moving the 62 is more than enough to pay for it. Thus riders in Tantletown have additional service, riders of the 62 who ride the bus through Tangletown have a faster trip, Metro saves money. Win-Win-Win.
What qualifies as a “transit dead zone?” One is in a transit dead zone when they have to walk at least how many blocks or minutes to a bus stop? This comment sounds sorta snarky, but I’m actually being sincere.
The general rule of thumb is 400 meters (https://humantransit.org/2010/11/san-francisco-a-rational-stop-spacing-plan.html). So if you are more than 400 meters to a bus stop, then I would consider you to be in a transit dead zone.
Of course it is a bit more complicated. A lot of people are willing to walk farther than that, especially if the transit is high quality. The type of walking matters as well. Hills make it tougher. So do lack of sidewalks as well as just the overall pleasantness of the walk. Of course just as some people are willing to walk more than 400 meters, some people don’t care much about the hills or the quality of the walk .
400 meters is for stop spacing along a route. Route spacing is a different matter. If Metro needed a route within 400 meters of every address, it would need a lot more routes.
400 meters is for stop spacing along a route. Route spacing is a different matter.
Turns out they happen to be the same. 400 meters is the international standard for stop spacing along a route. But to quote the webpage I referenced:
… transit planners generally observe that the walking distance that most people seem to tolerate — the one beyond which ridership falls off drastically — is about 400m (around 1/4 mi) for a local-stop service …
Walker then goes to explain the ramifications of this (stop spacing as well as line spacing).
The other way of interpreting Sam’s question is literally:
A transit dead zone is one in which attempting to cross the road to get to a bus stop, or walking next to get to a bus stop, is a fatal proposition.
Eg: you can ride past Snohomish Balloon Rides on CT 109, but you’d have to be pretty desperate to walk along Highway 9 to get to it.
An awful lot of Snohomish County is that way: it has bus routes, but no safe way to get to them.
Just looking at the southeast Greenlake neighborhood, if being in a transit desert means one is more than 400 meters away from the nearest bus stop, then only a very small area fits that description in that neighborhood, and that is about a one block area around Latona and 56th. Once you are outside that one block radius, it’s no longer a transit desert, because it’s closer than 400 meters to a bus stop. In other words, it’s not the whole neighborhood that is in a transit desert, only one block (maybe two) in the center of the neighborhood is.
@Sam — By my measurement it is a little more than that, but still not a lot. It is about 400 meters from 45th to 50th, so the holes start north of there. To the north you have Ravenna and Woodlawn (which complicates things). But by my measurement everything north of 63rd is covered. That means the hole is roughly east of 1st Avenue NE between 50th and 63rd.
If the 62 was moved the hole is even smaller. You basically just have the area west of Corliss between 60th and 65th. If they extended the 79 (as well) then the service hole basically disappears.
Even without any changes there are much bigger service holes in Seattle, let alone the rest of the region. Even if you measured it by population (or better yet, calculated the sum of the distance that everyone had to walk) it probably isn’t close to our worst service hole. I only feel like fighting for the move of the 62 is worth it because it seems like one of those rare opportunities where you could increase coverage while making the bus faster.
I would have expected the posts to stay up for at least a month with the Rider Alerts.
Maybe the other neighbors were complaining about the pointless sidewalk furniture.
Defining transit deserts by distance from the nearest bus stop sign brings up a larger question: Should every bus stop at every corner in order to increase transit walkshed?
Should every bus stop at every corner in order to increase transit walkshed?
No. Not unless every block is huge. See the website I referenced.
@James W Little,
“ Unfortunately, this past week, Metro has sawed off all the bus sign posts at ground level”
Yep, Metro seems intent on removing all vestiges of the 20, and doing so as quickly as possible. And apparently everything is just being thrown away.
However, I did hear that, if you talk to the guy doing the removal, he will actually give you one of the old #20 signs to hang in your house. I guess you can use it as sort of a sad reminder of vanishing Seattle.
In other news, I saw the supposed replacement for the 20 (it isn’t) in actual operation on Monday. I saw two #61’s traveling totally bunched near North Seattle College. They were literally on each other’s bumpers. Not a car between them.
The first #61 had exactly 4 passengers onboard. The second #61 had exactly zero passengers, for an average of two riders per bus. This was at noon and EB. So much for the Fred Meyer Shuttle!
I don’t think we will ever truly know why Metro was so intent on eliminating the 20, but it looks like there is no going back now. It’s a shame.
How else do you get from Lake City to Aurora or Greenwood? Those are far larger areas than the 20 segment south of Northgate.
You seem to have a thing against Lake City. First arguing against 130th station, then against the 61.
The 61 is a brand-new route. It takes people a year or two to one by one realize a new bus corridor exists, that it could benefit their trip, or to move to the neighborhood now that the route is there.
The second bus is empty because they’re bunched. The first issue is to see whether bunching is common on that route, and what bottlenecks may be causing it. Bunching isn’t uncommon on Metro routes: it happens on several of them, not just the G. It will continue happening until Metro gets more service hours and drivers so that it can put more buses on congested routes and have more standby buses like it did between 2016 and 2020. That’s how it solved a lot of the congestion problems that were happening in the early 2010s, but it doesn’t have those resources now. Or buses could get more reliable if car drivers stop driving as much and clogging the roads.
The route 20 signs were up for over two years. I guess that counts as historic architecture in this town.
At some point we will provide a report on the 20 (as we did with the 70 the other day). I’ve got the data, I just need to write something up. Here are some interesting facts:
1) Most of the riders got on and off the bus north of 85th. For an inbound bus (i. e. a bus heading to the UW) 527 riders a day (on average) got off the bus before 85th. This is slightly more than half the total boardings.
2) Very few people used the bus in Tangletown. An average of 81 riders heading to the UW and 43 heading towards Northgate.
3) Almost as people took the bus as it overlapped the 44 as took it in Tangletown. An average of 78 going away from the UW and 43 heading towards it.
This is more or less what I assumed. Basically Metro got rid of a section that had very few riders or was redundant. It is a shame that people have to walk far for a bus, but it is quite likely there are a lot more people in other parts of the city that have it much worse.
I think as another user below mentioned I’ve seen a few people freaking out about the loss of the #20 but I don’t really understand why. This route if you look at it on a map didn’t cover a large area and it covered almost entirely Single-family Homes. The #62 covers far more density-focused and growing urban spaces like Lake City and Greenwood and connects them to light rail. Don’t get me wrong I think some part of the #20 vanishing is a loss. I think Core Greenlake losing another route option sucks and Blanchet losing its route sucks but most of the route was kind of underused as we see below and Core Greenlake does still have the #62 and the Lake City part is covered by the #61 now. So all and all I just feel the #61 makes far more sense.
I agree, Nicholas. You hate to see an area lose coverage, but that has happened a lot of the years. The new routing just makes a lot more sense.
Oh, and for what it’s worth Blanchet still has very good bus service. It still has the 45 and the 61 is a half block away. The only thing they lost is the one-seat ride to Tangletown, but in exchange they got more frequent service to North Seattle College, Northgate and Lake City.
The most equitable way to judge the transit needs of areas with transit dead zones, is to create a list of of all the transit dead zones in King County, then rank the areas in terms of things like density, income, proximity to other transit, and other factors. Like an equity scale. Hundreds of locations throughout the county will make the list. I’m not sure the Latona & 59th area would make the top half of that list.
@Mike Orr,
“ The second bus is empty because they’re bunched”
Well duh. Bus bunching is fairly simple. In fact, I still remember my dad explaining it to me when I was about 8 years old. His explanation is still accurate today.
But one characteristic of bus bunching is usually crowding of the lead bus, and in this case the lead bus only had 4 riders onboard. That is pretty darn unusual for the lead bus in a bus bunching situation.
But hey, maybe someday Metro will just give the Fred Meyer Shuttle the old #20 treatment and cancel it too. It seems to be becoming a pattern.
maybe someday Metro will just give the Fred Meyer Shuttle the old #20 treatment and cancel it too. It seems to be becoming a pattern.
You seem very confused. I wrote about this in more detail, but allow me to summarize: Very few people used the part of the 20 that got eliminated. Way more people used the part they kept.
This is the pattern. Metro has eliminated routes (or parts of routes) with hardly any riders. They have kept routes (or parts of routes) that have more riders.
You’re ready to cancel a brand-new route based on one experience one day. Maybe a bus came two minutes earlier and picked up most of the passengers. Try riding it a few times on different days at different times and then tell us what you find.
How many riders did the 20’s southern half have? Maybe the same number, 4, maybe fewer.
Speaking of posts, I assume this is standard practice. For example, prior to UW-Link, the 10 used to stay on 15th Avenue East until Pine. Then it got moved. This means that a stop on 15th was removed. You can see what the stop looked like using Google Streetview. Here is a picture from 2015: https://maps.app.goo.gl/u3t2Se9eLNEDuyTo8. Here it is two years later: https://maps.app.goo.gl/AjwuSq83Qh7bYdRx7. The post is gone (as is the shelter). This makes sense to me. Unscrew everything and take it away. I don’t think it makes sense to have phantom posts sticking out of the ground. I could see leaving the shelter (it is a nice place to sit) but I could also see Metro just installing it somewhere else. Or maybe the property owners would rather use that space for something else. I can’t imagine someone wanting the post but maybe they ask the locals if they want to keep the shelter (with the understanding that they have to maintain it).
In any event, that doesn’t mean this is a permanent change. There is a bus stop there now (Google just hasn’t taken a picture of it yet). My guess is the southern part of Latona won’t have transit again but the northern part will (if and when they move the 62).
Is the 62 a milk run? On the one hand it connects urban villages and is frequent (unlike milk runs that often miss village centers and are infrequent). On the other hand, it’s long and slow (due to congestion and barrow streets), so it’s an ordeal to take even for the trip pairs it serves.
Last week I made the mistake of taking it at 5:30pm westbound. It reached the epitome of congestion: throughout 65th Street and Ravenna Blvd, then a reprieve to 50th, then more congestion through to Fremont where I got off.
No wonder it’s notoriously late every day all afternoon. it’s not one bottleneck like the Fremont Bridge, but a thousand cuts everywhere.
With a speed and meandering like a milk run. Yet it provides important connetivity for all trip pairs between downtown, SLU, Fremont, Stone Way, Wallingford, Green Lake, 65th, and Sand Point — trips that have no alternative except Link Westkake-Roosevelt and the downtown-SLU(Fremont) buses, which are only available south if Fremont.
Is the 62 a milk run?
It kind of depends on where you take it. From Sand Point to Roosevelt Station it is a straight shot. A lot of people use it for that. From there to Wallingford it wanders around too much. From Wallingford to Fremont it is straightforward again. Then it uses Dexter to get downtown — the slowest of the three options I assume (Aurora fastest followed by Westlake). But even though it is the slowest option, it is at least straight. So it does take a while to get from Stone Way to downtown but the only section I would call a “milk run” is in Tangletown.
The alternative for Tangletown has been discussed before. I do think 56th to Latona is a huge improvement.
As far as the rest of it though, I don’t think there is a good alternative. I suppose the 62 could just get on Aurora (like the 5) but then (like the 5) you lose your connection to lower Fremont. You still need to cover Dexter. One option would be to send the 28 there. This would be an increase in service for the 28, which means it wouldn’t happen until we have more money and no longer have the driver shortage.
Recent events in Florida should serve as a stark reminder that we can’t just spam busses and expect that to be a serious transit solution. For example people are choosing to hunker down in Tampa instead of evacuating because they are worried that they will get stuck on highways and the gas stations are empty.
https://youtu.be/nR9us7L017s?si=_XnmkzlZD3J22GT-&t=55
When this kind of chaos happens (‘the big one’ or whatever else) people won’t respect ‘bus only’ lanes and all the busses will get clogged up in the rest of the chaos. If we are lucky when it happens the light rail will stay online due to being newer and more resilient than the interstates. If there’s ever a need for evacuation at least there’s King Street station that we can access via light rail so we have a way out from most of Seattle without needing a car.
I would caution trying to apply disaster scenarios as for or against transit. the nyc subway itself was shutdown due to flooding, while in the opposite scenario for mexico city the subway continued running during an earthquake.
> When this kind of chaos happens (‘the big one’ or whatever else) people won’t respect ‘bus only’ lanes and all the busses will get clogged up in the rest of the chaos. If we are lucky when it happens the light rail will stay online due to being newer and more resilient than the interstates
I know you’re talking about an earthquake but even if link light rail existed in say tampa it doesn’t really travel far enough for a hurricane scenario. Or you’d still need to schedule bus pickups in the suburbs.
My point was more-so that light rail can funnel people to amtrak stations and they can actually evacuate via that in 3 directions (north east and south). Ferries would also be a help for going west.
NYC is a good example you bring up for what happens when you don’t maintain your transit system.
Maybe a more appropriate disaster would be Mt rainier erupting. IIRC Tacoma is a serious risk in that situation from the ensuing landslides. I’m sure if Tacoma link is online in that scenario, it would make a big difference. Not sure why you would caution discussing how transit would be used during a disaster in a city that’s in the ring of fire.
Another alternate scenario is if a war of some sort broke out. I remember when the Ukraine war started all the trains heading west were packed. If they didn’t have that train system I can’t imagine how much worse it would’ve been for the people trying to get out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzBxFH_hEwA
> Not sure why you would caution discussing how transit would be used during a disaster in a city that’s in the ring of fire.
Not caution on discussing in general but on trying to focus on this as a large advantage.
Like you cited “Recent events in Florida should serve as a stark reminder that we can’t just spam busses and expect that to be a serious transit solution.” I don’t really see how if they had light rail in Tampa it would work better? and most likely the train system would be shutdown as well.
> Maybe a more appropriate disaster would be Mt rainier erupting. IIRC Tacoma is a serious risk in that situation from the ensuing landslides.
Ehh if mt rainier is erupting what would someone from kent head to lynnwood?
Plausible disaster scenarios for the Central Puget Sound:
1) Cascadia Subduction Fault M9.0 Megaquake (aka The Big One): see the Cascadia Rising 2022 Exercise series for results: https://mil.wa.gov/cascadia-rising
– Very Strong to Severe (Mercalli VII-VIII) shaking in Seattle and along eastern Puget Sound.
– Most Seattle-area infrastructure sustains medium to high damage due to liquefaction, knocking out water, power, communication, and thousands of miles of roadway.
– I-5 Colonnade collapses.
– Rail infrastructure in SODO becomes spaghetti.
– Thousands of landslides across the hills of Seattle and its surroundings.
2) Seattle Fault Rupture: an M7.2 shallow fault rupture (aka the Medium One): https://mil.wa.gov/asset/5bac1792b2370
– Significant structural and infrastructural damage across Seattle and its surroundings
– Rail and roadway infrastructure in SODO severely damaged due to liquefaction
– Water, power, and communications severely impacted due to liquefaction and landslides.
3) Mount Rainier Eruption: https://cdn.serc.carleton.edu/files/integrate/teaching_materials/living_edge/mount_rainier_eruption_scenari.pdf
– Seattle not significantly directly impacted, except by ashfall.
– Volcanic ash mudflows (“lahars”) block all major north-south roads around Tacoma, cutting off freight & travel access to Seattle from the South, access to Tacoma in all directions, and access to Olympia from the North.
– Ash prevents flights in/out of Sea-Tac until ash clears.
– Railway shipping is blocked from the South, forcing all rail freight to Seattle to pass through British Columbia until railways are cleared of ash and lahar debris.
In all cases, roadways in urban areas will need to be cleared by plow, and private vehicle travel largely prohibited until recovery efforts stabilize. Emergency bus routes would need to be established based on the nature and extent of damage to roads and bridges. Light rail operations will be dependent on damage to various OMFs, power availability, and damage/blockages on guideways.
The takeaway is the same as always: have enough canned food, fuel, and clean water for two weeks of independent survival. Get to know your neighbors and develop a local support network. Do not depend on any ability to get out of the area quickly in case of emergency.
If Rainier erupted it is quite possible it would cause a lahar down the Puyallup. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Hazard-zones-for-lahars-lava-flows-and-pyroclastic-flows-from-Mount-Rainier-Hoblitt_fig7_258467855. This seems like the most likely “worst case scenario” for an eruption. Notice that it seems to follow the BNSF tracks almost entirely. This is not a coincidence. A long time ago Federal Way and West Seattle were part of an island. Then Rainier erupted and a lot of lava came out the north side of the mountain and filled in the waterways*. This made for a relatively flat area for the trains to run (not unlike Grand Park inside Mount Rainier National Park — an area conspicuously flat).
With such a disaster there are really two phases. People in harms way would have a few minutes to get to higher ground.
Then there is the aftermath. Katrina displaced over one million people from the central Gulf Coast to elsewhere across the United States, becoming the largest diaspora in the history of the United States (according to Wikipedia). It caused quite a bit of suffering as a result. I doubt an eruption would be anywhere near as bad. As with large earthquakes (which seems just as likely) the state is better equipped (if not the federal government) to deal with the aftermath.
*I remember seeing a nice video explaining it but I can’t find it.
> If Rainier erupted it is quite possible it would cause a lahar down the Puyallup.
Yes – but also see the lahar down the Nisqually. The main problem with a Rainier eruption would be the destruction of I-5 in multiple key locations and severing of basically all North-South roads between Seattle and Olympia.
If Rainier erupts during summer months, the dullest and thinnest of silver linings from climate change and receding glaciers would be reduced threat from lahars, as the water in the lahar is largely expected to come from from snowmelt.
All the disaster scenario modelling reports focus on insufficient east-west connections across the Cascades as a major barrier to rescue and recovery.
I don’t think BC would be required, Nathan. A Rainier eruption would almost certainly leave the Stevens Pass line intact. There might be some ash fall in places, but it could likely be cleared within a couple of days. That would give access from California via Spokane for food shipments.
Thanks for the disaster scenarios, Nathan.
Volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and tsunamis aren’t like hurricanes. You don’t see them for two days forming in the ocean and hitting the Caribbean and Mexico first and plan a leisurely evacuation. They occur without warning, or maybe a minute or so. Just enough time to dive behind a piece of furniture or run uphill a few blocks, not enough to wait for Link. You might be able to drive a short distance, but not to another city. Eruptions and tsunamis start from Mt Rainier or the shore, but earthquake epicenters can be anywhere. If several small tremors occur over a few days’ period, that may suggest a larger one is coming, but not when or if or where.
Evacuations would come in afterward, depending on what was damaged where, and whether your house or neighborhood is uninhabitable. It would be highly situation-specific where you would go.
The good news is we don’t have hurricanes, tornadoes, 100 degree summers for three months, snow for three months, or severe droughts like in California.
TT, don’t they only use Steven’s to shunt empty train cars around? While it might be technically passable, I wonder whether it would have anywhere near the necessary capacity.
No, people won’t respect bus lanes. Unless the national guard tells them to (which is a distinct possibility). As far as trains are concerned it is quite possible an earthquake would take them out. What matters after an earthquake is getting people in, not out. The BNSF trains will certainly play a big part, but if the trains and roads are all shut down they would use helicopters and boats.
Yes – ever since my graduate course in earthquake geology studied a potential Cascadia Fault rupture, my speculation has been that recovery from a major earthquake would likely require mobilization of aircraft carriers into the Puget Sound to operate as central nodes for rendering aid. There would be very little operable infrastructure in the Sound, and the coast will be absolutely hammered. Most of the light rail infrastructure may be standing, but we probably won’t have the electricity to power it.
One of the best videos I’ve seen of East Link and Lynnwood Link Extension. Beautifully shot. About 2 minutes long. With an appearance by Claudia Balducci.
https://youtu.be/ePrdToRY1X0
Careful, if you post HNTB content you might get accused of shilling for the company.
I had to do some business related to my ORCA card on Monday. Given all the issues with Metro’s downtown Seattle office, I decided to do something else to fix the problem.
Being that this was an ORCA card issue, instead of going to Metro, I just took Link to Lynnwood and went to CT’s new Ride Store instead.
I walked right in and didn’t even have to wait in line. The lady at the counter was very helpful, got everything done quickly, and even offered me a free cookie (I declined). It was perfect.
I was also surprised by how many people were reverse commuting on Link.
I also stopped at 148th St Station to go for a walk and check out the neighborhood. There is now a big hole in the ground at 155th St. And a notice of another large project across 5th from the station. More TOD a coming!
I also calculated that the parking garage at 148th St Station was 65% full. That was much fuller than I expected given that this was a Monday. That is good news.
The bad news is that the roundabout project on 145th is way behind schedule. It’s a mess.
By the time you got to Lynnwood and back, were some of the people who were waiting in line at the Metro Pass Sales office still waiting in line?
Is your general complaint that ST did not allow Metro to keep the pass sales windows open in Westlake? Or that they never offered free cookies?
Who will be in charge of the pass sales office at Federal Way Station? And will they have a baker on staff?
And why couldn’t your ORCA issue be handled electronically?
Maybe the reason the Lynnwood office is emptier is that ridership is lower in Snohomish County.
What are the problems with Metro’s customer service office? When I went there to replace an ORCA card that had stopped working, the office was fine.
So…..
Word on the street is that SB Link trains are now routinely full on core weekdays (Tue-Thu) at Northgate.
Additionally, all 4 parking garages north of Northgate are now routinely full on the same days. The garage at LCC is now full by about 7:30, while the other garages are usually full by about 8:00. Again, Tue-Thu.
Also, ST Express ridership is apparently falling off from pre-LLE levels, which is probably to be expected.
Of course the crowding problem will go away as soon as Full ELE comes on line, so we only have about a year to deal with this. So that is also good news.
Having Full ELE come on line is going to be awesome. The crowding problem will go away, and there will be twice the frequency in the urban core.
It’s going to be a brave new transit world in Seattle!
There was a long thread on Slack today at work commenting about the same thing. The Lynnwood opening has unleashed a torrent of demand and apparently the train is very full (at least by northwest standards) at peak times.
I’m excited for the full East Link opening as well. I wish that Sound Transit would resume publishing the monthly progress reports so that we could get an update on status.
I recieved this response from ST PR this evening;
*regarding the lack of continued Agency Progress Reports since the June report.
@AndyL.
Ya. I’m actually a bit surprised by how quickly people in SnoCo have taken up LR. There has been an unbelievable amount of new ridership added to the system, and it is going to cause problems with crowding until Full ELE comes online. But that is a good problem to have.
And, while LLE surely is the most significant opening of the last 12 months, it is actually just one of 3 ST rail openings during that period. Things are really changing regionally. And changing for the better.
As per the monthly progress reports, I never understood people’s fascination with them. By their very nature the information they contain lacks detail and is stale well before the report is even released.
If you want more granular and up to date info, you have to go to the other reports. And there are lots of them. Too many in fact. But they contain better, and more current, info,
And, if you want really current info, it is always better to directly contact someone inside one of the agencies. That is how to get extremely current and unfiltered info, you just have to be careful how you use it.
” I’m actually a bit surprised by how quickly people in SnoCo have taken up LR.”
I suspected it would be popular because of geography and demographics.
A. North Seattle is close and has many destinations. 16 minutes to Northgate, 22 minutes to U-District.
B. The north end has fewer north-south highways than the south end. This causes higher congestion and people wanting to escape it.
C. Snohomish County is more working-class, lower-middle class than the Eastside, so more people have lower-paid service jobs at odd hours, cars are a bigger financial burden, and they’re not the kind of people who drive to Neiman Marcus or U Village and wouldn’t consider transit.
South King/Pierce has C but not A or B. East King has none of them. Although there are other arguments for them being high, so we’ll have to see what the balance is when they open.
@Lazarus While I agree that the progress reports were dated, I enjoyed getting even a month-old view into the state of the projects.
I’d appreciate pointers to any other detailed reports that you’ve found useful. The East Link Extension project page is too high level and doesn’t contain any information on the actual status of the project relative to the updated timeline.
I’ve taken Lynnwood Link to Seattle now probably five times. I love it. The ride is smooth, lots of space, no traffic, great park and ride. It’s crowded during the peak commute but not bad other times. The riders are polite and pleasant and in the morning and afternoon look like some work in an office (we are not all janitors or brick layers as Mike suggests), until around U. Dist. then things get scruffy.
In 25 minutes or so you are at Capitol Hill or downtown. Plus only $3 which is less than gas. I never see anyone get off in Shoreline North or South (every time I think of ST or Shoreline dividing Shoreline into north and south I laugh) or Mountlake Terrace but someone from Lynnwood would just drive there. I also don’t see a lot of Seattle dressed people taking the train to Lynnwood. Looks like the opening ceremonies fulfilled their bucket list of going to SnoCo.
Plus I like riding up high. I don’t know if I would ride it back home at night in the dark from downtown past U. Dist. if I were old or a woman. Security is non-existent. Capitol Hill is probably the worst. What happened to that place? Talk about shitting where you live.
Every time I have used Lynnwood Link the park and ride which is huge is full. I mean drive around looking for a parking space full, and the spaces are tight for a truck. I never thought folks up here would drive to a bus to go to Link and looks like I was right. They would drive to Link. Your car or truck is a lot safer in the Link park and ride then some remote bus park and ride and there is a lot of car prowls in this area due to meth.
One suggestion I think is to convert the worthless concrete “plaza into more park and ride space. If it was just restriped it could handle several hundred cars and cost very little. No one is ever going to build a “a retail village” on this plaza, or housing that anyone would want to live in. A surface park and ride would be cheaper then adding more floors onto the garage. Pretty soon Lynnwood Link is going to need more park and ride space. It should be twice its current size.
This is pretty much what people expected, which is why Community Transit convinced Sound Transit to run express buses to downtown. ST responded with the 515, which is a poorly designed express bus that likely doesn’t help much at all (as has been noted many times here). So yeah, it is crowded and will be crowded for the next year or so (during peak periods).
It looks like the agency is being stretched thin when it comes to maintaining the train cars as well. Again, this is to be expected. I forget the numbers, but they typically like to have a certain number in maintenance. So now they have fewer sitting idle (because of the crowding) and the trains are getting a lot more use in general (because they are going farther). Again, this is likely to end in a year.
It isn’t clear if the problem is better or worse than expected. If it is worse, ST could respond with better express buses. If the goal is to attract riders who would otherwise take Link then you want to have buses that skip the stations and provide those riders with a faster (one-seat) connection to downtown. For example the old 522 (which stayed on Lake City Way until it got on the express lanes). This would cost extra and it isn’t clear how big a dent this would have on ridership. One of the things that appears to be happening is that people are quite comfortable just driving to the Park and Ride. This is certainly happening in Snohomish County, which explains why the express buses (which now go to Link) don’t have very many riders, but the Link parking lots are mostly full. It is quite possible it is happening with buses like the 522 as well. Ridership is way down since it was truncated and part of that is obviously due to people working from home. But it is also possible that people are just driving to Northgate (or since Lynnwood Link opened, 148th or 185th). There are also plenty of people who come into work, but not every day. A lot of people (including me) hate to drive in traffic every day. But we are OK driving two or three times a week — which means they are more likely to just drive to the park and ride.
One option would be to charge for parking in the park and ride, especially during peak morning hours. Arrive between 7:00 and 9:00 and expect to pay money (after that it is free). The money could be used to help run more express buses to downtown. Of course that would really upset people and since the problem is fundamentally temporary, I doubt they will do that. I think ST will just muddle along for another year.
“It looks like the agency is being stretched thin when it comes to maintaining the train cars as well”
They’ve resorted to sending out raiding parties.
@Jim Cusick,
I’m not really sure what you are referring to with your “raiding parties” comment, but if you are referring to ST pulling staff from the greater Metro labor pool, then please understand that this is by design. And that such a possibility exists at the behest of Metro and the unions.
When ST was formed both Metro and the Metro unions advocated for ST not having their own O&M staff. Supposedly Metro feared the loss of political clout that would come with a large number of employees “belonging” to a completely different agency, and the unions feared the potential consequences of dealing with two separate and distinct employers.
Neither concern has a basis in fact, but unfortunately Ron Sims listened to Metro and the unions, and now ST O&M staff are actually Metro staff. This is a bit of a headache for ST, but now it is also a headache for Metro.
One consequence of this arrangement is that ST IS (mainly) free to pull staff from the greater Metro labor pool as needed, and Metro is then responsible for backfilling with new hires.
Metro didn’t anticipate that most employees would prefer to work on the ST side of the house, and of course nobody anticipated the pandemic. But here we are.
However, I generally have no problem with ST pulling staff from the greater Metro labor pool as needed. Link clearly is the higher priority service as it moves more people per FTE and at lower cost. So keeping Link fully staffed and operating at 100% should be our main goal, and Metro can backfill as needed.
Lazarus, you’re spreading a lot of misinformation today. Sound Transit cannot take employees from Metro. Jobs are filled through the application process. No Metro employee can be forced to work for Sound Transit.
“Most employees would prefer to work on the ST side of the house.” Proof?
“When ST was formed both Metro and the Metro unions advocated for ST not having their own O&M staff.” Proof?
“the unions feared the potential consequences of dealing with two separate and distinct employers.” Metro’s main union, the Amalgamated Transit Union, represents other area transit agencies, like First Transit, Pierce Transit Community Transit, etc. So why would they “fear” representing both Metro and Sound Transit employees separately?
@Sam,
ST isn’t forcing anyone to transfer to the ST side of the house. ST just makes the transfer opportunity available and people take it. Working on the ST side is considered preferable, particularly for operators who have much better personal safety in a Link cab than in a Metro bus.
It’s just freedom of choice.
I’m not really sure what you are referring to with your “raiding parties” comment,”
Lower case on “M”.
“ST just makes the transfer opportunity available and people take it.”
They’re offering good reason for a lot of people to make the jump, not just Metro.
“Working on the ST side is considered preferable, particularly for operators who have much better personal safety in a Link cab than in a Metro bus.”
Lazarus, that’s another inaccurate statement. You are transferring your personal biases onto situation, then stating it as a fact. There are pros and cons to both jobs and both organizations.
I don’t think there was a dramatic different between STX and KCM driver preference, but there was always a strong preference for Metro drivers to drive Link. This was clear in the financials, because the most senior Metro drivers would bid for the Link roles, causing ST’s average driver pay to be well above KCM’s. So while Link is very unlikely to have the driver staffing issues KCM does, this revealed preference by the union employees does cost ST more.
I can confirm from my time at ST that having the Link O&M hourly staff being all KCM employees, while the salaried staff are ST employees, is a massive headache, introduces useless complexity, communications delays, and reduces trust, and is not sustainable.
I don’t think the ATU is important here – the ATU locals are by county, so if ST employed the drivers directly they would still negotiate with the same ATU local. Instead, the key incentive for KCM to keep the Link staff under the KCM payroll is it allows for KCM overhead AND KC overhead (two distinct things) to be partially charged to ST.
Thanks AJ for the post on drivers.
Sam, you write:
( Lazarus) “Working on the ST side is considered preferable, particularly for operators who have much better personal safety in a Link cab than in a Metro bus.”
(Sam) “Lazarus, that’s another inaccurate statement”
(Sam). “You are transferring your personal biases onto situation, then stating it as a fact. There are pros and cons to both jobs and both organizations”.
According to AJ there is a preference among Metro drivers to drive for ST, but not so much among STX and Link. Why do you think that is? And what are the “cons” to driving for Link you mention but don’t list?
It can’t be pay and benefits, because the driver’s pay and benefits are set by the union contract whether they drive for ST or Metro.
It probably isn’t route preference since senior drivers can choose the routes and time of routes. If safety were a concern they could choose a safe suburban route and earn the same compensation.
It could be that driving a train is seen as more prestigious, and I think riders think Link is a cut above buses. There is the benefit of not having to deal with the public when driving Link, whether health (Covid/flu) and not exposed to drug residue, or safety (not dealing with the public, a better cut of rider). Link has a lot fewer stops, and no traffic congestion which can be hell for a Metro driver.
According to AJ who has personal experience and also financial data to support his statement that Metro drivers prefer to work for ST. So the most senior Metro drivers switch. Why do you think that is rather than just knocking down Lazarus’s assumptions.
Begin with the assumptions Lazarus has offered and you state are “inaccurate” what are your reasons Metro drivers with the seniority to switch prefer to drive for ST.
@AJ,
Thanks for the informed opinion from a (former) insider who knows the facts. It is much appreciated.
Regarding the following:
“there was always a strong preference for Metro drivers to drive Link. “
This goes without saying. ST Link operator positions having always been considered the best operator jobs available locally.
“ the most senior Metro drivers would bid for the Link roles, causing ST’s average driver pay to be well above KCM’s. ”
This is also true, for Link. But as Link moves many more passengers per operator hour than does a Metro bus, the higher operator pay is less of a driving factor in ST financials. Moving 800 people per operator hour is much better for the bottom line than moving 60.
“I don’t think there was a dramatic different between STX and KCM driver preference”
No, not when comparing a plum Metro route to an STX route. They are somewhat comparable. But ST doesn’t have to convince a senior Metro employee on a plum Metro route to move over to STX. ST can still fill an open STX position with a junior Metro operator wishing to move away from a less desirable Metro route with higher levels of social disorder.
Basically a junior Metro operator can grind it out and eventually build the seniority to get a plum Metro route. Or that same junior Metro operator can take a similar STX position today without the long wait. Many operators take the quick route.
But the bottom line is as you state, ST doesn’t have much trouble filling open operator positions. Certainly not for Link, but also for STX.
Fact Check, having known a couple of Metro bus drivers, and a couple of Link operators, I think I have a basic understanding some of the pros and cons of each job, and why a Metro bus driver may not want to go over to Link. But also why they actually would want to go over to Link.
Why a Metro bus driver may not be interested in being a Link operator:
– They like the variety of routes Metro and ST Express offers, and they wouldn’t want to be limited to just light rail two lines.
– They like interacting with passengers. Think Nathan Vass.
– They like (or need), shorter trip lengths.
– They feel there is more opportunity for advancement and promotion at Metro than at Link.
– Some bus drivers may have the schedule and days off they want, and are worried if they switch to Link, they might not be able to keep them.
– They may believe that operating a light rail train would be more stressful.
Why a Metro bus driver may want to become a Link operator:
– Smoother ride. Less wear and tear on the body. Older drivers, or those with back issues, may switch for health reasons. No more potholes and rough roads.
– Bus drivers with a lot of customer complaints see Link as a way to end the complaints. No more interaction with customers, no more complaints.
– Relatedly, some drivers really don’t want to interact with the public, and want to get as far away from customer interaction as they can, and see Link, where they will be isolated in a cab, as being a perfect environment for their personality type. (This is a fairly common motive).
– Bus driver = more stigma. Light rail operator = less stigma.
– It’s a challenge.
– They want to be part of something new and exciting. They are bored of driving buses. Light rail trains, new to our region, are much more interesting to them.
As to why drivers with high seniority might want to go over to Link? I’m not even sure if that is true. Because when you see Link Operators at platforms walking to and from the cab, what’s the average age? I’m guessing about 35 years old. I see a lot of old, grizzled bus drivers, but not a lot of old, grizzled Link drivers. But let’s say it is true. Why would higher seniority bus drivers want to become a Link operator? Probably for some of the reasons I mentioned above.
Fact Check, read their statements again.
Lazarus: “Working on the ST side is considered preferable, particularly for operators …”
AJ: “but there was always a strong preference for Metro drivers to drive Link.”
The only issue I have with statements like these, and why I view them as inaccurate, is because the majority of Metro drivers do not want to become Link operators. It would be more accurate for them to say that for some Metro drivers, working for Link is preferable. Their statements leave the impression that most Metro drivers want to become Link operators, and that’s simply not true.
@AJ,
“ I can confirm from my time at ST that having the Link O&M hourly staff being all KCM employees, while the salaried staff are ST employees, is a massive headache, introduces useless complexity, communications delays, and reduces trust, and is not sustainable.”
Most people who are aware of the situation have been saying this for years. Trying to run an organization when most of your key hourly staff report to a completely different organization, with different reporting structures, is needlessly complex, inflexible, and costly. It would be far preferable from an ST Ops and cost point of view to have all key ST staff actually belong to and report to ST.
“key incentive for KCM to keep the Link staff under the KCM payroll is it allows for KCM overhead AND KC overhead (two distinct things) to be partially charged to ST.”
I was not aware that Metro was doing this. I am not an anti big government kind of guy (far from it), but I do think all government should be transparent and accountable. Metro shifting costs to other organizations is not transparent, nor does it make Metro accountable for their own cost structure and spending.
It is far better to have each organization accountable for their own expenses. At least then it is clear which organization is doing a good job, and what the actual expenses are.
Yet another reason for ST to have its own staff.
But thanks for your informed input.
I’ve said for awhile that STs subcontracting system has been bad for them as an agency as it leads to an inconsistent experience and inflexible operations to passanger demand, with each county basically is its own little kingdom with its own routes and bus fleet when they realistically should be run by ST itself as one division seperate from the local transit agencies and have multiple of their own operating bus yards across the three counties.
To give an example of the weirdness around STX as an example. 566 (Auburn/Kent to Bellevue/Redmond) is considered a KCM route but 560 (SW Seattle to Bellevue via Renton) or 577 (Federal Way to Seattle) is in King and should be operated by KCM you’d think but is a PT route despite it not touching any part of Pierce whatsoever and has to spend a lot of wasted time getting back to its operating base down in Pierce.
Looks like ST is expecting to be able to open East Link around Late November, according to a presentation given to the System Expansion Committee today. If all works out, Systems Integration Testing will wrap up in May, allowing for training to take place from June – August and Simulated Service from September to November.
I wonder if ST will move trains across I-90 to supplement 1 Line service at any point before the ELE opening.
Also looks like there will be 4 weekend closures between Cap Hill + SODO for some tie-in work, one this fall (weekend of 11/8) and three in the winter.
See page 5 of the presentation for the timeline: https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/ActiveDocuments/Presentation%20-%20East%20Link%20Budget%20Amendment%20and%20Contract%20actions%2010-10-24.pdf
Closure details: https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/FinalRecords/2024/Presentation%20-%20Passenger%20Impact%20Portfolio%20Plan%20-%2010-03-2024.pdf
@D,
Thanks D. That is some good info. And up to date info too.
The opening of Full ELE will be massive. Can’t wait.
While opening across Lake Washington is big, so is the ability to run 2 Line trains to Lynnwood. Given the current crowding that may even be more impactful to peak hour riders.
That date should commence no later than the beginning of simulated service — several weeks before opening. Even before that, ST could gain access to all the train cars at the East OMF which should really help ST.
One other thing dawned on me yesterday. That is that the hours of operation for 2 Line simulated service will be longer than what 2 Line runs today. So 2 Line will get more hours of service when testing begins.