Third and University, May 14, 1929. Item 3390, courtesy of the Seattle Municipal Archives.

Transit & Streets:

Land Use & Housing:

Commentary & Misc. News:

This an Open Thread.

102 Replies to “Midweek Roundup: Limbo”

  1. I’m just going to come out and say it:

    Sound Transit’s Progress Report approach isn’t working.

    The latest change is that the System Expansion tab has a “Fall Progress Report” pull down tab. But if you click on it there is no specific progress report. And it has no month — just “Fall”. The new tab only has PR blog articles, photos and videos.

    https://www.soundtransit.org/system-expansion-progress-report

    And the original Agency Progress Reports still announces that the progress is listed in each project’s tab — but there isn’t a progress report on any of the tabs that I see.

    One of the better things about ST was its accountability in the past. That now appears erased these past few months. Note that this is a sea change in public disclosure.

    And all of this is on top of the removal of September Link ridership data a few weeks ago. The latest ridership is still from July.

    1. A “progress report” is not a PR video consisting of a handful of photos of construction with background music.

      A “progress report” is budget, schedules with an anticipated opening date, a narrative of recent progress and upcoming risks.

      Like the report issued every month until June 2024.

      How stupid does ST staff think the public is?

      1. Seems like they’re hiding some bad news. More delays for East Link, perhaps? I guess we’ll find out eventually.

      2. The Board knew in 2019 the plinth issue would delay the 2023 opening of East Link but withheld that information until 2022.

        The real concern is if the lack of information has nothing to do with proper installation of the plinths but that the plinths and post tensioning won’t reduce vibrations reaching the concrete pontoons, the fundamental problem ST has been addressing since the original engineering firm stated in 2021 it was not possible to run light rail across a floating concrete bridge, certainly not four car trains at 50 mph every 8 minutes mainly to serve the CID to Lynnwood route.

        I wonder how the East King Co. subarea would feel if East Link can only run from Mercer Island to Redmond? Instead focus on completing Issaquah Link to Kirkland to complete an Eastside Link system and use the 550 for cross lake ridership but reroute the 554 to Bellevue in the meantime.

      3. @Frank
        I hadn’t heard of this engineering report that floating bridge light rail was impossible. Do you have a link to that?

      4. Or the vibration issue is something an early report said that later turned out not to be an issue. We can’t automatically take one early report by one firm over everything else.

      5. @ Frank K:

        I feel your concerns.

        The general trend about ST disclosure appears to be drifting to more and more secrecy. That coupled with way too many service disruptions on tracks and in stations that are less than 5 years old points to some possible serious structural problems.

        The constant turnover at the top, the way that an idea that wasn’t on the table can become the preferred alternative and the way that the advice is to give staff more authority all are warning signs. Add to that the increased vagueness of the next four Link openings (now “Spring 2925”, “Late 2025”, “2026” twice) and it paints a dark cloud over what should be the most exciting era for ST. These dates are just months away — not years! Cities and local bus operators need to know these dates!

        It’s like we are getting the biggest PR snow job possible — focusing on our rail transit fantasies.

        The practical matter is however the system has to be built and operated in very real terms. Photos and diagrams are cool — but the system bluntly has to work 18+ hours a day everyday. No one will remember the photos if service doesn’t open or keeps getting regularly disrupted. That goes for escalators and elevators too.

        I get that it’s a tall task. It’s not easy. However it takes a management team who be frank with the public as well as experience on how to take a rail project to completion and operate it for several years.

        The recent hires of Goran Sparrnan and Terri Mestas and promotion of Russ Arnold are a good indication of the problem. None have ever run a rail system before ST. They are smart people — but clearly not seasoned on how to run a high demand rail system. They aren’t equipped with years of being in the trenches of actually running a rail transit system elsewhere. ST appears to not seek out management from people that have decades of actual rail experience who know how to avoid and remedy basic construction and operational problems of running a rail transit system.

        It’s ok to not have seasoned experience at the top among one key management person — but to keep hiring all the people at the top without it is stupid at best and malfeasance at worst.

      6. My apologies. The engineering report was in 2001, not in 2021. At that time light rail had never been built to cross a floating concrete bridge, and still today it has never been done.

        Throughout the years ST has addressed the issue of vibrations in four different ways which are explained in some of the links below (you may have to copy and paste them).

        ST in 2017 invented a new hinge that goes between the fixed bridge deck and floating bridge span. Before the new hinge was invented ST was worried four car trains at full speed could not cross the bridge, and at that time ST was estimating tens of thousands of peak commuters each day.

        Later ST installed new guy wiring to reduce pitch and yaw between the bridge deck and bridge span.

        Then ST post tensioned the concrete. When the bridge was built despite the center roadway being for rail the concrete was not tensioned for rail.

        Finally ST installed “plinths” to raise the rails off the concrete surface to reduce vibrations. This however prevents buses using the center roadway if Link cannot run.

        I am not a bridge engineer and what I know is from following the press reports and ST documents over the years. I am not suggesting these solutions have not worked, and according to ST they will work. I am just wondering why ST and the Board have gone dark again on East Link. Maybe if the Board had been more transparent and Link across the bridge was not five years behind schedule I would be less suspicious. After all, I learned BLE would cost $20 billion less than a month ago.

        Testing and then actual service will determine how well these solutions work. I am sure it will be a template for the rest of the world since this is the first time light rail has been run across a floating concrete bridge.

        Test shows I-90 bridge can take light rail | The Seattle Times

        Light rail on I-90 bridge presents unique – and pricey – problems – Shift Washington

        World’s first light rail on a floating bridge: For I-90, Sound Transit had to invent ‘a brilliant solution’ | The Seattle Times

      7. “Finally ST installed “plinths” to raise the rails off the concrete surface to reduce vibrations.”

        Plinth risers are used pretty everywhere on all Link lines, except in the transit tunnel. Making the bridge compatible with both buses and light rail would involve encasing the rails in concrete, resulting in a very heavy structure. Unless they add vibration isolators like they did for the section undef UW, it’s not really that good at reducing vibration.

        The plinths are the supports you see on any Link section outside the transit tunnel and ML King.

  2. Why Ballard Link remains in limbo: The board’s lack of discipline and insatiable appetite for micromanagement and poorly conceived scope additions. If ST can’t afford WSLE, all those challenges multiply for Ballard, especially with all the scope that’s been added that was not funded by the ST3 plan: two stations straddling the ID instead of one, deeper longer tunnels there, more elevated and tunnel profiles north of downtown, etc.

    ST3 passed EIGHT years ago, and there still is no DEIS for Ballard. Eight years, and no decisions. Eight years and no design. Eight years of death-by-process because politicians don’t have the spine to step up and make tough calls. What a horrible reflection on the quality of leadership on such an important investment.

    1. I think it should be mentioned that much of the time between 2017-2020 was spent on the segment between Smith Cove and Ballard, rather than the more expensive and significant segment between Smith Cove and SODO. It was about 2020 when the CID transfer station started coming to a head. And the needed details and discussions about designs around Westlake and SLU and Seattle Center are still not happening like they should be by now..

    2. BLE is not in “limbo”. It is cancelled. Fesler was probably correct when he put the true cost estimate at $20 billion. The subarea will maybe raise half of that through 2046. That is why the Board pivoted toward what is affordable for N. King Co. during the realignment: stations at 130th and Graham St., and WLE ending at a stub at Sodo. Not quite the dream in 2016 but what is affordable in 2024.

      The Board won’t do it yet, not formally, but BLE and $800 million stations at 4th Ave. S. are not affordable. So it is time for this blog to move on and begin consideration of some kind of express bus service from Ballard, probably a surface station on 14th, to Westlake and hope that is affordable after WLE is completed.

      1. When you say “it is cancelled”, do you mean that it is actually cancelled, or do you mean that you are very confident it will be cancelled?

      3. @Mars

        As Ross noted, neither ballard nor west seattle link extension are cancelled officially by sound transit.

        Though there is a large gap between how much money sound transit has versus it’s plans. Sound Transit will have to heavily modify/truncate to build the ballard or west seattle link extension. The current plans are financially impossible to build.

      4. The boards publicly-available policies and deliberations haven’t diverged from a full buildout. A staff presentation to the system expansion committee a couple weeks ago on WSLE noted changes in which alternatives are being pursued and cost estimates (higher-priced tunnels, rising costs), but didn’t change the opening date of 2032. Some people wonder why, since rising costs would presumably require delay, additional revenue, or deferring/canceling the project. One answer may be that this report wasn’t tasked with analyzing cost-feasibility or delays; that would be in another future report or board directive. But it indicates that as far as we can tell, the board and staff are still full steam ahead, contrary to Frank’s assertion. Behind the scenes they may be less certain, or debating whether to publicly consider actions that they heretofore haven’t — or they could even possibly be preparing for a cancellation but wanting to get more ducks in a row before giving any public indication of it. We don’t know. The most likely scenario is full steam ahead, and making modifications only when absolutely necessary (e.g., when they hit the debt ceiling, which was previously estimated to be from the late 2020s to the early 2030s).

      5. Again, it doesn’t matter as much what they do before construction starts. If they cancel a project before then, the only money we’ve lost is a relatively small amount for planning. But if they cancel it after construction starts, then they have to pay contractors to exit contracts, bondholders for any bonds they’ve raised, repay federal grants, and have unfinished infrastructure they’d have to patch over for safety and maybe pay to make it less of an eyesore or restore vegetation.

    3. “And the needed details and discussions about designs around Westlake and SLU and Seattle Center are still not happening like they should be by now.”

      Isn’t that what ST has been doing the past year as it considered more late alternatives around Westlake and SLU and Seattle Center? That’s one of the causes of the delays, but it’s also “details and discussions and designs”. What designing do you want that ST isn’t doing? Alternatives ST refuses to consider? That’s not really late designing or not designing, it’s rejecting ideas ST thinks don’t have merit.

      “BLE is not in “limbo”. It is cancelled. Fesler was probably correct when he put the true cost estimate at $20 billion. The subarea will maybe raise half of that through 2046. That is why the Board pivoted toward what is affordable for N. King Co. during the realignment: stations at 130th and Graham St., and WLE ending at a stub at Sodo. Not quite the dream in 2016 but what is affordable in 2024.”

      I’ll take that as one person’s opinion, since you haven’t indicated how you could have any inside knowledge on what bordmemers are thinking. A second interpretation is to take it at face value: ST expects to build the stub first and BLE/DSTT2 afterward. A third interpretation is ST doesn’t know what to do with the cost projections so it’s punting for now, and it needs more time to come to conclusion.

      The WSLE report was only a couple weeks ago, and this is a big issue. ST says it hasn’t reached that level of cost analysis for BLE/DSTT2 yet, and it thinks it may be able to find ways to reduce the cost increase there. ST wouldn’t cancel a project when it doesn’t have that information yet. ST tried really hard to get “ST 3 & 4″ projects into ST3 so that it wouldn’t have to go to back to voters again for the last third, and cities would have certainty about whether they’ll get rail (so that they can plan density around it and stand up to nimbys and justify the upzones for Link).” ST wouldn’t throw that all away, especially the voter authorization for the rest of it, because it would have to go through that again and would be less likely to get yes.

      “That is why the Board pivoted toward what is affordable for N. King Co. during the realignment: stations at 130th and Graham St., and WLE ending at a stub at Sodo.”

      What’s the point of a stub at SODO? The stub only makes sense if BLE/DSTT2 is coming soon so West Seattle can connect to downtown/Lynnwood. Surely even the dimmest boardmember or staff can recognize that. The stub is too short for a standalone line, and a transfer in SODO is the middle of nowhere, and the south line won’t reach 5-minute all-day service until BLE/DSTT2 is open, so the off-peak transfer wait would be 10 minutes, for a stub that’s so short (so the waiting time is a significant percent of the total trip time).

    4. I’d it’s necessary to make painful choices, there’s no reason why a West Seattle stub to SODO has to have priority above all else. There are tons of better ways to spend that money within the North King/ST3 charter. For instance, maybe start by focusing on just Ballard to Westlake, ignoring the second downtown tunnel, for now. Unlike West Seattle, a Ballard stub that ends at Westlake is actually quite useful. To operate it, they could build a new OMF in Interbay, and/or add surface running tracks through downtown to allow empty trains access to the SODO facility.

      Or, find a way to make the West Seattle stub continue through the existing tunnel out to Lynnwood.

      If money is tight, the second, redundant downtown tunnel should be the first thing to go.

      1. Asdf2, even if DSTT2 is scrapped, and we estimate DSTT2 to cost between $4 billion and $5 billion (with some of that paid for by the other subareas) the cost of Link (in its present form built by ST) from Ballard to Westlake will cost around $15 to $16 billion even if some of that is along the surface.

        N. King Co. will not generate $15 or $16 billion through 2046, especially with stations at 130th and Graham St.

        Some claim an automated value engineered BLE line would cost maybe $10 billion from Ballard to Westlake but I haven’t seen anything documenting that, ST has not studied it, so I just cannot comment but am skeptical.

        Even then at $10 billion it would be a very tight budget with stations at 130th and Graham St. and I imagine BLE would have to be underground from The Seattle Center to Westlake. That is a long and expensive tunnel, and I am not sure it can be shallow with utilities and foundations. I don’t see the DSA or Harrell or Amazon agreeing to shut down major streets for a decade to build Link on the surface or with a shallow tunnel and stations. Ballard is not that valuable.

        WLE is affordable, at least to Sodo. It would be a hard call to tell West Seattle N. King Co. is scrapping light rail to WS forever and switching to an untested design from Ballard to Westlake that may or may not be affordable on the basis some think BLE is more important than WLE. Personally I don’t see the benefit of BLE over WLE as clearly as others do even if they cost the same (I think both are too expensive).

        On the face of it West Seattle has some advantages: 80,000 residents, very poor areas to the south and White Center, it costs around 1/3 of BLE including DSTT2, ½ if no DSTT2. Density just isn’t different enough IMO to favor BLE over WLE.

        As I noted in a post about a month ago the opportunity for the Board to really value engineer WLE ended at the last Board meeting, and I am not sure value engineering WLE when BLE is not affordable makes sense (although I agree the stub is unfortunate, but that is what NKC can afford).

        There was never any realistic chance the Board would prioritize BLE over WLE because they know BLE will never be affordable with or without DSTT2. Folks on this blog and at The Urbanist are beating a dead horse.

      2. > There was never any realistic chance the Board would prioritize BLE over WLE because they know BLE will never be affordable with or without DSTT2. Folks on this blog and at The Urbanist are beating a dead horse.

        While we are beating a dead horse — I’m not sure Sound Transit trying to build West Seattle Link for 7 billion is any less futile?

      3. “It would be a hard call to tell West Seattle N. King Co. is scrapping light rail to WS forever … Personally I don’t see the benefit of BLE over WLE as clearly as others do even if they cost the same (I think both are too expensive) … On the face of it West Seattle has some advantages: 80,000 residents, very poor areas to the south and White Center, it costs around 1/3 of BLE including DSTT2, ½ if no DSTT2. Density just isn’t different enough IMO to favor BLE over WLE.”

        Do you think the West Seattle-SODO stub alone (forever with a transfer at SODO) is beneficial to West Seattle? Would you ride it? What would that look like? I.e, where would you live or go to if you traveled that corridor frequently, what would you think of the SODO transfer experience, what would you think of the C/H/21 going downtown forever, or about riding WSL vs those routes?

      4. Mike Orr, I believe both WLE (even without the stub) and BLE are bad transit value. If I were on the Board I would cancel both and look at projects to serve First Hill and SLU via Belltown with light rail. BLE and WLE should be buses.

      5. The Board has already been fast tracking property acquisition for West Seattle Link. The Board has allowed the West Seattle EIS to be a final version — even though the draft’s metrics were based on a full WSBLE so that it showed much higher ridership ( and even then it was pretty sad for west Seattle.

        Even the denial of New Starts money may not stop it. It’s no longer a big proportion like past projects got.

        There is only two ways to stop West Seattle Link: Elect an entirely new Board or sue on the many large gov problems of the EIS.

        The only other action is to not build the last station that appears to add well over $1B to the project cost. I see little drawback to the last station at 36th and Fauntleroy. There simply isn’t th building mass (height x square blocks) between Oregon St and Edmonds St to warrant that expense. But no one else would advocate for that.

      6. “Seattle has some advantages: 80,000 residents, very poor areas to the south and White Center,”

        But the vast majority of those people will not benefit from West Seattle Link. In fact, arguably, with the Junction station as deep as planned, nobody benefits from the current plan, with all time savings consumed by transferring and vertical conveyances.

    5. The Ballard line is much more important than the West Seattle line. Perhaps after the Thursday vote on what West Seattle alignment they intend, they could also put it on the shelf and focus on Ballard. The ST3 notion of a West Seattle stub operation is silly.

      3. the vote today is to set the West Seattle line to be studied. could the board later vote to postpone construction? the stub operation is silly.

    6. “I’d it’s necessary to make painful choices, there’s no reason why a West Seattle stub to SODO has to have priority above all else.”

      No, we just have to get the board to consider it.

      ST doesn’t seem to be willing to give up on West Seattle first, seemingly for Dow political reasons (obeying West Seattle privilege gets him more countywide votes among suburbanish people who identify with West Seattle more than the rest of the city) or personal reasons (he lives there so he wants it to have light rail there first) or fear reasons (if West Seattle doesn’t get Link first, it never will, even if Ballard or other future parts of Seattle do).

      “There are tons of better ways to spend that money within the North King/ST3 charter. For instance, maybe start by focusing on just Ballard to Westlake, ignoring the second downtown tunnel, for now. ”

      Planning costs much less than construction, so ST can do all the extra planning it wants in any order. If one approach leads to a dead end and is abandoned without construction, we haven’t lost much money.

      If WS/BLE were critical and the best thing since sliced bread, planning delays would be a problem. But with serious faults in ST’s alternative that would make transfers worse than average for a multi-line metro (CID/N, CID/S), break the highest-ridership and most equitable connection (southeast Seattle/airport to northeast Seattle/Capitol Hill), and a potential Ballard 14th station especially far from Ballard’s center, it raises the question of why are we building it? A network that bad maybe isn’t worth it, and I’m in no hurry for. The goal was to get an excellent subway into Ballard, not one that would get a “D” in school grades. If we can’t get at least a grade A, B, or C network, maybe fall back to bus alternatives.

      It’s possible that once ST has spent some more time worrying and deliberating and working through their grief, they’ll be more open to alternatives they’ve refused so far. Like putting West Seattle into DSTT1 now and making whatever capital upgrades in DSTT1 that are necessary for that, and abandoning DSTT2. Or focusing on a minimum Ballard segmet as asdf2 suggests (Ballard-Westlake). Or a lower-cost automated alternative for Ballard (and potentially West Seattle and DSTT2 too).

    7. 8 years of watching the cost of construction balloon and what do we have to show 8 years later? The furthest along line is nowhere near construction let alone design. This is insanity. The whole thing has become a joke… West Seattle first, West Seattle as a dinky shuttle, the whole premise of DSTT2, horrible CID/N & CID/S station locations that are a huge inconvenience for riders, poor SoDo transfer station design, Ballard line missing most of Ballard, Paine Field deviation, hell even the 4 line bypassing South Bellevue station tie in while also stopping short of Downtown Kirkland. Oh and I-405 BRT missing every activity center in the corridor, now even missing Tukwila Intl Blvd Station. $54 billion is a lot of money and we are getting nothing for it.

      1. And even the Downtown Redmond Link Extension is missing 51st St and 60th St, and elevating the part in actual downtown.

        Repeal the whole thing; no replacement.

      2. William, a very weak argument could be made for a station at 51st. But what’s your argument for a station at 60th?

      3. I agree poncho. There is a very strong case for just finishing what we’ve started (Redmond/Federal Way Link) along with the infill stations. Then start the process over. Of course the danger is that we would make the same mistakes all over again. I think we should expand our train network, but I think we are doing it wrong. I would say these are the basic problems:

        1) We should have automated trains with smaller stations. This is rapidly becoming the standard for cities like ours. There has to be a very good reason not to do this, and we don’t have one.

        2) We should focus on quality, not quantity. By all means we should future proof the system. But we aren’t going to build the Seattle Subway system. Not if we insist on grade separation (and even then it would be difficult because of our topography). It is just too damn expensive (and we get too little from it).

        3) We should abandon the subarea-equity concept. Large (expensive) rail projects don’t make sense in most of the region. Federal Way and Lynnwood Transit Center are both excellent terminal stations. There is no need for additional trains on the East Side after Link gets to Downtown Redmond. It is only in Seattle where additional train lines make sense.

        Even then there are only a handful of places where we should build rail (and they should be new automated lines). The state should give Seattle the right to spend money on train projects (in the same way they give the Sound Transit the right to spend money). Sound Transit should switch their mindset. They should consider their overall construction goal to be done. They wanted to connect the region via mass transit — mission accomplished. Now you have to maintain the system and maintain a handful of buses that go between different areas. Seattle can then build what makes sense for Seattle — and the region — which is a handful of small, frequent, automated lines.

        What the region needs more than anything now is better bus service. The complete (extremely-expensive) build-out of ST3 would only garner a handful of new riders. In contrast if we spend money on the buses it is quite possible we could catch up to our nearest neighbor (Vancouver). They have over 750,000 riders a day (https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/metro-vancouver-translink-bus-ridership-busiest-north-america). We should mimic their approach.

      4. @Sam, there’s an elementary school nearby 60th. I don’t think it’d be a strong station, but I don’t think it’d be the weakest.

        Near 51st, there’re a number of offices (including both Nintendo and the north end of the Microsoft campus), some condos, and an existing express bus stop. It’s a very good case for a station.

      5. William, your comment made me think of a discussion topic. Top 10 locations for future infill stations.

      6. @ San:

        It’s almost impossible to add an infill station. That’s because the track geometries and slopes must be able to accommodate wheelchair boarding. So even if the location is great, it’s a major challenge to adjust the tracks.

        And that’s all before getting the space and funds to actually install a station.

        Sadly, prior shortsightedness on the part of ST did not even lay the areas out for even obvious stations like Graham St. It will require changing the geometry of MLK.

        I’m not against infill stations. I’m only saying that ST should have had a long list of potential infill station sites from the outset. Because they didn’t design things to allow for a infill station, it’s really expensive and disruptive to add them in .

        Of course, adding infill station options for ST3 segments is still possible. So a list would have to be limited to extensions to Tacoma Dome, Everett, Ballard and West Seattle — and the 4 Line on the Eastside.

        Another place may be Stride on 405. But even then it would be a monolithic effort to add an infill station for Stride.

  4. Has ST announced what the Link speed limit will be when crossing Lake Washington? If they have, is it a variable speed limit? For example, under normal circumstances, it’s 50 mph, but in winds above 10 mph, there will be a slow order of 30 mph.

  5. Hi all. Visiting Seattle from Boston this week and enjoying riding LINK and the new Lynnwood extension. I can’t help but notice that the maps over the doors on the light rail cars calls out the Redmond extension as “Coming 2025” and Federal Way as “Coming 2026,” but no mention of the extension across the lake. I’ve been really excited to see the 2 Line come across the lake for a few years now, but this – plus the conversation above – is making me a bit nervous.

    1. Cross-lake service is supposed to start between those openings. I think the latest speculation is spring 2026. That map design puzzled me too; I thought ST should have said more about the full 2 Line. Putting stickers on the uncompleted stations was also wildly overptimistic: ST can’t guarantee the dates, and the map will have to be replaced anyway because the Eastside station numbers are going the wrong direction. Why not just assume the map will be replaced?

      There is one good thing about the map: it shows which bus corridors connect Lines 1 and 2. The first time I saw it it didn’t have route numbers, but maybe now it does?

      1. Agreed on the bus info! From what I can see from driving around, Redmond feels like it should be safe for next year. I will say, it’s interesting how the 2 Line station signs and vehicles are almost completely devoid of any reference to the future cross lake service. Not even any marketing communications to the effect of “This is just the start.”

      2. My only guess is the extensions and 130th infill station are simpler and more foolproof, while the lake crossing will be unprecedented technology so ST doesn’t want to overpromise it. Or maybe ST thought it was too complicated to explain on the map,

      3. For what it’s worth, TriMet mostly does it that way too. Better Red was advertised on the advertising spaces, but that was both “Coming in 2024” and “Scheduled Disruptions are:” type messages too. The 6 week Banfield Line closure for rail and tie replacement that coincided with the new junction at Gateway had to be put on people’s radar pretty early on.

    2. @ Jason:

      I agree. The 2 Line should not only show a connection, but also it should show the 2 Line going to Lynnwood from the international District- Chinatown Station. Because the diagram can’t easily cover up a double line diagram with one “coming soon” between each station circle, that may be the reason.

      I have no idea why staff put 130th and Federal Way as coming soon) but not the earlier crossing.

      One note: Because the service simulation period several weeks before the actual Lake Washington opens for public use, the 2 line to Lynnwood will be in service earlier than the Lake Washington crossing.

      It may just be an oversight. ST staff make mistakes. They actually printed the wrong new station numbers for 2 Line when they introduced station numbers earlier this year!

      Because ST will have to show 2 Line going to Lynnwood, have a hunch that they will replace the diagrams with both lines shown as open the week that testing starts. They will put a “coming soon” patch over the Lake crossing, Federal Way and 130th on these new diagrams.

  6. There was a multi family unit developer on Twitter who talked about the challenges of permits and breauacracy in LA
    https://x.com/JMGregorchuk/status/1849230130985505119?t=txMN13Yzkli646KTRF6joA&s=19
    “Ever wonder why housing is so expensive?

    Come spend a day with me trying to get permit clearances on an entitled project in Los Angeles. You’ll see building departments:
    – Ask for major changes to previously approved plans
    – Engage in hours of email exchanges instead of a 5 minute phone call
    – Refuse service unless done through their online portal
    – Use online portals that only have virtual “walk-in” appointments where hundreds sign up and only ~20 people are served”

    It does highlight how upzoming is one part of the solution to fixing how we build housing. But also untangling the truly byzantine like breauacracy we attach ourselves to in permitting new housing or updating/repurposing current housing stock as well.

    Honestly reminds me a lot of Italian breauacracy when I lived there and how getting a simple thing done can be a multi-day process as a breauacrat shuffles the papers around as they say.

    I’ve met a couple developers during my university years, who mainly work on building new hotel properties and they mentioned how long some projects take to get shovels in the ground (3-5+ years) and definitely agreed that breauacracy is one of the worst hurdles to get through compared to any other step in the building process. They’ve mentioned how much time could be shaven off their projects if the permit and approval process was thorough but efficient.

    1. Permitting delays are another problem alongside zoning: they both need to be addressed. Developers complain about Seattle projects taking years to permit, and that adds to the cost and uncertainty. Our resident real-estate commentators can explain what exactly needs to be done.

      1. As a frequent traveler to 3rd world countries, and in particular to my wife’s home country of Cambodia, can I suggest legalizing (or at least normalizing) bribery? It would be far cheaper and more effective, and the beaurcrats would still make out. A combination of authoritarian government (nimbys can be executed) and bribes to grease the wheels are why these countries are winning the 21st century.

    2. I’ve invested in a couple of apartment construction projects. While I don’t manage them directly, I do get quarterly status reports, and permitting delays is a big problem.

      I can recall one project in particular where they were all set to start building in early 2022, but then permitting delays set it back 6 months. Besides owing interest on the loan used for the property purchase for six extra months, the delay voided the “guaranteed maximum price (GMP)” agreement with the contractor, and with those 6 months being a period of high inflation, the contractor demanded a big price increase to get the project on track again. In the end, investors including myself did end up ponying up the money and the project is still expected to be profitable, but only because rents have risen so much, and are expected to keep rising some more in the coming years.

      Bottom line: if you want construction to be profitable for apartments with reasonable rents, permitting delays need to be avoided.

      1. It is a big problem that doesn’t get enough publicity in my opinion. Folks (like me) tend to focus on zoning. This is a problem, but if I’m being careful with my writing I will write “zoning and other regulations”. In short, the process shouldn’t be so damn difficult. The city should do everything in its power to make it easy to build new housing. Instead they do the opposite.

  7. I have an idea for a plausible bus alternative for Ballard which would also solve another long-standing transit problem in North Seattle. It would use the idea many of us like of a short First Hill-SLU-Lower Queen Anne distributor.

    I would like to write up as a Page 2, but the rule that one cannot write a Page 2 under a pen name blocks it.

    I think it might be fruitful to the discussion, but it will just have to go unpublished.

    1. Email the contact address and we’ll figure it out. We could potentially have somebody collaborate on the article, or post an article whose entire content is a quote from you. We have a strong preference for real names on Page 1; I’m not sure how important it is on Page 2, but we can discuss it with the editors. I know some people can’t reveal their names for work reasons or such, but at the same time readers want to know who’s behind an article, so it’s a balancing act.

  8. Maybe the worst “urban renewal” idea in a long, long time? Reworking empty office buildings into “dorm room” size micro apartments (how about prison cell size?). Estimated cost of rent per month to make the numbers pencil out. $850… for 110 sq ft of people, no running water in the unit. Anybody here ready to pay $850 a month for this crap?

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/real-estate/2024/10/22/empty-offices-become-tiny-apartments-housing-crisis/75784459007/

    I’m also posting this link to a “storage shed” that could be modestly upgraded for human occupation for something like 1/10th the price of the “micro apartment” above…. with a maintenance cost of maybe 1/25th over time.

    https://www.homedepot.com/p/Little-Cottage-Co-Value-Workshop-8-ft-x-14-ft-Outdoor-Wood-Storage-Shed-Precut-Kit-with-Operable-Windows-and-Floor-112-sq-ft-8×14-VWS-PC-FK/329166545

    The Pew Charitable Trusts and architecture-design firm Gensler came up with the crazy micro apartment idea…. The Pew team really have no idea what they’re doing and the Gensler team are most like developer grifters looking to score on the public dime.

    1. I actually met a guy in San Francisco 30 years ago who figured out that it was much cheaper for him to live in a tiny space in a low cost office building (with a gym membership) for housing than it was to rent a studio apartment. There was much less required for security deposits et al too.

      2. Al S.

        To each their own I guess. I’m not in the business of telling other people how to live. The US has a long history of boarding houses and if zoning needs to be changed to accommodate bringing them back, so be it. Seven unrelated people living in one house (paying rent, with security deposits and background checks) is a long, long way from 400 “micro apartments” stuffed into a soulless office buildings full an ever changing group of residents who most of are on the public dole.

        Here’s the trouble with this project. From the article….

        Pew and Gensler believe the apartments will appeal to a broad range of tenants: elderly residents who may no longer be able to live at home, people who have recently relocated to a new city, even governments looking for an affordable alternative for homeless residents.

        This “broad range of tenants” are groups without the money for an actual apartment… What developers would see is building what’s basically a prison block and “renting” the “cells” to some sucker city like Denver or Seattle for some inflated price. We’re talking about housing where you could easily be assaulted just walking to the bathroom. SRO hotels were mostly torn down for redevelopment because of the crime and unhappiness they generated for the surrounding neighbors. It’s true Seattle tore down all the SRO hotels in downtown…. but the sketchy criminal element, your drunkards and druggies, sex offenders, the completely insane… the people who used to live in the SRO hotels, they’re still wandering the streets. They need help and compassion, not an $850 a month prison cell in downtown Seattle.

        These are the same hucksters pitching TOD to local governments for years…. even though most of it doesn’t pencil out without government subsidies and the general public doesn’t want to live in it.

      3. I’m not in the business of telling other people how to live.

        Isn’t that what you did in the rest of the paragraph? It is like someone saying “I’m not one to criticize how you dress, but that looks ugly”.

        It is fundamentally no different than a dorm or a roommate situation that lots of people find themselves in. It is not a prison cell.

      4. @ tacomee:

        I wasn’t saying whether or not I thought the situation was good or bad. I’m merely saying that I met some who came up with a different solution.

        Plus the old office building probably dated from the 1910’s or 1920’s. Office building architecture then is not what I call “soulless” from the outside. I did not enter his space.

    2. This looks like a typical roommate situation. You have your own bedroom but share a main living area (and bathrooms, etc.). I could see it easily working in New York City since it usually costs more than that to be someone’s roommate. It might not pencil out in other cities — not yet anyway.

      This isn’t “urban renewal” nor is it equivalent to a storage shed. Dorm room is a good analogy. Lots of people live in them.

    3. @tacomee

      That is essentially just a dormitory. A lot of similar buildings already exist in the Seattle area. “Apodments” is the most common, and I also know of Arete in Kirkland. They seem to do okay overall.

      I had a coworker that lived in an Apodment for about a year, until he moved in with his partner. He liked it overall, and he said it helped him save quite a lot of money. He was a recent graduate who was already used to the more spartan accommodations

    4. We can talk about these more if you want, but fyi in Seattle they’re typically called micro apartments

      https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2024/09/25/city-council-lifts-micro-apartments-restrictions.html

      https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/seattle/seattle-city-council-lifts-restrictions-co-living/281-9ccace75-d568-40da-bc0c-a0f55c0f0621

      > A council memo cited a 2021 study that showed permitting for the construction of these types of units dropped because of the ordinance, after a short boom and amid an affordable housing shortage.

      > On Tuesday, the council lifted the restrictions placed in 2014 and updated the ordinance language to align with the state law. Now, congregate residences can be permitted in all multi-family zones throughout the city, including in low-rise zones where they were prohibited.

    5. Either way micro apartments were very desirable both by renters for their relatively low rent and used to be able to be constructed cheaply.

      Until many zoning changes and design reviews were added to make it unbuildable https://www.sightline.org/2016/09/06/how-seattle-killed-micro-housing/

      * July 2009: Seattle Times publishes an article about Videre Apartments, a proposed micro-housing building in the city’s Central District. Public awareness and NIMBY opposition grow.

      * 2010-2013: Micro-housing proliferates and evolves. Average unit size increases to about 175 square feet, and production ramps up to more than 1,800 homes in 2013, nearly one-quarter of all new dwellings built in that year.

      * September 2013: New micro-housing legislation is proposed, requiring all projects to undergo design review and to include more amenities, like common areas and bike parking.

      * August 2014: King County Superior Court rules that all current pod-style micro-housing projects must go through the design review process, a time-consuming series of meetings with community members and a citizen panel that comment on plans. To avoid the expense, most existing projects switch over from pod-style to SEDUs.

      * September 2014: Revised micro-housing legislation proposes more expansive changes, including prohibiting congregate housing development in places zoned for neighborhood commercial centers and for low-rise multi-family buildings, such as small apartment buildings and duplexes.

    6. Apodments are partly marketed to people in transition, with leases as short as three months available. They’re taken by people new to the city who aren’t sure where they ultimately want to live, entry-level workers who plan to move when they get a raise, or people in a divorce who need to set up a new household.

      “What developers would see is building what’s basically a prison block and “renting” the “cells” to some sucker city like Denver or Seattle for some inflated price.”

      Would you rather have them not able to afford anything? The problem is the regionwide cost of housing, not microapartment developers.

      “We’re talking about housing where you could easily be assaulted just walking to the bathroom.”

      You think every microapartment building has assaulters? Why aren’t such assaults all over the news every day? You could just as easily be assaulted by a neighbor in a boarding house, a regular apartment, on the sidewalk, or by a family member.

      “SRO hotels were mostly torn down for redevelopment because of the crime and unhappiness they generated for the surrounding neighbors.”

      The Seattle ones were condemned in the 1970s because of fire codes after a few burned down. They were built in the early 1900s and never modernized. That may be because white flight to the suburbs lowered the city’s population and sucked out wealth, so maybe they couldn’t afford to maintain them and couldn’t find higher-paying renters. Redlining may have played a role, although I don’t know if any were in redlined areas. They were concentrated on 1st and 2nd Avenues downtown and on Summit and Bellevue Avenues on Capitol Hill. A few on Capitol Hill turned into regular apartments or small hotels. I stayed in one that had a shared bathroom on the floor but each room had a kitchen. It also had an old-fashioned elevator with a cage door.

      SROs provided inexpensive housingfor people with low-wage jobs, part-time jobs, unemployed, or sailors who were only on shore for a short period of time. When the city concemned them, it didn’t plan for any alternative at that size and price level. At the time Seattle’s population had fallen 130,000 so other apartments were cheap. That lasted until the 2000s when the rising population squeezed the remaining slack out of the market. The affordability crisis now is partly because we have nothing comparable to SROs for lower-income people, except a few apodments that started appearing in the 2000s.

      Apodments appeared because of a loophole in the zoning laws. A building with less than 9 sub-studio units qualified as a single-family house, so it was allowed in single-family zones. That loophole lasted for 10-15 years and then the city closed it.

      Apodments are only a tiny fraction of Seattle’s housing stock, so there’s no need to get hysterical that they exist. They aren’t taking over the housing market.

      It’s hard to compare a microapartment directly to a regular apartment because people forget microapartments include utilities. So that $850 looks expensive for what you get, but in a regular apartment you’d pay $300 more for electricity, water, heat, internet, sewer, and garbage. And where can you find a regular apartment in King County for $850 or even $1100 nowadays? So the total price is less, and that’s essential for some people. But for others who can afford more, a regular apartment probably has a better quality:cost ratio than a microapartment; e.g., cost per square foot, more space, more amenities, more neighborhoods and units to choose from. So people who can afford larger units are largely not demanding microapartments, so that limits their market size and the number that are built.

  9. I dislike the WS stub idea. I dislike switching out the Chinatown and mid-town stations for another pioneer square station and south of uwajimaya station. I dislike a duplicative-coverage tunnel that inconveniences everyone who comes from the south because it bypasses stadium, and won’t have a station between pioneer square and westlake.

    Why is ST getting it so wrong? How is it that the design process results in not only sub-optimal decisions, but downright bad ones?

    I feel like someone stuck ST’s design team in a box, and there’s no getting out of it!

    okay. rant over. back to your regularly scheduled programming.

    1. “Why is ST getting it so wrong?”

      Because the stakeholders ST mainly listens to are city governments, county governments, large employers, and institutions. Not transit riders or activists like us; we’re all lumped together into one “stakeholder” with one “vote”. Each Link project has an outside financial review board (accountants/economists) and an electeds review board (politicians in the service area), but no passengers review board.

      And something very particular is happening with West Seattle, downtown, and Ballard. Dow Constantine is an ST boardmember, King County executive (i.e., stakeholder), and a West Seattle resident. He wanted West Seattle Link even without Ballard Link (a January 2016 ST3 proposal had West Seattle Link and a Ballard streetcar), or the West Seattle-SODO stub first as an early deliverable (the current plan). So he put his thumb on the scale and forced West Seattle to go first or only, so the only way to get Ballard in was to expand ST3 (as was ultimately done, because Snohomish also needed to expand ST3 to get all the way to Everett and Paine Field).

      The second thing Dow and Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell did was to move Midtown and CID Stations to CID/N and CID/S by changing the preferred alignment after the vote. They did this because the county has an obsolete administration building at 4th & James, and this way ST would help fund its demolition and replacement, and it could be redeveloped as a TOD community hub. (They implied it would benefit the entire city and most passengers, but I think it will mainly benefit the few people who live or go to that building, and I doubt it will have something that attracts a large cross-section of the population.)

      There was also business opposition in the CID to the default station location (5th & Jackson shallow — the one we voted for), and somewhat to a 4th & Jackson alternative. They spun it as the entire CID community wanted it out of the neighborhood to avoid construction disruption, but the actual voices from there and testimony at public hearings show that really the CID community is divided half and half, with slightly more support for a station at Jackson Street. But the people who matter want CID/N, so that’s what the preferred alternative is, and it’s an uphill battle to get ST to agree to or study anything else. (4th Avenue Shallow is still in the studies, so at least we got that. It costs $800M more than CID/N, and the board is using that as a reason to oppose it or to require third-party money to consider it. So far that money has not appeared.)

      Another factor is not all of it is ST’s fault. I meant to write this to reply to an earlier comment, who said how egregious it’s taken 8 years just to get this far with no construction yet. But in 2016 ST begged the community to agree on one or two alternatives to study in the EIS so that the process could go quickly. That was to avoid the debacle in south Bellevue where stakeholders demanded over a dozen altenatives and that added a year to the EIS process.

      But that totally didn’t happen. The community couldn’t agree: there were wide differences. And when ST proposed alternatives that were actually harmful to passengers — the wide transfer to CID/N, the Ballard 14th station alternative — we had to stand up and oppose them, so then we became part of demanding another alternative, alongside others who were demanding different alternatives.

    2. “ Why is ST getting it so wrong? How is it that the design process results in not only sub-optimal decisions, but downright bad ones?”

      I see the source of the problem beginning with ST3 itself in 2014-16. Basically, the ST3 projects are those that were unaffordable in ST2 so ST2 gave them a corridor study. They were already proven to be the less valuable investments.

      They then ignored looking at productivity even though the corridors were much less productive compared to ST2 ones. The Board did not care about value. They cared about drawing an inspiring map that would sell in an election. No one of importance cared that the projects were wildly under budgeted — easily proven by comparing the to similar project costs in C as kifornia at the time. And DSTT2 was never studied earlier; its first appearance was in the referendum.

      The right to have a referendum was granted by the legislature and the project list was then drawn up with haste and bad cost estimates.

      The Board had a chance in 2017 to examine the new revenue handed to them by the public and look to ways to make it more productive. They didn’t. They instead created a WSBLE stakeholder committee of corporate giants, real estate interests and neighborhood organizations — none of whom cared about productivity/ value nor rider impacts.

      The new CEO Rogoff saw the problems and gently tried to steer the effort to be more fiscally responsible. After many months of discussion with the Board, nothing got axed and the taxation timeline instead got stretched out. No Board member was interested in actually being fiscally responsible. Meanwhile, a parade of real estate interests were having lots of private meetings with our elected officials to bend the projects to favor them.

      The mission of ST3 is still embraced by ST today as an unwavering commitment to making the fantasy map from 2016 a reality. They will not accept making any changes no matter how useless the projects were or how poorly estimated the project costs were.

      Sadly, the victims are the riders. The public provided billions and it’s being thrown away trying to build these ineffective projects. Rider advocates see that the funds could be much better spent if ST would simply revisit the limited outcomes.

      So it’s not the design process per se that’s the problem. It’s the arbitrary parameters that keep the design process from considering things like automation, three lines in the DSTT (with higher throughput design) and more aerial segments.

    3. My take on why ST is getting it so wrong: They always have. Every project is just a bit worse than originally planned. It is a combination of things that Mike details. One is money. Another is local interests. The end result is a the system just isn’t as good as planned.

      For example the Mount Baker Station is awful. First Hill Station doesn’t exist. There are four options for a station close to the Montlake Triangle (each side of the triangle and the middle of it). They chose the worst one. There should be a station at Bellevue Way, not East Main. You get the idea.

      The difference between these projects and ST3 are that these are fundamentally very strong. You can’t screw it up too bad. The stations in Rainier Valley are not great, but it didn’t cost that much money to put them there. UW Link could have been a lot better, but even with all of the flaws you are still connecting the UW with downtown — that is bound to be a success. Same goes for East Link — as long as you connect Downtown Bellevue with Downtown Seattle it is a decent project.

      That isn’t the case with ST3. A lot of these projects are borderline or simply bad. Everett Link, Tacoma Dome Link, Issaquah Link and West Seattle Link are all fundamentally bad projects (and all for similar reasons). In all cases we would be better off with an investment in buses. You really need a miracle in planning to be successful.

      Ballard Link is borderline, which means it requires good management to be a success. We need to save money where we can (e. g. by running on the surface or crossing the canal with a drawbridge) but spend money where we need to (with station placement). But everything about the process has been flawed. We are spending way too much money on things that aren’t necessary (like a second tunnel downtown) and ignoring things that are. Even the mode is flawed. If it is going to be completely grade-separated then it should be light (automated) metro, not light rail. It is kind of crazy when you think about it — not a single station will be on the surface and yet they are building it as light rail.

      Various ST2 projects are fundamentally strong enough to handle poor station placement — Ballard Link isn’t. The other projects were never good to begin with.

      1. I wonder whether it would be worth thinking about what a value-engineered elevated automated metro line to Ballard would look like which ST3 could afford and which would have ridership which justifies the expense. May be use the latest technology (such as: https://transportsystemboegl.com/en/track/) to reduce noise and size of the track. It would speed up construction and reduce inconveniencing businesses along the line.

      2. “I wonder whether it would be worth thinking about what a value-engineered elevated automated metro line to Ballard would look like which ST3 could afford”

        Yes. You did part of it already with the automated line article. The next step would be costing out what would fit in a specific budget.

        “and which would have ridership which justifies the expense”

        It would automatically have good ridership given Ballard’s and SLU’s size and better transfers than ST’s plan. Even ST’s plan may have good ridership — just not the most that corridor could get with a better design.

  10. That quote from the Times, not every fare evaded is a criminal, but every criminal is a fare evader. Funny, since fare evasion is a crime, so that very act makes a fare evaded a criminal.

    1. It means other more serious crimes besides fare evasion. It’s like illegal immigration: it’s illegal (as the name says). The issue is that entering the US illegally doesn’t really harm the US much: it’s the other crimes that a few of them commit that has a bigger impact. But certain political factions like to blow the issue of illegal immigration all out of proportion, and say they’re committing many times more violent crimes than they are, or they falsely name some legal immigrants or US citizens are illegal immigrants. The same kind of thing happens with fare evasion. They say it’s more widespread than it is, that nobody is paying, that the agency isn’t collecting any revenue, etc. People see somebody not tapping and assume they’re a fare evader, when actually they may be under 18 or have a paper ticket or forgot to tap.

      1. Fare evasion is the kind of thing that is innocuous in the instance but problematic in the aggregate. Each instance is very minor, but contributes to a general feeling of unfairness and disorder. Not really sure what to do about it but in the longer term it absolutely needs to be addressed.

        On a somewhat related note, I really dislike the way that youth fares were implemented. I think that youth should still be required to have a youth ORCA card, or perhaps it could be integrated with their school IDs, for quite a few reasons: to make it easier for drivers to see who is skipping their fares, to prevent older-looking teenagers from getting side-eyed on the bus, and to get younger riders used to the idea of tapping at the gates.

        A related article on the general problem of “disorder” in the US: https://thecausalfallacy.com/p/its-time-to-talk-about-americas-disorder

      2. In my opinion to fix fare evasion, you have two choices. Harden the system with fare gates or change how fines work. Hardening the system could make sense in spots. But realistically, changing how fines are doled out is the more reasonable solution in the short term.

        Take a look at Twin Cities Metro Transit citation chart
        https://www.metrotransit.org/citations

        They give out citations on first go with $35 fine, then $55, then $75 with 60 day probation from tramsit, and $100 with 120 probation from transit. You have the opportunity to appeal the citation but you can also get it reduced by
        – Load $20 to their Metro Transit Go-To Card
        – Load $10 to their Metro Transit Go-To Card and view a “transit school video,” a video reviewing expectations for transit riders
        – Qualify for the Transit Assistance Program, and load $5 on their Transit Assistance Program card. The program offers reduced fares — $1 per ride — to riders from low-income households

        This is honestly in line with what I saw in Europe for fare enforcement, like this is fines for fare enforcement in Tuscany for instance under the Fines section.
        https://www.at-bus.it/en/travel-conditions

        I think STs choice of going with 4 or 5 warnings was an extreme overcorrection to the controversy they got. They would’ve been better going with a lower fine in line with what Metro Transit is doing. As most people generally only fare evade once and it usually is enough to correct their behavior to not do it again. I get people wanna be flexible with rules like this but I think giving too many warnings is just allowing problems to fester rather than nip then in the bud.

      3. With both illegal immigration and with fare thieves, both are a slap in the face to those who follow through laws and rules, even when it isn’t to their advantage to do so.

    3. There is a fair amount of research that demonstrates that consequences that are small but as consistently applied as possible, are the best and changing future behavior.

      If there is a very good chance that you are get a $20 dollar fine if you evade the fair, you stop doing it.

      If there is a very good chance you are going to get a $40 dollar speeding ticket on I-5 if you are you are driving 66mph+, you drive 65. This is the case for speed cameras, BTW. Mail everyone a ticket, but cut the consequence to something that everyone can pay.

      Another direction is making the fine progressive, fining someone 0.1% of their annual income say, as some European countries do. Otherwise you end up jailing the poor, and the rich just treat the fine as a minor nuisance.

  11. The Urbanist report on the ST Board’s irresponsible rubber stamping of the West Seattle Link project — with a budget increase alone higher than the entire AWV replacement.

    https://www.theurbanist.org/2024/10/25/sound-transit-board-rubberstamps-west-seattle-link-route/

    They’re spending our tax dollars to get no travel time benefit for transit riders due to a deep Junction Station, a stub train ride, and a double level transfer effort for riders at SODO Station.

    1. “Those Draft EIS estimates now appear a mirage in light of the Final EIS, which showed a $600 million to $850 million gulf between the new tunnel alignment and the cheaper Elevated Fauntleroy option.”

      By a strange coincidence, that’s the same amount the CID 4th Avenue Shallow station alternative needs of the passenger-hostile CID/N alternative. So North King could simply choose the elevated Fauntleroy alternative and redirect the money to the 4th Avenue Shallow station. But instead it lifts the third-party funding requirement for the West Seattle tunnel but not the 4th Avenue Shallow station, because West Seattle privilege or something.

  12. Community Transit just published their proposed 2025 budget: https://www.communitytransit.org/news-and-events/article-detail/2024/10/25/more-service–security–and-electric-buses-planned-for-2025

    Some highlights:

    – New Zip (micro transit) pilots will be launching in Darrington, Lake Stevens, and Arlington in December 2024
    – An increase of 64000 bus service hours in 2025, an increase of 16% YoY
    – 2025 will be the highest total service hours CT has delivered in a year (bus, DART, Zip, and Vanpool)
    – 10M projected ridership, up from 8.6M projected for 2024 (+16% YoY)
    – Further planning for Swift Gold (Smokey Point – Everett) + Swift Green extension to UW Bothell, and wrapping up speed/reliability improvements on Swift Blue
    – Continued ZEV bus facility planning + orders for 29 ZEV buses
    – Sounds like they’ll be bringing the Transdev drivers/mechanics in house over the next two years

  13. The only final conclusion about the rubber-stamp of WSLE is “Corruption, corruption, corruption!” We have beat this starving hay-burner to death over the past three years, and the people in Sound Transit and the County Government have to have read at least some of what we have said.

    Now of course we’re not “right” in the sense that our concepts of “the best transit for the money” should carry the day everytime on every question. We’re neither omniscient nor Simon Purely free of “mode bias” and egotism. Who is?

    The bottom line is that the North King Sub-Area is a democracy with three municipalities in it, and there are lots of valid stakeholders. But the elected officials on the board have disowned their authority to shape the system to a shocking degree given the enormous amounts of money to be spent and simply kowtowed to the ST staff and the City bureaucracy. The only “stakeholders” that matter are developers, the construction industry, and the municipal highwaymen.

    Clearly the agencies of the municipalities have a bit of “paper” expertise about transit and have other concerns to balance with transit excellence. But the electeds have missed a great opportunity by not taking some of the articles posted here that deeply analyze the obvious weaknesses in the existing plans and the callous disregard for the difficulties that future riders will experience with them to their meetings. They can quote or paraphrase them, and ask pointed questions of the staff based on the observations we have made. The staff ignores us at the “workshops” or just send vacant, similing Robotrons for whom objections are in one ear and out the other.

    It’s been clear for a long time that Dow Constantine wants to be Governor of Washington, but now that Bob Ferguson has the job locked down for at least eight years, Constantine will be too old unless Ferguson leaves for a Federal position in four years.

    Good! I wouldn’t want him running the State of Washington as his own personal fief like he has run King County and SoundTransit.

    1. The fundamental problem is the deprioritization of transit and walkability. The fault is the politicians and the public. I didn’t say Sound Transit because Sound Transit didn’t exist yet, and the politicians and public created Sound Transit and are responsible for making it like it is.

      Let’s take a step back and look at how a well-functioning city does this. They recognize that good walkability and transit are essential. They put cars after that: guaranteeing car capacity for essential trips and providing some more for choice trips, but not beyond that, and not forcing people to drive because walkability and transit are below the average of industrialized cities. One agency has full authority to build the entire transit network in the metropolitan area, and override nimby obstruction, and sufficient resources to construct the whole thing, and it hires wise and competent consultants and staff to design an excellent network and implement it. The agency makes a complete regional+local transit network, putting different levels of service where they’re needed. This is more or less what you have in Vancouver, Toronto, Paris, cities in The Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Asia, Latin America, etc. Each of them has its flaws but their result is much better than what Pugetopolis or most American cities have.

      The US has a historic undercurrent of distrust for cities, going back to Thomas Jefferson’s yeoman farmers, and religious fundamentalists’ preaching of cities as dens of sin. This led to idealizing a country house and small town.

      In the early to mid 20th century, cities stopped annexing all their urbanized periphery as it grew, and instead separately-incorporated suburbs appeared. In Seattle Burien appeared early, and Seattle never did annex North Highline, Shoreline, or Mercer Island. In the Eastside, microburbs were established early, like Beaux Arts, Medina, Clyde Hill, and Yarrow Point. All these were given autonomy over their zoning. And because of the general anti-density, pro-car mood going back to Jefferson’s yeoman farmers, they used it to block density, corner stores, and adequate transit. They were also blocking out minorities and lower-income people: that was part of the motivation. Seattle was not immune: it had similar zoning and policies in large parts of the city.

      Then we come to the era I grew up in, in the 1970s and 80s. Transit and walkability were at their nadir, because the future was driving everywhere on freeways, shopping at gas-station mini-marts and what became big-box stores, and pretending the infrastucture this required (which one person likened to “commie blocks”) was not depressive and alienating.

      Luckily the region tried to improve things. Metro and Community Transit became more comprehensive; consolidated their long, slow, parallel milk runs into frequent corridors that were more usable. King County built the downtown bus tunnel. The bus tunnel and the I-90 overhaul were forward-compatible with potential rail someday.

      The problem the governments and most of the public perceived was annoying freeway congestion, and no all-day inter-county expresses. The county-based agencies couldn’t do inter-county expresses because they always got prioritized last after neighborhood routes. So they decided to create Sound Transit to build a “spine” to Everett, Tacoma, and Redmond; and inter-city bus expresses; and, oh yes, something like a metro circulator for dense Seattle, but not a separate one that could do that job excellently. By this time the suburbs had grown to 4/5 of the population, representatives, and voting power. They wanted something that would complement their low-density, car-centric vision, with some unavoidable towers-in-the-park. Something to replace the driving-in-congested-freeway segment, but they didn’t think far enough to what a non-driver would need to make a complete regional+local trip from door to door conveniently.

      How does that compare to the ideal vision above? Walkability and a complete non-driving alternative is half-assed with major gaps. Different agencies handle regional and local service. Nobody hires a transit expert like Jarrett Walker to design a comprehensive regional+local solution that would really meet people’s needs. Artificial priorities are emphasized: a spine instead of building from the center out. Large urban villages are practically ignored. Lake City wasn’t recognized as a regional center when the Lynnwood Link alignment was decided so it bypassed it, and Lake City had to beg for a 130th station to at least have indirect service. Ballard finally got a Link project, but ST is prioritizing non-transit factors in siting the CID and Ballard stations, even if it harms passengers and creates excessive walking distances. Expensive bored tunnels are demanded and inexpensive cut-and-cover tunnels are rejected to appease neighbors’ temporary contruction impact concerns. The needs of passengers and pedestrians get lost among the demands of other stakeholders, even though the purpose of light rail is to address people’s mobility needs. Because the project won’t meet many of their mobility needs, those needs will remain unmet even when it’s finished.

      Then we come to ST’s structure and personnel. The structure was determined by the 4/5 suburban, “local control” minded public mood. Spine first, subarea equity, local politicians appointed to the board — it all comes out of the mood. The politicians and public don’t prioritize first-rate transit or hiring an expert to design a best-practices regional+local network, so ST doesn’t. The priority stakeholders (government officials, large companies, “neighbors”) have non-transit priorities, and ST follows them. The board hires CEOs without experience in large-transit-network operations, and the CEOs don’t hire other high-level staff to provide that experience. Nobody looks at what is successful outside the US. Or when they do, it’s in the most cursory and minimal way. It’s the CEO’s job to hire the right staff, the board’s job to hire the right CEO, and the politicians’ and public’s job to make sure they do it. All levels have fallen short. Some members of the public like transit fans have called this out and urged them to do the right thing, but not the majority of the public, so it doesn’t happen.

      1. Mike, you write,

        “ The fundamental problem is the deprioritization of transit and walkability. The fault is the politicians and the public”

        That is how our form of government is suppose to work. The people elect their politicians to do what they want. I would argue the U.S. is the best country in the world to live in. I don’t want some regional agency to be a sovereign. Certainly not ST. Good God.

        Despite your very long post you just overcomplicate things. Yes, some people may prefer housing and transportation choices different than your preference, but you don’t get to decide for them any more than they get to decide your choices. You need to understand your lifestyle is the outlier. It is why this area offers so many housing and transportation alternatives.

        I think it is incorrect to say this area “deprioritizes” transit when the region is spending $152 billion on Link, Metro and CT are funded to the tune of billions of dollars every year while fares are subsidized 85% and 92% respectively for maybe 5% of regional trips. Transit is a regional need, not a good.

        The real problem is we are spending TOO MUCH on Link because of the large amount of tax revenue: Issaquah Link, Tacoma Link, Everett Link, gold plated WLE. ST 3 made subareas spend too much money too quickly.

        The only subarea at this time to have a dilemma is NKC. EKC’s problem is it has too much revenue and not enough good Link routes. Their existential problem is 405.

        Everett and Tacoma have value engineerd Link but fairly simple. SKC has the same and although poor benefits from other subareas paying to run Link to it, and a lot of people who can’t use transit for work.

        NKC has always been unrealistic about how much subarea revenue it will generate and the projects it wants. BLE was never going to be affordable. We know that now. So find an alternative like express buses to a modestly dense community of 28,000. BLE for the actual cost is foolish transit.

        You need to look at the big picture. Life is good in this area (although our legislature is failing K-12 education). The pandemic is over, King Co. is affluent, it is a beautiful natural area, people have many housing and transportation choices to fit their lifestyles.

        It’s true the pandemic, work from home, and drugs and crime have deprioritized downtown Seattle which was the one true urban area but all that really means is a loss of tax revenue Seattleites will eventually have to come to terms with. Meanwhile the smaller incorporated surrounding areas that thank their stars every day they were not incorporated by Seattle are doing very well today, including the poorer cities in Snohomish and South King Counties.

        We are simply in a time in which the urban city is deprioritizing. From 2000 to 2021 it was the reverse. This began before the pandemic with the Millennials aging and the dream of American women for a SFH. We saw this from the 1970’s to 1990’s. Probably in 10 years after cities like Seattle get their shit in order, like cities had to do in the 1990’s to address the exact same issues affecting Seattle today, urban cities will recover, but not until crime and public safety are addressed. If there is one factor that differentiates American and the nicer European cities it is public safety.

        If you think transit will fundamentally change society or housing or suburbanization you will always be disappointed. The reality we subsidize transit so heavily is because the vast majority of people who can afford it don’t want to take transit, and businesses think transit causes more harm than good (3rd Ave.) which is why I think it is important to follow several social media sources than STB, from Facebook to Nextdoor to understand there are opinions and values out there much different than on this blog. The truth is always somewhere in between, although money and political power determines which groups politicians listen to.

        Not only are these “other” people good people making housing and transportation choices they think are best for them and their families, they are in the vast majority and have most of the wealth and tend to vote, which is why every political ad these days is targeted at the suburban woman. If you can understand how they think you will understand the choices politicians have made when it comes to housing and transportation. Unfortunately this powerful demographic is missing from STB, but we still need to try and understand what they want too.

        Don’t let BLE get you down. At $20 billion is was always bad transit spending and is a good lesson transit revenue is finite so choose wisely, which unfortunately WLE is not but that is the fault of ST 3 and the need to spend so much money too quickly, and NKC wanting gold plated Link.

    2. The next question is what does someone wanting better walkability and transit do about it?

      I can, in my small way, advocate for removing as much zoning and regulatory restrictions as possible. I think this as sort of a “root-cause” of the vast swathes of unwalkable transit deserts across the American landscape. If we allow developers to build densely, cheaply, than we slowly gain new benefactors of good transit, as we increase the numbers of people in walkable areas. Move that 4/5 ratio towards 1/2.

      On a personal scale, I am trying (and so far failing) to save enough to add what little density is allowed on the property we own. But I am also thinking down the line when the kid is out of the house. I feel like I want to be car-free, but the timeline for that to be feasible in Tacoma is a long one. Do I just give up and move to one of the tiny, (and almost always wealthy) enclaves of walkability in the US? Move out of the country?

      My personal musings. What are yours?

      1. What are some towns or neighborhoods in western Washington where you could see yourself living a car-free life in the future?

      2. Seattle is the only place that has passable transit. Right now I have gone smaller icty, and pretty much walk and bike everywhere in Tacoma Almost everywhere I go often in Tacoma is less than 30 minutes by bike. I could probably do the same think in Bellingham, Port Townsend, Vancouver, Olympia.

        But my joints won’t last for ever. Transit will have to be part of the mix as my body continues to crumble. And that means Seattle. Or leave the region/country.

      3. The problem is, when I go to Seattle these days, I find little in common with the tiny slice of humanity that is been honed to thrive in the elite, ultra-expensive super-city that Seattle has become. They bore me.

      5. I’m not talking just software engineers. The wealth that you need to live in all of Seattle today, self-selects for a certain type of career-first, higher income striver that is its own weird monoculture of folks focused on keeping up with Jones’s. The artists, musicians, and all the blue-collar workers and service folks have left, because they have nowhere to live on those kinds of salaries. Unless they have a trust fund, or won the lottery by squeezing into a house on Queen Anne in the 90s, they have all been dispersed to cheaper shores. It’s pretty sad.

      6. There are many people who live car-free in towns other than Seattle, and I’m not just referring to retirees, college students, and the homeless. I know a guy in Olympia who has been car-free his entire life. Same with a lady in Redmond. A guy in Bellevue. A lady in Bellevue. Etc., etc. It sounds like you might have to lower your expectations a bit when it comes to transit. And maybe cut back on local and regional excursions. It won’t be easy, but living car-free is definitely doable, but it requires some compromises and trade-offs.

      7. “The wealth that you need to live in all of Seattle today”
        Not really, I’ve looked at condos and they’re still reasonably priced. It’s still somewhat affordable (depending on the condo you buy).

        “The artists, musicians, and all the blue-collar workers and service folks have left”
        They haven’t really left, I know plenty of said people who live in Seattle. Either longtime residents, living with roommates, choosing smaller apartments, etc. Also not all blue collar folks are low wage workers, tradespeople I know make decent money. One of my friends who’s works as a plumber is now taking the reigns of the plumbing company he’s been working at for years.

      8. Sam, yeah that is basically me. I currently live car free in South End of Tacoma. I may end up start being car lite in a few months so I can commute to Seattle for work in the future to get to the local park and ride in Tacoma in the morning. But, I don’t see myself being truly car dependent. I still like riding the bus and being able to be flexible and traverse Seattle without a car.

      9. My question is why would anyone that can afford a car want to live without one? It isn’t as if you can’t use transit, walk or bike if you own a car.

        Even if you live in downtown Seattle and shop online, use Uber or transit, bike and walk, you still want to own a car if you can afford to. Even if it sits parked most of the time.

        Maybe a better question is where do most people who can’t afford a car live? Probably S. Seattle, but not because it is some dense urban hot spot with great transit and retail but because housing is cheaper. My guess is they wish they could afford a car, and wish they could live someplace other than S. Seattle.

        Sure you can do it. Some folks live without electricity. Or Wi-Fi. Or cell phones. But what’s the point?

        I suppose if you are worried about carbon you can get an EV, or hybrid, but light rail emits tons of carbon during construction. The Seattle Times said it will be something like 100 years before Link is carbon neutral (and all those cars are paying for Link).

        Unless the point is this region is so spread out you can’t live without a car, and the few areas you could probably live without a car are too expensive (so those people can afford a car even if they rarely use it).

        I guess the real point is if you can’t afford a car you can’t afford to live somewhere where you don’t need a car and all the alternatives to a car like a fancy bike or Uber and a job that doesn’t require a car. That generally means you are screwed.

      10. My question is why would anyone that can afford a car want to live without one?

        Same reason lots of people choose to live without a chainsaw. Sure, it is obviously handy sometimes. But if you don’t need it, why deal with the hassle of storing it. Not to mention the fact that a lot of people don’t know how to use it properly. In the case of a car you need a license (with a chainsaw it is recommended). You can always ask someone to do the work for you or rent one when you want to use it. Just because you don’t own a car doesn’t mean you never ride in one.

      11. Cars are expensive. 8-10K a year, even if it just sits in the garage, on average.

        Along with 90% of the population, I’m objectively bad at driving. I mean, I think I’m a good driver, but I’m almost certainly wrong. And so are you. I could easily make a mistake and ruin my life or someone else’s.

        Getting around without a car is better for both my mental and physical health. I feel my blood-pressure rise, and my disdain for my fellow human rise, every time I get behind the wheel. It detaches me from society, and dehumanizes those around me. Cars make me fat and lazy. Cars make me lonely. Exercise decreases your risk of heart disease, cancer, stroke, obesity, diabetes and a whole host of other diseases.

        Cars are a curse on our natural as well as our built environment. They make everything worse. Everything.

      12. “Cars are expensive. 8-10K a year, even if it just sits in the garage, on average”.

        As I noted, don’t own a car if you can’t afford it. I think your cost estimates are high, especially if the car isn’t being driven much. The car retains its sales value less depreciation. If you don’t drive it much it depreciates less. Insurance is less if you qualify as a good driver. The biggest expense at first is the sales tax on the purchase price which prices out many poor people from owning.

        “Along with 90% of the population, I’m objectively bad at driving. I mean, I think I’m a good driver, but I’m almost certainly wrong. And so are you”.

        I disagree with you. I have driven for several decades without even a fender bender. I qualify for a good driver discount on my insurance. Most drivers are the same as me, although it doesn’t mean they were not involved in a fender bender during their lifetime.

        Most risk comes from drivers aged 16-19 and over 70. I support existing restrictions on driving for those aged 16-18 and regular testing for those over 70. At the same time I saw how it affected my dad when we had to take his keys. He lost his independence and stopped going out and became depressed.

        “I feel my blood-pressure rise, and my disdain for my fellow human rise, every time I get behind the wheel. It detaches me from society, and dehumanizes those around me. Cars make me fat and lazy. Cars make me lonely”.

        This sounds like an anxiety disorder or psychological condition. By all means do NOT drive a car if this is the reaction you get when driving. Some people should never drive a car, especially if they are admittedly bad drivers. Your family should intervene if you try to drive a car.

        “Same reason lots of people choose to live without a chainsaw. Sure, it is obviously handy sometimes. But if you don’t need it, why deal with the hassle of storing”.

        From the posts by Cam and Ross I assume each has a car. There are around 460,000 cars in Seattle. I doubt there are 460,000 chainsaws.

        If something is “handy” you generally need it, or at least it makes life more pleasant and easier. You can easily live without a dishwasher if you “need” to but life is harder. So unlike a chainsaw almost everyone has a dishwasher although cost $1000 and up. Or a TV. Or a cell phone. Cars, Uber and public transit and online shopping make life easier depending on the situation, so why give up any of them if you can afford them.

        I disagree with the idea of let’s return to the days of the horse and buggy and bicycles and walking and life will be better. We need to embrace change and the future.

        The future will be driverless technology and at that point private car ownership will go down but not VMT. Poor people will have more of a chance to use a car because they will be able to “lease” a slice of it per trip without the cost of owning a car that mostly sits parked or figuring out parking in multi-family housing or at their destination. The poor will finally have the same transportation choices as the middle class and rich.

        I also disagree with the belief that cars destroyed urbanism or major cities. The fact is most people don’t want to live in a dense apartment building in the urban areas. It just isn’t a pleasant place to live these days, certainly in Seattle, and not a good place to raise kids. That makes it only worse if you have to walk or take public transit around downtown Seattle. No thanks.

        Urbanists are mostly single men. The Seattle Times today notes that Seattle is number one for childless residents with cats or dogs. I think that is their choice (although good luck when you get old and I wish they would scoop their dog’s poop) but most still don’t want that life in a downtown urban area. At least that I know, and cars have nothing to do with that.

        In the end if more people wanted to live in multi-family housing in the urban area they would, and if more wanted to ride public transit they would. If more want to drive or take Uber they will do that. People make the best choice for them. It is almost impossible to make them do otherwise.

  14. We should probably have a series of car-free life portraits showing where somebody lives, where they go to, and how easy it is to get there. I’ll think about it. Does anybody have ideas on how to structure it? Or anybody who’s eager to write an article about their experience, or have an author interview them? Since this is a transit blog, I’m thinking of people who travel primarily by transit and walking. People who bike primarily would have a very different destination profile, which we could contrast, but it doesn’t say much about what life is like with transit.

    1. My partner and I are both car-free! She bikes primarily for commuting but I walk or take transit every day. I would very much be interested in writing about my experience. I have a degree in urban planning so I think about transportation and land use patterns pretty much constantly and think I could provide some good insights into what it is like living here without a car.

      1. Feel free to reach out to contact at seattletransitblog dot com; we’d love to help you compose a writeup of your experience!

Comments are closed.