Sound Transit:

Local Transit & Streets:

Land Use & Housing:

Global Transit:

Commentary & Miscellaneous:

This is an Open Thread. Interested in contributing to the blog? Contact us.

117 Replies to “Midweek Roundup: Reform”

  1. The WAPO article on sprawl set up everything 2uth data points, but failed to pull it all together to reach the obvious conclusion.

    Yes, people want cheaper housing, and aren’t willing to sacrifice that for walkability. But it’s expensive because of a lack of supply of walkable housing. Increase the supply by removing zoning andregulatory constraints, and the prices come way down (see: Tokyo).

    Yes, you still don’t likely have a huge yard, but now your whole city is your playground.

    And you solve homelessness as a knock-on bonus.

    1. The video has to be restarted every ten seconds — at least that’s how it “worked” for me — and the drone is way too high. Thanks for the link, Sam, but whoever made the video is a rank amateur.

      1. I believe the video was by the architectural firm that designed some apt bldgs next to the station, so the apts are the subject of the video, not the station. I thought the video had some good footage of station-area TOD.

      2. @Sam,

        Thanks for the video Link.

        I don’t get to DT Redmond very often, so I tend to forget just how much development there is in the DT core. Very impressive.

        I look forward to checking it out more once DRLE opens.

    2. Anything for the Marymoor Village station area? I still haven’t seen it.

      Downtown Redmond has more 7-story buildings than you can grasp from street level. Good for Redmond.

      I struggle with what to call 7-story buildings, because to me lowrise is 2-7 stories and midrise is 8-15 stories, but other people think 7 stories is midrise so the term is ambiguous. If it is lowrise, there’s no term to distinguish pre-upzone 2-4 story buildings from post-upzone 7-story buildings. If it’s midrise, saying a 7-story building is midrise creates confusion that it’s 10-15 stories or that 10-15 stories is allowed.

    1. Much more reasonable; thank you!

      If the 90 were at all a common route, I think it’d need to be broken up into two routes, one looping on Boren/Pine/12th and the other on Thomas/23rd/Jefferson.
      But, it only runs on snow days, and it doesn’t even have a schedule, so I’m fine leaving it as is.

      1. Yes, if that crazy loop were everyday service, RossB would be all over it saying it’s a horrible transit practice and worse than the proposed SLU-CC-FH streetcar route. But it’s to avoid the steep hills that buses can’t navigate on snow/ice days.

        The G is the first RapidRide line that’s suspended or radically changed during snow as far as I’m aware. But it’s also the first RapidrRide line with extensive steep hills, and the first serving an ultra-dense area outside downtown where it’s most needed, and that area happens to have steep hills.

        The B switches from 8th Street to Bel-Red Road on snow days, but that’s half a mile or less away for most of it.

      2. It is worth noting (as I’ve noted elsewhere) that the 90 is not new. It has been around for at least five years. You can find a reference to it in Wikipedia. The only thing that is new is the map and the acknowledgement that there is no special bus to replace the G when it snows. This is as expected.

    2. @Sam,

      That is the most insane snow route I have ever seen. Absolutely crazy.

      Obviously Metro intends to use the RR-G snow route to backfill for other routes that they intend to just cancel when it snows. That is the only explanation for such insanity.

      1. On this I agree!

        The Pine Street hill between 14th and 15th seems to have the same steepness as Madison there. Why divert to there?

        And Boren between Seneca and Pike is wildly steep! Why divert to the steepest blocks on Boren?

        I know Madison is steep west of Boren and east of 23rd but everything in-between should be on Madison unless it’s too icy to run any bus.

        Maybe Metro should also protect their equipment and buy/ run a salt truck on Madison. It seems quicker and a lower risk to bus damage than waiting for SDOT is.

      2. That is the most insane snow route I have ever seen. Absolutely crazy.

        Yes, it is almost as bad as the proposed streetcar route. Main difference is it only runs when it snows.

        It has been around for a while. It existed long before RapidRide G did. To be fair, the bus is trying to do what is fundamentally difficult — avoid the hills in a very hilly area.

      4. The 90 has been the First Hill snow circulator ever since Metro created an Adverse Weather map and Emergency Snow Network about ten years ago. That coincided with Seattle and Metro deciding in advance which streets would be plowed, because the emergency routes and plowed streets go hand in hand. The 90 routing has changed its shape over time, but it generally runs on 3rd, Jackson, and somewhere around Broadway. The extension east to 23rd may be new, or I may not have noticed it before. I’ve seen the 90 in action in the past two snowstorms. I’ve seen it on Pine Street and 3rd Avenue because that’s where I mostly am. It comes fairly frequently, maybe every 10-15 minutes. At least I think I’ve seen it twice while I was walking.

      5. “Obviously Metro intends to use the RR-G snow route”

        “There is no RR-G snow route. You are confused.”

        There was a RR-G snow route on the route map for a month or two. It was deleted and then we didn’t know anything, until Sam now got the word that the 90 shuttle will fully replace it, as it previously replaced the 2, 3, 4, and 12. The 12 as in, the route that most closely prefigured the G.

      6. @Mike Orr,

        “There was a RR-G snow route on the route map for a month or two.”

        You are correct. Metro did have a RR-G snow route in their original plans. It was clearly shown on early route maps.

        But now it appears that they are just deleting it and going with the pre-existing snow only route #90 instead. Unfortunately the #90 doesn’t do nearly as good a job of serving RR-G riders along the RR-G route.

        One wonders “why the change”, but we will never know. Maybe Metro is just betting that it will never snow again.

      8. I suspect that a core issue with a RapidRide G snow route are the left-door stops and the median boarding islands.

        Metro avoids running the longer articulated buses in the snow. Metro did not purchase standard length buses with doors on both the left and right. So using those stops is impossible — or at least very difficult.

        Plus, I believe that Metro may be more liable for people slipping on ice at a median stop. Stops on the side are generally treated as general public use while the median stops aren’t. (This may be an issue with any paid fare area.) I don’t think it’s a big deal — but their legal team may think it is.

        So Metro probably feels like a full closure during snow events is the way to go for now.

        It may be that Metro will someday purchase standard length (shorter) buses with doors on both sides. Then a snow route can be operated. These buses could have other uses too — but I can’t think of any quickly.

      9. I suspect that a core issue with a RapidRide G snow route are the left-door stops and the median boarding islands.

        It is simpler than that: It is the routing. The G is short. It basically just goes up a very steep hill and ends at 23rd. In contrast, the nearby 2 serves Queen Anne as well as Madrona. From a snow-route perspective, the G is just a subset of the 2. This means the G snow-route is basically the 2 snow-route (or the 90).

        It is like when Link is out of service. For some trips you definitely need a shuttle. But for others you don’t. You don’t have to take a special shuttle from Westlake to Capitol Hill — there are several buses that go that way. Same basic idea.

      10. Al S, I agree. It mostly has to do with the bus type+island stops+left doors. So, if for example Metro turned the route 2 into an island stop left door 60 foot articulated bus route, they’d probably eliminate the route 2 snow route, and direct riders to use other snow routes on snow days.

      11. @Sam,

        RR-G uses a mix of center median and curbside stops. I don’t understand why Metro couldn’t serve the curbside stops and reroute for the others. Yet Metro is cancelling service to all the stops, not just the center median stops.

        And why couldn’t Metro just pick up passengers at the curb adjacent to the center median stops during periods of snow? What is it about the configuration of RR-G that makes snow stops at the curb impossible?

        But hey, if this is truly a characteristic of Metro routes with center median stops, then maybe we shouldn’t build anymore. We can’t just be shutting down our major routes right when people need transit the most.

      12. @Al S.,

        “I suspect that a core issue with a RapidRide G snow route are the left-door stops and the median boarding islands.”

        The Seattle Streetcar also uses a mix of curbside and center median stops, yet it stays open during snow events. Why can’t RR-G?

        And if Metro needs to swap out standard RHS boarding 40 footers during snow events, why can’t they just stop at the curb adjacent to the median stops? Doesn’t seem that difficult.

      13. “The Seattle Streetcar also uses a mix of curbside and center median stops, yet it stays open during snow events. Why can’t RR-G?”

        You can’t be serious. The G has steep hills; the streetcar doesn’t.

        “And if Metro needs to swap out standard RHS boarding 40 footers during snow events, why can’t they just stop at the curb adjacent to the median stops?”

        You’re assuming 40-foot buses can negotiate Madison Street during snow. The 2 doesn’t remain on Seneca Street; it does most of what the 90 does. The biggest difference is it runs on Broadway rather than Boren.

      14. It mostly has to do with the bus type+island stops+left doors.

        So you are saying if it wasn’t for the island stops, the bus would just go straight up Madison? Get real. Madison is steep. That is why the 2 is rerouted.

        Look folks, it isn’t that complicated. The snow route for the G consists of:

        1) The snow-route 2
        2) The snow-route 12
        3) The 90.

        The reason they focus on the 90 is because unlike the snow-route 2, it serves the hospitals. The reason there isn’t a separate snow-route G is because all of those routes have it covered. There is nothing else to do.

        It has nothing to do with buses with doors on both sides or island platforms. It is the route.

      16. I strongly suspect no one at Metro thought of snow operations for the G-line when they decided on the median design. Metro, like most public agencies, genuinely lack foresight. There’s no way the G will be able to operate any of its original route, left door or right door, in the snow. If it does operate, it’ll likely use Union St/Pine St – which is the same snow route as the 11.

      17. Or, for a weather event that happens maybe 1-4 days per year (~1%), they decided it wasn’t worth reengineering the whole project.

      18. “So you are saying if it wasn’t for the island stops, the bus would just go straight up Madison?” I’m saying if it weren’t for some combination of the G Line using 60 foot articulated buses, island stops and left side doors, the G Line would probably have its own snow route, but not using Madison street the entire way. Of course it would avoid the steep parts, like most snow routes do.

        Remember, before the G Line existed, the route 11 used Madison street all the way to downtown, but its snow route, using 40 foot diesel buses, didn’t use Madison the entire way to downtown. But Metro didn’t delete the 11’s snow route because “Madison is too steep,” and tell riders to use the route 2 or 12 snow route, instead. The old Madison street route 11 had its own snow route called the route 11 snow route. The G Line doesn’t have its own snow route. It’s the only regular and frequent route in the Metro system that doesn’t have a snow route, and that’s not because parts of Madison are steep.

      19. @Sam — So you are basically saying that Metro should create a snow route that is a subset of the snow route for the 2. Why? What is the point in that?

      20. @Sam,

        “…. before the G Line existed, the route 11 used Madison street all the way to downtown….”

        You are correct, Sam. Metro has supported buses on Madison with their own snow routes before. One has to wonder why they can’t do it now?

        And the problem is compounded because RR-G is a higher investment route that supposedly has much higher ridership than the old #11. Kicking a high number of riders off to lower capacity, lower frequency routes in the middle of a snow storm seems like the exact opposite of what should be done.

        If Metro is going to start canceling routes during snow events, it seems like the correct thing to do would be to cancel the lower ridership, less frequent routes. And then consolidate that lower ridership on nearby higher capacity, higher frequency routes. Not the other way around.

      21. Ross, where did I say that there should be a G Line snow route that closely follows the route 2 snow route? The only thing I’ve done is give my opinion why I think there isn’t an official, dedicated G Line-branded snow route.

      22. Ross, where did I say that there should be a G Line snow route that closely follows the route 2 snow route?

        What do you think a G Line snow-route would look like, if not a subset of the 2?

        Metro has supported buses on Madison with their own snow routes before. One has to wonder why they can’t do it now?

        They do! Look at the snow route for the 2: https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/metro/routes-and-service/schedules-and-maps/002.html#route-map. It is the part in red. That is the snow route for both the 2 and the G. Keep in mind, the 2 and the G both go up Spring (not Madison) but it is the same idea — it is too steep so you go around.

        But what about serving the hospitals, you might ask. That is the what the 90 is for. I really don’t know why people are so confused. When it snows you have to use a different bus stop and maybe even a different bus. That is life when it snows.

      23. “I strongly suspect no one at Metro thought of snow operations for the G-line when they decided on the median design. Metro, like most public agencies, genuinely lack foresight.”

        To be clear, Metro runs the buses but it was SDOT that led the project. Metro got forced into going along with it.

        This is one of many reasons why SDOT should not lead transit projects outside of bus stops— and even on just that SDOT even got the calculations wrong with the RapidRide G vehicle floor heights.

      24. I strongly suspect no one at Metro thought of snow operations for the G-line when they decided on the median design.

        Or, more likely, they figured there would be a snow route for it. Sure enough, there is. Just like every other route.

        Holy cow folks will use any excuse to criticize the G.

        OMG! There isn’t a unique snow route! Riders have to take a different bus with a different number. How confusing! Deary me, what shall I do. If only there was a device that one could carry around with them that would inform them of not only when the buses are on snow route, but what the various options are. Maybe some sort of portable phone where we could call in, give them our address and they could tell us what the best way up the hill is. Better yet, it could display the information in some sort of visual manner. Something provided by a company named after a fruit or a large number perhaps.

        Jeesh.

        When Link breaks down (which is a lot more often then it snows around here) folks take the buses. Should Metro rename the buses “Link 1 Line” during that period, so that people who are used to taking the train know which bus to take? Please.

        The reason the G does not have it’s own snow route is very simple:

        1) It does not have a unique service area (broadly speaking).
        2) It is very steep.

      25. “I strongly suspect no one at Metro thought of snow operations for the G-line when they decided on the median design.”

        It was SDOT who decided and built the center lanes. What should they have done instead? Not had transit-exclusive lanes because there’s snow for ten days every 2-3 years? We don’t know that the center lanes or left-side doors have anything to do with suspending the G on snow days. It’s just armchair speculation in the comment section. The reason for suspending the G is so that buses don’t slide down the hill and crash into cars and stations, or get stuck and can’t get up the hill and block lanes. That has to do with steepness, surface conditions, and the weight and length of articulated buses, not whether the stations are in the middle or the doors open on the left side.

      26. “before the G Line existed, the route 11 used Madison street all the way to downtown”

        No it didn’t; that was the 12. The 11 has always been a Pine-Madison route, at least since I started riding Metro in 1979.

        Three months ago the 11 rerouted to Olive Way, and the 12 was moved to Pine Street. Those are the only alignment changes I’ve ever seen for them. (There were other things that didn’t affect their core stops: the 12 used to be part of the 13, and the 10/12 and 11/125 were through-routed for a time..)

      27. “Kicking a high number of riders off to lower capacity, lower frequency routes in the middle of a snow storm seems like the exact opposite of what should be done. ”

        90% of riders disappear during snow. You only need coverage service. People stop commuting to the office, limit their grocery trips, and choose activities they can walk to.

      28. Mike, I discovered that after I wrote it. I misremembered the old route 11, from years and years ago, as going all the way on Madison. To doublecheck, I looked up the old 1988 Metro route map, but saw that the route 11 jumped over to Pine somewhere around 14th or 15th. I also believe back then the route 11 was interlined with the route 20 to somewhere in West Seattle. I tried to find an old route 11/20 schedule map to see what the snow routing was, but couldn’t find one.

      29. The 11 may have been interlined with the 20 (Delridge to White Center) at one point. When the 20 was replaced by the 120 it would leave the 11 with no partner, so it may have gotten attached to the 125 then.

    3. I’ll take credit for prodding Metro about it before Thanksgiving, when there was no snow route on the map.

      1. Yeah, the timing is telling. Maybe some folks on Metro read the comment section of the blog.

      2. A G Line snow route briefly existed on its route map page. Alex K posted it on X.

        https://x.com/alexkven/status/1834256527508779266?s=46

        Soon after, that snow route disappeared from the G Line route map, and for months, no snow was mentioned on the G Line map, not even the route 90. Then, route 90 was suddenly added to G Line route map. I’m not sure when it was added, but I think it was very recently.

      3. “Maybe some folks on Metro read the comment section of the blog.”

        Metro has thousands of people; of course some of them do. Some of them occasionally tell us or appear in the comment section. But it sounds like Nathan also prodded Metro directly outside the blog.

      4. I emailed Metro about it
        before Thanksgiving for a roundup where I wanted to be snarky about the RR-G’s wild snow route, and noticed its route map didn’t have it shown. They’ve replied a couple times since saying they were working on it, but didn’t tell me when the route map was updated. I assume it was late last week or early this week.

      1. Neither the 11 or 12 snow route serve the hospitals. But yes, there are a number of different ways to get up the hill. That is part of the reason the 90 exists and has existed for a really long time. But yes, there are other buses a rider can take (it really depends on where they are headed).

  4. Have any of you wondered whether schools, both public and private in the Seattle metro should allow for the embedding of ORCA tech into like student ID cards. So that ORCA youth fares can be better tracked for better accuracy. Similar to what UW does with the Husky Card, which are embedded with ORCA chips for their fare pass. I know there’d be privacy concerns to doing such a thing because it’s data involving minors. But this was something that just popped into my head right now.

    1. I’m not sure it makes sense to ask kids to tap to board when their fare is free. Ridership tracking is mostly by automated people counters, not fare payments.

      2. I don’t know how agencies get reimbursed by the state for youth rides.

        But I’m pretty sure only the monorail has a policy that youth tap with a youth ORCA card or pay a youth fare ($1.75, soon to be $2 in 2025, the same as their other reduced fares). The monorail does not get reimbursed regardless, and offered no reason why they have not lobbied the state to be included.

        I witnessed one guy get kicked off Amtrak because he failed to acquire a ticket. It wasn’t clear to me whether he met the age cut-off. I suspect presentation of ID is their method of proving eligibility, but you also have to acquire a ticket before boarding.

        I hope the whole youth fare freedom program has not turned into a budget hole for every transit agency, when it was attached to a program to get the state to start subsidizing transit operations.

      3. “I don’t know how agencies get reimbursed by the state for youth rides.”

        It’s a state grant.

    2. I think it’s a good idea. It would get students used to tapping their card, would make it easier to identify fare evasion, and the data on free fare usage seems like it would be valuable as well.

      1. @John D,

        Concur 100%.

        It’s good for data collection purposes, and it’s good for the kids who learn how to “do it like an adult”.

        When I was a kid, and my parents went to the polling place to vote, they would let the kids vote too. Different ballot, never got counted, but it was good training in social responsibility and how to be an adult.

        I say let the kids tap. Still free, just tap like an adult.

        And, on a more negative note, having kids tap creates a record of where they are/were. If anything goes wrong, being able to know where they last were is an invaluable tool in the police response.

        So issues around the safety of our children would also suggest they should tap.

    3. The schools are very lax on giving out the cards in the first place. Usually my middle schooler gets her card about 3-4 months after the school year starts (and promptly loses it – it isn’t useful for anything). My elementary schooler does not have a card at all. When free transit for children started, bus drivers used to ask for ID. They don’t ask anymore.

  5. King County Metro wants feedback from South King County residents so they can hear, and know, what we really need. With all that information, they can do the exact opposite. Metro does not care about South King County. We have crime at stops, they do nothing.

    1. The feedback is about routes. Crime is a separate issue, and is not specific to South King County.

      1. I know that. Metro ignores the concerns and wishes of South King County. I only get responses because I keep pestering them.

      2. The last time I submitted a commendation for an operator, I got a generic response that someone had counseled the operator on their unacceptable behavior.

      1. We should have a Transit Police force. Cops who handle law enforcement in buses, link, stops, stations, transit centers, and the tunnel.

      2. Metro has its own transit police force, a division of the county sheriffs’ department.

        ST also has its own police force.

        But if someone gets assaulted at a bus stop, the city police department has jurisdiction.

      3. You would station a cop at each of thousands of bus stops all day in case a crime occurs there sometime? Where would these thousands of additional cops come from?

    4. Metro is proposing to eliminate route 177, the peak-direction-only commuter route between Federal Way and downtown Seattle. But routes 162 and 193 (sans stops at Star Lake and Kent-Des Moines P&R) appear to be here to stay. All the mothballed commuter routes would be permanently eliminated.

      It makes sense to not have the 193 serve all three new stations near the Park & Rides the 193 currently serves. But wouldn’t it make more sense to have it terminate at K/DM Station rather than Federal Way? I do like how it is planned to serve several stops on Jackson St.

      I’m disappointed not to see the frequent route between Kent and Kent/Des Moines Station not take the new quicker path to Highline College and K/DMS.

      1. By the way, expect this comment to be repeated as soon as the essay about the restructure is posted.

        Anyway, I think retaining the 162 is very surprising. In the past Metro has been very aggressive when it comes to truncations (and ST less so). They would run buses to areas that could be considered downtown (First Hill and South Lake Union) — but those places don’t have Link Station. Yet here they are, running a bus right to heart of downtown (right where Link goes). Not only that, but it doesn’t make any stops from the station to downtown.

        This is very different. I don’t ever remember Metro doing that. The closest analogy is the 515, but that bus is temporary. This is not.

        The only conclusion I can draw is that Metro feels like the transfer to Link is too slow. Even during peak (the only time this bus runs) people would rather have the express than transfer. Metro is willing to spend what little service hours it has providing that faster service.

        Which is why it is essential that ST continue to run the express buses to Seattle after Federal Way Link. The buses are much faster in the middle of the day. The savings are much bigger. I know that with truncations comes service savings, but you can save a bunch of money by eliminating the 574 and just having the 594 stop at Federal Way. Those heading to SeaTac will transfer while those heading to Seattle would have a much faster trip.

        Furthermore, by the time Link gets to Federal Way, it is quite likely that service will be fully restored and they will run buses every fifteen minutes from Tacoma and Auburn to Seattle. This was cancelled at the last minute because of the driver shortage) ST is restoring some of the runs — it stands to reason that they will finally implement the service upgrade.

        When that happens, the bus will be faster than Link in the middle of the day. Even if you just miss the bus and Link arrives, you are better off waiting for the next bus.

      2. Metro seems to be thinking route 162 is faster than Sounder, or that Sounder is infrequent enough that it won’t catch up with the earlier bus, or transfers near King St Station will take too long.

        I can see a purpose for a route that goes from Kent Station and serves the valley business corridor, in ways routes 150, 161 and others do not already. I don’t see why Kent Station needs a downtown express bus, except for emergencies when Sounder is blocked.

      3. I also wish Metro would consider the increased gravity well of the existing stations.

        I expect increased ridership on the F Line as a network effect. Is there any plan to some day bring it up to brand with 10-minute all-day headway?

      4. There is is a pretty big transit hole south of 316th. It’s only served by an hourly Pierce Transit 500 bus.

        I don’t understand why Metro leans so heavily on the incredibly low-resourced Pierce Transit, rather than the other way around. They should ideally extend the RR A to at least 340th, if not all the way to Tacoma. Federal Way residents and businesses likely would be far better served by fast, frequent connections to Tacoma than improved express service to Seattle.

      5. And by “it” I mean Pac Hwy, obviously.

        While most of Federal Way is sprawly low-density residential, Pac Hwy is where the real meat and vitality of Federal Way is, with lots of retail, restaurants and medium sized malls, and what little residential density exists in FW. It is simply not well served by a Transit Center-focused spoke system to an area on the far east edge of the city, nestled in a sea of parking lots along I-5.

        Metro needs to somehow serve Pac Hwy with high quality, frequent local service south of 316th Ave. It basically punts on the 5 miles Pac Hwy between the transit center and the county line, and relies on Pierce Transit to serve it.

        Compare that to how they serve the Snohomish border. Metro provides high quality frequent service right to the county line, and doesn’t suggest that it’s Community Transit obligation to serve deep into Shoreline and other parts of King County. They just basically meet at the border at Aurora Village. And Community Transit is in much better shape financially than Pierce.

      6. @Cam Solomon,

        I was just up at South Shoreline/148th Station. There was a young lady who missed the 346 to Aurora Village because she waited at the wrong spot. I explained it to her.

        A few minutes later I saw her on the Link platform waiting to head north. So I asked why.

        Her recovery plan for missing the 346 was to take Link to North Shoreline/185th and then transfer to Swift Blue. So she was really making use of the various transit options available to her.

        The kicker? Her transit app indicated that she should arrive at AVTC before the 346 bus she missed was scheduled to arrive! Even with the transfer.

        Also, while at South Shoreline/148th I got to check out the blue rain art in action. Pretty impressive. The southern blue pipe art acts as a range gauge that gives a nearly instantaneous indication of rainfall rate. I’m not sure what the scale is, but I liked it.

      7. Yeah, I’m talking about local service in King County, Lazarus.

        Federal Way pretty much doesn’t have any local service to speak of, other than the A, for a bit of the northeast quadrant. And some on-demand stuff at hourly or worse.

        So you talking about multiple redundant options in the north, when the south doesn’t have any local options at all from either Metro or Sound Transit, doesn’t really make me feel any better.

      8. @Cam Solomon,

        Ya, I was just illustrating your point that North King does have transit options, and they do work fairly well.

        As to why Metro hasn’t given the same amount of attention to South King, I can’t say. South King is less dense and therefore harder to serve, but I’d still expect Metro to provide reasonable coverage if for no other reason than equity.

        That said, what I witnessed today occurred at a Link station, and Federal Way doesn’t yet have Link. The Link stations in North King have multiple transit options available at one site, but that is a fairly recent improvement. As recently as last August the transfer situation wasn’t nearly this good in North King. It all came with the opening of LLE.

        So when FWLE finally opens I’d expect similar improvements around the Link stations in South King. Will they be exactly as good? I don’t know, that sort of depends on Metro.

      9. The current proposal bodes ill for a Shoreline/Mountlake-Terrace-like improvement in local bus service around the Pierce County line.

        But Pierce County is having a changing of the guard. Perhaps the new PT Board will give its staff the green light to talk with Metro and ST about opening up more local service when eight South King / Pierce ST Express routes are reduced to as few as four.

      10. Wow, I hadn’t realized that the Pierce Transit routes are only hourly! Yes, something more is needed.

        I don’t think Metro should be in the business of upgrading service all the way to Tacoma. Perhaps Metro and Pierce Transit could collaborate on a BRT route like Everett Transit and Community Transit are collaborating on Swift Blue Line, but Pierce Transit is budget-sensitive and Pacific Highway in Fife doesn’t look like it should be a high priority for them. Among other reasons, people from Federal Way can take the I-5 express bus if they don’t want to wait for the hourly 500/501.

        So, I think we should have a Metro route that’s basically a short-turn version of Pierce Transit, serving the King County portion of things. The density appears to follow Kitts Corner Rd after it branches off Pacific Highway, so I’d make it a short-turn 402 (“142”?) that turns around at the Milton Way Safeway just across the county line.

      11. Metro provides high quality frequent service right to the county line

        Yes, but there are good reasons for this. It basically boils down to density, proximity and the amount of land to cover.

        Shoreline benefits from the fact that it is fairly narrow. Pull up a map of Metro’s bus routes. As you would expect, there is a high concentration in Seattle. Now go north. The city actually narrows quite a bit as you get to the city border (145th). It isn’t that far from Puget Sound to the lake. More to the point it isn’t that far from Greenwood (to the west) to Lake City Way (to the east). Because there isn’t that much land to cover, it is covered fairly well. As you go farther north, things spread out a bit and service isn’t quite as good (as it dissipates). Lake City Way becomes Bothell Way, which heads east. As you get up to 185th you have to cover Richmond Beach, which spreads the coverage area to the west. But the bulk of service is retained on what is a fairly narrow and at this point, fairly short corridor. It isn’t that far from the city border (145th) to the county border (200th). That means it isn’t that far from the high density areas (in the city) to the lower density ones outside it.

        South King County doesn’t have anything like that. It becomes a very large, sprawling area by the time you hit Burien and continues that way until Tacoma. There are some pretty good areas of density, but rarely do you find the type of density you would find in Seattle. Just as importantly, it is a really long ways from Seattle (and the bulk of the destinations). It is worth noting that the RapidRide A does not go to Seattle, while in contrast, its counterpart (the RapidRide E) does. Yet there are plenty of buses that run to Seattle from the south end of the county. This means that it is spread thin in two ways. Not only are they trying to cover a very broad area but they are trying to serve the various corridors *and* reasonably fast service to Seattle, typically with different buses. They could combine them (like the 150) but it is a very long way to Seattle and very expensive (or slow) to run that far.

        This explains the regional performance differences. Look at the various routes and their ridership per service hour. By and large, the routes that perform really well are in the city. Even buses that are notoriously slow (the like the 3/4 or the 8) perform above average. The north and east are about average. But the south end — spread thin as mentioned — are where most of the underperforming routes are. There are notable exceptions (the RapidRide A being the biggest) but it is just very challenging to serve the south end of the count.

        It should be noted that not all of Shoreline has great service. While it isn’t that far from the city line to the county line, a lot of buses stop short. The 5, for example, just ends at Shoreline College. Other buses skirted the edge of the city and then just ended (or went back south to Northgate). Some of the buses branched so that they could provide better frequency inside the city (and more coverage outside it). The recent restructure helped Shoreline quite a bit, but it is still common to find half-hour routes (while most of that part of Seattle has fifteen-minute routes). Service drops because density drops.

        Shoreline is also better served than many other suburbs. Lake Forest Park and Kenmore don’t have great service. They basically have the bus serving the main corridor (Bothell Way) and infrequent service outside it (if they even have a bus at all). Again, this is because the areas are so spread out.

        As for extending the RapidRide A, I could see it. But only until about 348th. Potential ridership drops substantially after that. It picks up again as you get close to the Tacoma Dome, but it still isn’t that high. It isn’t until you hit Pacific Highway South (and go either north or south) that you get to a really promising corridor. At that point you are clearly in Pierce County. Yes, Metro could serve this, but that would be like Metro going beyond Aurora Village and ending at Edmonds College.

        And yes, this creates a fairly perverse situation. The agency spending way less on transit (Pierce) is running buses into King County, while Metro doesn’t bother going to Tacoma. But that is partly because Pierce County leaders want to encourage people to get on the bus and go to Tacoma. It is also quite likely that this is what people on the corridor want. The folks in Pierce County care more about the 500 than the people in King County, despite the fact that the bus serves both. In any event, extending the A farther south (to 348th) could lead to Pierce Transit cutting those routes short and thus saving some money.

        Of course the real answer for such cross-county problems is for the state or an agency like Sound Transit to step in. But Sound Transit is too busy building a massively large subway system (that really should have been built by Metro) and the state only has a fledgling intercounty transit system that is mostly geared towards city to city travel (e. g. Omak to Ellensburg).

      12. Yeah, okay. But the population density in the census blocks is not terribly different in Federal Way along 99 than what you see in Shoreline. And additionally, Federal Way has substantial job density, with all the retail and the big hospital and 5000 jobs in its block, which has essentially no transit service at all.

        And Metro should be consider proximity of Federal Way Tacoma, not just Seattle. FW is far more in the satellite of Tacoma than Seattle, and ST has more than taken care of high quality transit to Seattle, in any case.

        Metro should be doing much more to serve FW. Its frankly embarrasing. I took RR A from TIBS to FW, and ended up walking 30 minutes to 133rd, because Metro provides zilch, in a rich retail and multifamily area. And then had to beg a ride home, because otherwise would have been standing in the rain for an hour waiting for the 500.

  6. South of the border… Portland just approved a 1.5 mile streetcar extension to Montgomery Park where a large mixed use redevelopment district is planned. The extension will be off-wire and as they add new cars for this extension they also plan to replace their original 25 year old streetcars which does seem a bit premature.

    2. Some cities seem to find great value in their streetcar systems, yet Seattle
      can’t figure out if they’re putting one in or tearing one out. Such a fickle city.

  7. I’ve recently spent quite a lot of time between Capitol Hill/Pike Place/SLU, and I’ve noticed that the Pike/Pine loop (shared by the 10/11/12/49) really needs a stop on 2nd. The existing stops on 4th are annoyingly far from the market.

    Also, I’m sure there are other options for this but it would be really nice if the 11 was combined with the 8 for more frequent service along Denny.

    1. Thought the same thing when going to Pike Place Market via Capitol Hill bus. Better bus service to PPM with a stop on/near 2nd Ave would greatly benefit the market reaching a natural customer base nearby that doesn’t need parking and it would also drive ridership on those buses which otherwise have seen much of its ridership shift over to Link. Its a needless additional distance to walk when the bus travels much closer anyway. Plus the added distance to 4th/Pike requires walking through dangerous dealers and passed out junkies then waiting in an open air drug den.

      1. The problem with a stop on Second Avenue is that the bus is on Second for only a block, so it has to stay in the left lane to turn onto Pike. It would require left-side doors or an island platform.

        Second Avenue is pretty high-speed for an island platform.

      2. Could have an island platform on Pine just before the left turn. There was one exactly like this at 3rd/Pine by McDonalds that was ripped out in the mid-2010s.

      3. @poncho — I haven’t been downtown in a while (bad foot) but I assume this picture is accurate: https://maps.app.goo.gl/pvdCQYB9ZHEKynrFA. That could work. The bus would pull over into the parking lane (where the BMW is parked). The island bus stop is in the middle of the street. Cars weave around the stop to the right (which means you would probably get rid of the parking to the right as well). After the bus uses the stop, it merges back into the middle lane and takes a left. It would be a bit tight, but I think it could work.

      4. Pike/Pine was recently rebuilt and Google Maps is not up to date. Here’s a video of what it looks like now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyTnH1lMJDo

        I think contraflow bus lanes on Pike/Pine would be ideal, but extremely expensive. Turning Pine into a transit street sounds reasonable as well. Either option would require another full street rebuild. That would consolidate the bus stops (across the street or across the block versus across the block and across two streets) and would remove all delay waiting for cars to turn right.

        I was thinking there might be a way to squeeze in an island stop on 2nd with some rechannelization, but a stop on Pine near 2nd seems like it would fit and might be the ideal short/medium-term solution

      5. Thanks John. Great video. It looks like the main difference for that section is the little curb bulb for the alley is gone (https://youtu.be/wyTnH1lMJDo?t=868). This makes it nicer for bikers. It would also make it easier for buses to use a stop there. You would still have to put the island bus stop right after the alley. But if you remove more parking on left side of the street the bus could move into that lane sooner and would have a straight shot to the bus stop. Then the cars and the bus basically merge back into the center lane (around the island bus stop) and the bus turns left.

        I think the only question is whether there is enough room between the alley and Second for an island bus stop (i. e. would a bus stop be too long). I think it would fit fine, but it would be close. I guess the bus stop really doesn’t have to be as long as a bus. It just need to be as long as the distance between the front doors and the back doors. If the bus stuck out into the alley it would be no big deal. I could definitely see that work.

      6. “I think contraflow bus lanes on Pike/Pine would be ideal, but extremely expensive.”

        I don’t think contraflow bus lanes would help at all. It’s mostly stop signs now on both streets between Harvard and Bellevue. If there is a blockage of any sort (even a delivery vehicle), the buses get stopped and can’t move. Pedestrians would still have to look both ways.

        I think that the better choice would be to make both streets one-way for both buses and cars to at least Broadway if not further east to 12th or 14th. The buses could get their own same direction lane (as opposed to a contraflow lane) — that they could jog out of when blockages occur. Pedestrians would have one less direction to look when crossing the street.

        Contraflow bus are an interesting tool, but their operation along with some safety challenges make them appropriate only in unique circumstances — like connecting to a bus-only ramp or transit center. Same direction bus lanes are going to work better in most situations rather than contraflow ones.

      7. I’m not sure it is worth it either to be honest, but contraflow would prevent the buses from getting stuck behind right turning vehicles (which happens very frequently; see the video above at about 11:15). It would also make it easier to add stops, and would force the bus-only lane to extend all the way up to at least Bellevue (the bus lanes currently disappear near the convention center).

        I’m not sure there are major safety or blockage concerns. These are already relatively slow streets/intersections, and function more or less the same as any other small two-way street (see: Pine east of Bellevue)

        But thinking about it more a two-way bus street on Pine might be better anyway. I don’t really like couplets; they reduce system legibility and make it slightly more annoying to take transit.

        In any case since the street was just rebuilt any major changes are probably out of the question for the foreseeable future. I think the suggested stop on Pine before the left turn on 2nd would be fine enough for now.

      8. @Al — I think you you are missing the point. Contraflow solves the problem that is the original topic of this thread. Instead of buses making two left turns on Second they would make two right turns. This means adding a stop at Second would be trivial.

        Contraflow is basically a transit mall in one direction. Consider Third Avenue. Imagine we allow cars to go southbound. Are buses going northbound hurt by this? Not really. That is contraflow.

        There are subtle advantages and disadvantages between contraflow and a bidirectional transit mall. Contraflow allows full access to vehicles (they just go one direction). A transit mall does not. As a result, contraflow is often easier to understand. For example Third Avenue has all sorts of confusing signs (“Don’t turn left between these hours unless you have a permit or maybe a note signed by your parents…”). In contrast, contraflow is much simpler (“Don’t Turn Left”).

        It also depends on how many transit lanes you have. With one-lane contraflow it is difficult to pass a stalled bus. In contrast with a transit malls you are only dealing with buses. Fellow drivers are more likely to get the message and allow buses going the other way to pass the stalled vehicle. (This isn’t relevant with multi-lane contraflows).

        In this case you would have a pair of contraflow lanes. This means that riders use different bus stops going each direction (as they do today). As John has mentioned, that is less than ideal. With a transit mall you avoid this problem. In general I would say transit malls are easier to understand. I think just about everyone knows that you head to Third if you want to catch a bus through downtown.

        In this case I don’t know which one is clearly better. I would ask SDOT to study both options. My guess is though, a transit mall comes out ahead, even though there are advantages to each.

        Contraflow offers a simpler way to turn around. On the other hand you probably end up with the same number of turns. I also think just focusing on Pine is less disruptive. You would also need a short contraflow lane on Stewart (to make clockwise turn — https://maps.app.goo.gl/ed6gRavcuRCeva8G7) but I think that is actually less disruptive than adding a short contraflow section on Second (which would be necessary to make the clockwise turn from Pike to Pine). But mostly it is just that you are only dealing with one street.

        It is also simpler for riders: Every bus stop is on Pine. In contrast I often have to look up the route to determine where a bus shifts from Pike to Pine.

        We already have bike lanes on the left side of the street. This means that if we added contraflow (and kept the bike lanes) every bus stop would be a bike/bus stop (like the ones on Roosevelt or 65th). This is less than ideal. We would have to do the same thing with a transit mall, but things are simpler with just buses. I’m pretty sure that Pine is wide enough to accommodate all of that, especially as we eliminate parking.

        Speaking of the bike lanes, one thing I noticed is that there are dedicated left turn lights (so that cars can go in front of bikes without endangering them). This is great, but it means the light cycle is longer. With a transit mall you get rid of that. No left turns (since buses aren’t interested in turning left). Overall, this makes it safer for bikes. It isn’t often that I recommend we run the buses on the same street as the bike lanes, but in this case I think it could work out really well. You have a lane for buses and bikes going one way and a lanes for buses and bike going the other. With buses going straight (until First) you avoid all bike/automobile conflict. The buses avoid all congestion and the traffic light cycle is shorter.

        There are drawbacks. Trucks need access. But this could be handled like they handle it on Third (permits and time restrictions). One odd thing: It would be harder to get downtown, but easier to leave it. I think this is a good thing. It would mean that it would be difficult to drive from Capitol Hill to Pike Place in a car (although better than ever in an emergency vehicle). Again, I think this is a good thing. This is how Amsterdam does it. You can’t directly drive from point A to point B — but you can ride a bike or take transit. Thus fewer people drive (and when they do drive, they have a really good reason to).

        Of course if Pine is a two-way transit/bike street, then Pike could be a two-way general purpose street. I would be fine with that as a compromise.

    2. What Tom wrote. Basically the buses take two left turns to make the loop. First a left onto 2nd (from Pine) then a left onto Pike (from 2nd). The bus spends too little time on 2nd to get over into the right lane (to serve a bus stop) and then back into the left lane (to make the left turn onto Pike).

      It is less than ideal and not easy to fix. You want a right turn loop in this sort of situation (like the G). You can’t do that on Second — you would have to turn around on First. This would actually be better, but it isn’t that simple. For various reasons it won’t work (without going well out of your way). For example this is Pine/Olive: https://maps.app.goo.gl/wKgxwr96vFiFby4J8. Here is Union/Pike: https://maps.app.goo.gl/Wy1RtXyrS6jFvxUd9.

      The only options are to change the streets or add that island bus stop. Adding an island bus stop does not require doors on both sides. But it does require taking two lanes (one for the stop and one for the bus). There are already bike lanes in that left lane. So that would narrow the street to only one general purpose lane in there (if we kept the right hand bus lane). To get an idea of what I’m talking about, look at this picture: https://maps.app.goo.gl/j9vYqXsoZNEe8Nde7. The bus would make the turn and drive in the lane with the black Jeep (next to the bike lane). The island bus stop would be in the lane with the white (Toyota?) SUV. The general purpose lane would be the one to the right, with the GMC pickup truck. This would create a major pinch point. I don’t see that happening for a while.

      It would probably be easier to change the streets. Part of the problem is that Pine is one-way from 8th to 1st. One option: Make it a two-way transit mall for that section. Also add a lane (for buses) going eastbound on Stewart from 1st to 3rd. Then a bus could loop around using 1st/Stewart and Third, while mostly staying on Pine the whole way: https://maps.app.goo.gl/U8BmLb8xZ1kHBpf27. Note: that is walking directions — you can’t do that in a car.

      Not only would that make for a much better stop to the west (right by the Market) but it would improve travel for all of the Pike/Pine buses. Given the number of trips those buses make, turning Pine into a transit mall would be justified. This wouldn’t be a four lane transit mall (like Third) but only one lane each direction. Under normal circumstances buses can’t pass buses (because they are under wire) so there is no need to add more lanes. That would leave plenty of room for bike lanes, while also making it a very pleasant urban street.

      1. I posted this above as well, but thinking about it more making Pine a two-way transit mall might be ideal. There would be no more conflicts with other vehicles; there would no longer be an awkward block between the eastbound and westbound bus stops; there would be a stop on 1st/Pine; the bike lanes could be placed on the same street. I’m also not seeing many driveways on Pine (though alleyway access would probably need to be maintained)

  8. The scale of business closures in West Seattle for the Link extension is just mind-boggling. Truly “destroy the neighborhood in order to serve it with transit” level of bad planning. I know this comes off as NIMBYism, but it really feels like they took a map of the densest cluster of popular destinations (already well served by buses!), highlighted them and said “We need to serve these hotspots!”, voters approved that plan, and then Sound Transit said “OK got it! Voters want us to destroy everything marked by the highlighter on this map!”

    They are going to completely annihilate the cluster of beloved businesses at the north end of Delridge, including Skylark Cafe, Alki Beach Academy (daycare/preschool), Ounces (WS’s only sizable, kid-friendly beer garden), West Seattle Health Club (with a rare indoor swimming pool); plus for some reason all the Fauntleroy Triangle businesses including Pecos Pit BBQ and the always-busy Starbucks drive-through; then the gigantic nice new apartments and Whole Foods building at Fauntleroy/Alaska, and the longtime, Jefferson Square center including our one animal hospital, and maybe the Safeway. All in order to… give most commuters to downtown a slower, less reliable transit ride than our current bus lines? And all for the low price of $6 billion? Incredible.

    1. Seattle transit blog don’t shit on WS link every 2 seconds challenge (impossible).
      Also the Whole foods is NOT being demolished. Get your facts straight. The alignment is 2 blocks away from whole foods.

  9. 1) Does anyone think the survey for the South King County changes is discombobulated, poorly laid out and has terrible maps?

    2) The changes for South County are very uninspiring. South Federal Way continues to be under-served in the new proposal. 348th & Pacific Hwy, a large retail & employment area, has mediocre DART service and an hourly PT route.

    Route 181 is a perfect candidate to be extended to this area. It would connect Federal Way residents to 348th without having to take a bus to the transit center first.

    1. The main thing I find discombobulated about the process is that Metro is just looking at changes in its own routes, plus the opening of the three new stations.

      Metro, ST, and PT ought to be looking at the network together, and presenting a plan, together.

      If ST removes route 574 north of Federal Way, Metro will need to reconsider the service level on route 161 through southeast SeaTac.

      If PT increases frequency on route 500, using operators currently driving ST Express routes, that would be useful information for Metro’s planning department, and the public weighing in on the network.

      If ST is planning to keep a high (relative to the future normal) level of service on the south I-5 corridor until after the World Cup, that would be a good plan to share. But in the case of World Cup migration, extra service to Federal Way Station and/or extra 594 service, and/or special Sounder service, and/or borrowing some Amtrak trainsets probably makes more sense. Talking to travel agencies to see what can be done for their group travel plans also would not hurt. It’s a good thing that group stage matches can end in a draw, and everyone can then go back to their hotels.

      ST has the most service to cancel, or not, once Federal Way Station opens. Perhaps they should make their intentions known first.

  10. After one of the ST Board members suggested it may be time for a flat fare on Sounder, I thought it might it might be useful to run the thought experiment.

    I will assume she was thinking of $3, rather than something in the $5 range, and hopefully after the World Cup (the Nations one in 2026, not the Club one the Sounders will partially host in 2025).

    If the S Line were dropped to $3, would current riders on ST Express routes 574-595 accept not having any of those peak routes go north of Federal Way Station? Would Sounder have sufficient capacity? Would it be a net savings in ST’s operating budget?

    1. If the S Line were dropped to $3, would current riders on ST Express routes 574-595 accept not having any of those peak routes go north of Federal Way Station?

      I think the fare has little to do with it. It is an extra $2 one way and $4 round trip. For commuters that is $20 a week. Sure, it adds up, but much of the time the employer is paying it anyway. It is also quite likely the people working in these jobs are highly paid professionals. It is quite reasonable to commute from Tacoma to Seattle if you are a doctor, lawyer or business executive. But it makes no sense if you are cleaning bed pans or making lattes. That doesn’t mean there aren’t low-income people commuting that far — just very few. I doubt the fare plays a big part in their decision.

      I’m not sure why they take the bus (when Sounder is running). For some it avoids a transfer — maybe two. Quite a few people get off the bus south of Jackson. For those people taking Sounder would require backtracking. Most of the riders avoid a transfer although they aren’t backtracking (4th & Pike is the most popular stop in Seattle). If any of those people boarded some place besides the Tacoma Dome the bus saves two transfers.

      But I don’t think being forced to use Sounder will result in major complaints. Sounder is at least really comfortable and consistent. Sometimes the bus is faster, but often the train beats it.

      It is the mid-day riders who would be out of luck. They would be forced to use Link and not have Sounder as an option. This means right when the bus is by far the fastest option it would be unavailable.

      Would Sounder have sufficient capacity?

      I think so. Sounder ridership is way down compared to the pandemic. The same is true for the express buses, especially the commuter express buses.

      Would it be a net savings in ST’s operating budget?

      Hard to say. Before the pandemic the 590 had a subsidy of $6 per rider. Use that as an approximation for all the peak-only express buses that would be cancelled. That is the 586, 590, 592 and 595. That adds up to about 1,000 riders a day. So ST would save somewhere around 6,000 dollars a day.

      Dropping fares on Sounder to a flat $3 would cost them money, but it depends on the trip. Hard to say what an average trip is. I’ll go with Seattle to Auburn, which is $4.25. So moving to a flat fare would cost ST about $1.25 per rider. Sounder South gets about 7,000 riders so dropping the fare for Sounder would cost them money (even if they cancelled the peak-only express buses).

      But these are very rough approximations based on data from before the pandemic. Ridership is way down on the buses, but then ST is running fewer (peak) buses. I think the takeaway is that it is in the same ballpark.

  11. The Seattle Times is saying that LLE has added 20,000 new riders to Link. This is similar to other statements by ST officials.

    This is very good news, and aligns well with the crowding we are all seeing on Link in the urban core:

    “ Sound Transit’s four-station, $3 billion Northgate-to-Lynnwood extension, which opened Aug. 30, has generated about 20,000 new passengers, for a total of 100,000 average weekday boardings”

    https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/this-land-handout-will-bring-apartments-to-lynnwood-light-rail-station/

    1. I’m glad to see ST staff is taking it seriously that the current level of unplanned breakdowns is unacceptable, and that a timeline for fixing the known electrical problems is in place (other than for the perpetual vertical conveyance lemon jobs, which may have already been presented). That presentation to the Rider Experience & Operations Committee had a lot of staff in the room, and itty bitty committee member attendance, especially when the roll was called on the fare change recommendation.

      The work of the Board and committees is too important and urgent for unexcused absences by elected officials, who simply could have had a staffer monitoring the Zoom feed.

      1. @WL,

        The data clearly shows a net increase of approx 16k total boardings on the 1-Link since LLE opened. That is what the data says, what ST is publicly stating, and what the Seattle Times is now acknowledging. I see no reason to doubt the veracity of the figure.

        As to the actual 20k value, maybe that is newer data.

        And it should also be noted that the 100,000 daily boardings that the Seattle Times is referencing is just for the 1-Line. Total Link ridership is about 106,000 as of October.

        Very good news indeed.

        And the opening of RDLE in a few months should substantially boost 2-Line ridership. And Full ELE is going to be a complete game changer.

      2. @Lazarus — We have been over this. I’m not sure why you are still confused. Maybe it is because there are several things going on at the same time and you can’t keep track of them all. It is a complicated subject. I know you don’t like long comments, but you could save yourself a lot of time if you paid attention to what I’m about to write and read it carefully. Here are things some things to consider:

        1) There could be other reasons for the increase in ridership between August and October. For example, school is now in session. Thus it would be useful to consider the yearly increase (for the same month).

        2) This is how people get the 20,000 number. We saw a 20,000 rider increase from October 2023 to October 2024.

        3) But not all of that was due to Lynnwood Link. Link ridership bounces around year by year and month by month. It is quite inconsistent. For example February ridership this year is down over 10,000 riders (a big decrease) even though most months it is up. The month before Lynnwood Link opened (August) saw a yearly increase of 7,000. If we assume that is the baseline, then Lynnwood Link is responsible for 13,000 new riders. But it is quite possible it would be by a lot even without Lynnwood Link.

        4) Arguably the best way to look at any ridership increase is to look at the station data. But to do that we must consider other stations. As WL mentioned, ridership at Northgate Station dropped dramatically. Clearly this is due to people switching. The Lynnwood Link stations had 7,000 riders last month. Northgate had a yearly loss of over 6,000 riders. This leads to a net increase of 1,000 riders. Assuming people used other stations the other direction, that leads to an increase of 2,000 riders.

        5) But just as overall ridership has been volatile, so too could ridership at Northgate be volatile. It is quite possible there are other factors involved with the decrease at Northgate. Without more detailed data, we don’t really know. But this gives us a fairly wide range. Lynnwood Link is responsible for somewhere between 2,000 and 13,000 new riders.

        If I had to guess I would say the Northgate numbers are a bit of anomaly. For whatever reason before Lynnwood Link they were heading down while the rest of Link was heading up. My guess is the actually increase in Link ridership due to Lynnwood Link is somewhere around 5,000 riders. The rest of it is due to other factors (essentially people taking trips elsewhere).

      3. I realize that is a long comment, here is a shorter summary:

        October 2023 Ridership:
        Northgate Station: 9,835
        Line One Total: 80,261

        October 2024 Ridership:
        Lynnwood Link Stations: 7,015
        Northgate Station: 3,056
        Line One Total: 100,117

        Thus ridership on Line One is up a little less than 20,000. Yet Lynnwood Link (LL) can not possibly account for that increase alone. At most it could account for a little more than 14,000 of that increase.

        Nor can we ignore the unprecedented drop in Northgate ridership. Stations fluctuate quite a bit year by year and month by month, but no station dropped that much. That is the lowest it has ever been (and it opened during the pandemic). Clearly some riders switched from using Northgate to LL Stations. The net increase for those stations is only a bit more than 1,000 riders. Thus based on ridership data provided by Sound Transit, Lynnwood Link is only responsible for a tiny portion of the yearly increase.

      4. @Ross

        Lazarus understands it, they just don’t want to admit it because anything that makes lynnwood link slightly worse is impossible for them to understand.

        If we were talking about a bus extension or the federal way link extension I’m sure they would suddenly understand what we are talking about for calculating ridership.

      5. The problem with using from October 2023 to October 2024 is that ridership on link has been steadily recovering post pandemic. If you look at August 2023 and August 2024 it’s been increasing as well from 79k to 86k.

        > That is what the data says
        You really haven’t shown consistency with interpreting data

        > what ST is publicly stating
        ST has just chosen the highest number for PR reasons. It’s not that complicated. If you read the feis it has a similar higher number but then adds a caveat about “net increases” thats usually half.

    3. If we can misinterpret boarding data, the press is certainly prone to that. The Times used the word “new” inappropriately. An increase can’t solely be attributed to the extension opening.

      For example, part of the growth in the past year has been a result of regional factors like employees going back into the office. It bounces around between months but that alone appears to account for roughly 5-10K of that 20K in the article. While they may be “new” they did not start riding just because of the opening of the four Lynnwood stations.

      Among existing stations, the biggest surge in the past year has been with SeaTac if I read the info correctly . It’s emerging as the second busiest station. It’s the busiest Sunday station for October 2024. Getting to SeaTac with luggage is really catching on! If only ST would add escalators and elevators across the system to make it easier — and rethink how riders get through stations (especially transfers) to get to SeaTac from other lines.

      The SeaTac thing may also be due to the growing cost of SeaTac rides using Uber and Lyft, as well as growing daily parking costs around the airport itself.

      1. Yes, the wording is incorrect. It is quite possible that Mike Lindblom just conflated different ideas:

        1) Line One ridership is up 20,000 compared to the same month last year.
        2) Lynnwood Link opened.
        3) Therefore, Lynnwood Link is responsible for 20,000 new riders.

        Clearly that is incorrect. At most Lynnwood Link is responsible for 14,000 new riders. It is quite likely it is responsible for a lot less, as ridership at Northgate plummeted. (https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/12/11/midweek-roundup-walkable-this-way/#comment-947376).

        I agree Al, I think the big reason that ridership has gone up is more people coming into the office. Metro ridership is up in October (compared to the previous year) by 17,000 riders as well.

  12. 520 Montlake lid and pathway opening on Saturday but the Times article mentioned buses won’t use the new bus stops on the lid that they already drive past until late January… WTH?

  13. Sound Transit posted about trying to fix their reliability issues

    https://www.soundtransit.org/blog/platform/what-were-doing-to-make-link-service-more-reliable

    > Out of 6,500 hours of total service we’ve provided this year through late November, we’ve had 376 hours of reduced or disrupted service.

    Or around 6% of the time Link light rail has been down.

    There’s a series of downtime in january and february to implement the fixes as well.

    ST has formed four tiger* teams to investigate and correct the issues

    1) Light rail vehicles: assessing and correcting issues with the Series 2 fleet.
    2) Traction power and train control: identifying immediate repairs and near-term improvements to increase the reliability of electrical and signaling systems.
    3) Comprehensive system review: a full analysis of the operating system to identify any structural vulnerabilities and near- and long-term solutions.
    4) Passenger support and outreach: improving communications when disruptions occur.

    *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_team

    1. It’s been a mess lately and the lack of real time arrival isn’t helping. It would be nice to know where the train is whereever it is regardless of delay.

  14. About south King County network restructure for Link Extension, The currently released plan doesn’t include any service change for Sound Transit bus routes. Was this usually done separately through ST’s own contract and compiled together in final restructure plan?

    I am asking because in Eastside Network Restructure, King County Metro’s website did include service change info of ST routes.

Comments are closed.